Archive for the ‘Islamic immigration’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance of Latin American Countries as Aliens Flood into the U.S

August 27, 2016

Beyond Belief: Obama Seeks Illegal Immigration Assistance of Latin American Countries as Aliens Flood into the U.S., Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, August 26, 2016

alien crossing

On August 24, 2016 Reuters published an astonishing headline, “U.S. seeks Latin American help amid rise in Asian, African migrants.”

This is the sort of headline that might be expected on April First — for the April Fool’s edition of the news. Unfortunately, this is not a bogus headline, but it most certainly is a bogus tactic crafted by the Obama administration.

The borders of the United States are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorist organizations and transnational gangs.  However, whenever our government or members of such volunteer organizations as the Minutemen have attempted to stanch the flow of illegal aliens and contraband from Mexico into the United States, the government of Mexico has reacted swiftly and derisively.

Yet Obama is now reportedly seeking assistance from the government of Mexico and has, in the past, sought assistance from Panama and other Latin American countries.

What you need to consider as you read the Reuters account is that the Tri-Border Region of Brazil harbors terror training camps and that members of Hezbollah, Hamas and likely al-Qaeda and ISIS are present in that lawless and dangerous region of the country.

The report claims that illegal aliens from Asia, Africa and the Middle East first head to Brazil to pick up altered or counterfeit passports before heading to the United States.  Whether or not they are getting their passports from the Tri-Border Region of Brazil is open to speculation.  But the dangers that this poses to our national security cannot be over-emphasized.

I delved into the issue of the dangers of the Tri-Border Region of Brazil in a recent FrontPage Magazine article, “Released Gitmo Detainee Goes Missing in Latin America: How Obama’s dash to release terror suspects from Guantanamo threatens U.S. national security.”

The August 24th report published by Reuters begins this way:

Washington is seeking closer coordination with several Latin American countries to tackle a jump in migrants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East who it believes are trying to reach the United States from the south on an arduous route by plane, boat and through jungle on foot.

U.S. agents deployed to an immigration facility on Mexico’s southern border have vetted the more than 640 migrants from countries outside the Americas who have been detained at the center since October 2015, according to U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents reviewed by Reuters.

The migrants often fly to Brazil, obtain fake passports there, and are smuggled to Panama before heading through Central America to Mexico’s porous southern border, according to transcripts of 14 interviews conducted at the center and other internal briefing documents seen by Reuters.

The U.S. agents’ findings come as Mexican immigration data show 6,342 Asian, African and Middle Eastern migrants were apprehended trying to enter Mexico in the first six months of this year. That was up from 4,261 in all of 2015, and 1,831 in 2014.

U.S. border apprehensions point to the same trend. Between October 2015 and May 2016, U.S. agents apprehended 5,350 African and Asian migrants at the U.S. Southwest border. That’s up from 6,126 in all of fiscal year 2015 and 4,172 in all of fiscal year 2014.

U.S. concerns about potential security risks from migrants using the unusual and circuitous southern route have been growing in recent years, following a string of Islamic State-inspired attacks in the West and the surge in Syrian refugees fleeing that country’s civil war.

Five Syrian nationals detained in Honduras last November were part of a wider group of seven Syrians who acquired forged passports in Brazil and then went by land to Argentina on their way north, a U.S. government source familiar with that case said. There was no evidence to suggest the men were militants.

That last sentence that there is “no evidence to suggest the men were militants” is utterly meaningless.

Terrorists have been naturalized in the United States months before they carried out their deadly attacks.

The Obama administration’s immigration policies and executive orders have created huge incentives for illegal aliens to enter the United States by any means possible.

Surges of “unaccompanied minors” have been welcomed into the United States by the administration that then moved these illegal aliens into communities around the United States, often connecting them with their supposed illegal alien parents in the United States.  Not surprisingly this has encouraged cyclical surges of still more young illegal aliens to make the dangerous, indeed, often deadly trek through Mexico to the border of the United States.

All too often these illegal aliens are members of gangs who create problems for the schools in which these aliens are enrolled. In one of my recent articles, “The Real Cost of the Administration’s Reckless, Lawless Immigration Policies,” I provided information concerning a hearing on April 19, 2016 conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on the topic, “The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost of This Administration’s Policies.”

The DACA program (Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals) has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal alien “DREAMers” with lawful status.  In order to be eligible these aliens may be as old as 31 years of age, but claim that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.

The administration attempted to extend this lunacy to the parents and family members of these aliens with similar lawful status under DAPA, but was, fortunately, stopped as a result of lawsuits filed by several states.

Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Tim Kaine, have promised that if elected they would, within 90 days of being sworn in, provide lawful status for the unknown millions of illegal aliens who are present in the United States.

During the Republican primaries, most of the Republican candidates claimed it was impossible to arrest and deport 11 million illegal aliens. Therefore, they “reasoned,” since we cannot deport them that we needed to find a way to deal with those already here.  (Of course there would be no way to know when these aliens actually entered the United States.)

These politicians claimed that they would be “tough” on illegal immigration and while they would not provide millions of illegal aliens with “amnesty,” would be “compassionate” and, provided that these aliens paid fines, learned English and jumped through several other largely symbolic but ultimately meaningless hoops, would be granted lawful status.

Because the numbers of these illegal aliens would be so huge, there would be no interviews and no field investigations conducted to substantiate claims made in their applications.  This would create an open invitation for fraud.

In essence, they have all fired the starter’s pistol for aspiring illegal aliens from around the world and for these foreign nationals the border of the United States is the finish line.

It has been said that the prospect of employment by unscrupulous employers that powers the magnet that draws most illegal aliens to the United States.  Today that magnet is powered by the leadership of both political parties.

The official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.and carry out an attack.  The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” 

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel. 

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

“Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.”

It is stupefying to imagine that the United States would, as the Reuters report noted, send U.S. Border Patrol agents to the southern border of Mexico to seek to work with the Mexican government to address the illegal aliens flowing into Mexico, apparently destined to ultimately enter the United States.

Mexico’s primary industries include petroleum and narcotics smuggling. Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations essentially control the Mexican side of the U.S./Mexican border and Mexico has become addicted to the drug money flowing into Mexico from the United States as well as the remittances wired back to Mexico from their citizens working illegally in the United States.

Apparently the government of Mexico and the administration have now become “Partners in Crime” and the security of America and Americans hang in the balance.

Categories: Amnesty, Border controls, Illegal alliens, Islamic immigration, Islamic nations, Latin America, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, US Southern border
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dr. Jasser discusses the U.S. refugee policies on the Mike Siegel Show 08.24.2016

August 24, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses the U.S. refugee policies on the Mike Siegel Show 08.24.2016, AIFDtv

(The discussion is wide-ranging, covering more topics than indicated by the title.–DM)

 

Categories: Iranian Islam, Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamic refugees, Islamic terrorism, Islamists, Islamists in America, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Proxy Wars Between Turks and Kurds in Vienna

August 21, 2016

Proxy Wars Between Turks and Kurds in Vienna, Gates of Vienna, , August 21, 2016

(Rather than just provide links to the videos, as the article does, I have taken the liberty of embedding them. — DM)

turkdemovienna

One might easily mistake the above photo for a scene from Istanbul or Ankara. But it was taken at a pro-Turkish demonstration in Vienna in 2013.

Turks stage these demos every week now in downtown Vienna, providing an occasion for near-warfare between Turkish-Austrians and Kurdish-Austrians. Last weekend the situation deteriorated even further than usual.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for translating this article from Politically Incorrect:

Turks in Vienna — Allahu Akhbar — “Like in a war”

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

More and more often there are conflicts that resemble civil war between leftist Kurdish PKK supporters and Turkish fascists, the Grey Wolves, on Austrian as well as on German ground. For quite a while now Kurds have been demonstrating every Saturday on the Stephansplatz to raise awareness of Turkish politics. But as soon as the demonstration begins, the Vienna city center becomes a danger zone. Tourists, residents, and business people are running the gauntlet. The people are in fear. Last weekend the situation escalated. Sonja, Prousek, the owner of the bakery Aida situated next to the Cathedral, was horrified: “It was like in the war.” The Stephansplatz became a bubbling cauldron. Hundreds of people fled in panic into surrounding areas, sought protection in hotels, stores and bars.

The Café Aida saw the most damage. Sonja Prousek told Zeitung Österreich: “Old people cried, children lost their parents. Dishes, drinks and food landed on the floor. We had to close up because customers and employees fled all the way to the other franchise down on Bognergasse.”

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

The Vienna police were present in full gear for security, but admit that these demonstrations, attended by 300 to 400 people, are increasingly becoming a serious problem. But also that there is the freedom to demonstrate.

Already on Friday evening 15 Kurds tried to invade the ORF-center at Vienna’s Küniglberg to force the channel to broadcast a message about Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK leader who is imprisoned in Turkey. Some of them made it all the way to the reception area. But that’s where the terror ended. The SEK WEGA (Special commando department Vienna) and trained dogs ended the chaos and escorted the Turkish mob out the exit. Once again, no one was arrested. There was merely one report for “disturbance of peace”.

In the upper Austrian Weis two young PKK supporters threw Molotov cocktails at a Turkish community center.

By now proxy wars on European ground, not just among these groups, are in full bloom thanks to unconscionable and brainless immigration politics. The escalation was programmed. The colorful future will become a nightmare.

Categories: Islamic immigration, Islamisation, Turkey, Vienna
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration

August 20, 2016

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration, National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy, August 20, 2016

Please see also, Will National Security Finally Bring Warring Republicans Together? — DM)

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria: U.S. official:

“Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.” “

Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.” U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life. Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo). One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America. Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See,

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality. What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

 

 

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Islam - submission, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamisation, Islamists, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Donald Trump and Islamists

August 19, 2016

Donald Trump and Islamists, Dan Miller’s Blog, August 20, 2016

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

An “Islamist” is a Muslim who seeks to impose Islamic (Sharia) law worldwide, including in America. There are Muslims in America who do not want that to happen, yet few of them seek actively to prevent it. I refer here to those who do try, not as “moderate Muslims” — an essentially badly used and hence meaningless term — but as “Muslim reformers.”

On August 15th, Donald Trump delivered an address, generally well-received in conservative circles, on the dangers of Islamist immigration and how he intends to guard against those who intend to have Sharia law imposed and/or to engage in terrorist activities.

Here’s a video of Trump’s address:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIfTKOWAWt8

The text is available here.

Here’s a video about Trump’s plan:

According to an article at Breitbart titled Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt,

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

Islamism

Islamism is a totalitarian vision to impose Sharia law worldwide:

Unfortunately, Obama’s “countering violent extremism” farce has chosen to ignore, if not to encourage and even adopt, Sharia law and its consequences:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a Muslim reformer of the type Trump hopes to recruit for his efforts. A video of an interview with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim of Syrian descent and a proponent of an Islamic reformation, is provided below. However, first it will be useful to understand the goals of Dr. Jasser and his His organization, American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.

AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.

AIFD’s mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic “Islamic” regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.

AIFD believes that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the preference for and supremacy of the Islamic state. Terrorism is but a means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of Islamists to drive the influence of the west (the ideas of liberty) out of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. The underlying philosophy of Islamism is what western society should fear most. With almost a quarter of the world’s population Muslim, American security will never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam by non-Muslims.

AIFD seeks to build and establish an institution that can provide an ideological infrastructure for the ideas of liberty and freedom to Muslims and our future generations. We seek to give Muslims a powerful intellectual alternative to political Islam (Islamism) ultimately seeking the defeat of political Islam as a theo-political ideology.

Some readers will likely think that Dr. Jasser’s efforts to reform Islam would, in the unlikely event that they prove successful, create something that is not Islam. I disagree. Mohamed (and hence Islam) changed quite radically when he was driven out of Mecca and settled in Medina, where he became a warlord. In Mecca, he had been relatively peaceful and tolerant of other religions. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali states here,

In the early days of Islam, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s messenger.

After 10 years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith if they submitted to paying a special tax.) [Emphasis added.]

No symbol represents the soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims.

The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.

I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it. [Emphasis added.]

It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.

The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta. [Emphasis added.]

Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.

It is my hope to engage this second group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the meaning and practice of their faith. I recognize that these Muslims are not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel. But they may reconsider if I can persuade them to think of me not as an apostate but as a heretic: one of a growing number of people born into Islam who have sought to think critically about the faith we were raised in. It is with this third group—only a few of whom have left Islam altogether—that I would now identify myself. [Emphasis added.]

These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue to be believers; yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. The majority of dissidents are reforming believers—among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

How many Muslims belong to each group? Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that only 3% of the world’s Muslims understand Islam in the militant terms I associate with Muhammad’s time in Medina. But out of well over 1.6 billion believers, or 23% of the globe’s population, that 48 million seems to be more than enough. (I would put the number significantly higher, based on survey data on attitudes toward Shariah in Muslim countries.)

In any case, regardless of the numbers, it is the Medina Muslims who have captured the world’s attention on the airwaves, over social media, in far too many mosques and, of course, on the battlefield.

The Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself. [Emphasis added.]

For the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change. [Emphasis added.]

Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims need to make a conscious decision to confront, debate and ultimately reject the violent elements within their religion. To some extent—not least because of widespread revulsion at the atrocities of Islamic State, al Qaeda and the rest—this process has already begun. But it needs leadership from the dissidents, and they in turn stand no chance without support from the West. [Emphasis added.]

Is Dr. Jasser a Mecca Muslim, who wants Islam to revert to the religion as practiced in Mecca? So it seems to me, and that is by no means what the Council on American Islamic relations (CAIR) wants. It has labeled Dr. Jasser and his organization “Islamophobic:”

In 2013, CAIR published a major report, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States,” which identifies 37 organizations dedicated to promoting the type of anti-Islam prejudice that can lead to bias-motivated incidents targeting American Muslims. The Islamophobia report isavailable on Kindle.

Jasser was featured in that report as an enabler of anti-Muslim bigotry. The report noted that Jasser heads a group that “applauded” an amendment to Oklahoma’s state Constitution that would have implemented state-sponsored discrimination against Islam.

Jasser also narrated “The Third Jihad,” a propaganda film created by the Clarion Fund, which depicts Muslims as inherently violent and seeking world domination. Following revelations that the film was shown as part of training at the New York Police Department, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly called it “wacky” and “objectionable.”

Here is the “propaganda film” referred to by CAIR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XUub1no1qw

Finally, here is Dr. Jasser’s video about Trump’s plan to evaluate the ideological views of Muslims who attempt to enter the United States with a view to keeping out those who favor Sharia law, terrorism and the Islamisation of America. Dr. Jasser favors it and also offers good advice.

If, as seems likely, President Trump replaces the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-linked organizations such as CAIR with non-Islamist, Muslim reform organizations such Dr. Jasser’s, the focus will shift from the Department of Homeland Security’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program of demonizing “Islamophobia” to excluding Islamists from American and preventing their domestic terror activities as well as defeating their efforts directed to the Islamisation of America and the imposition of Sharia law.

Dr. Jasser and his reformist colleagues have not been shy about how they view Islam and how they want it to change. As Hirsi Ali noted in the article quoted above,

[T]hose under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself.

I submit that it up to us, not to reject them on the notion that all Muslims are dangerous, but to accept them — as Donald Trump appears to have done — and to work with them in their efforts to change not only Islam but how it functions in America.

Categories: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islam, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamist organizations, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What’s the Number of Terrorists We’ll Accept from a U.S. Mosque Before We Start Asking Questions?

August 19, 2016

What’s the Number of Terrorists We’ll Accept from a U.S. Mosque Before We Start Asking Questions? Counter Jihad, Shireen Qudosi, August 19, 2016

[A]s a collective society, we need Muslim Reformer-lead conversation about Islamic philosophy, a principle tenet in Trump’s foreign policy speech

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

In the aftermath of one of Islamism’s bloodiest summers, Western countries are stepping up efforts to filter for potential threats. Germany has held raids targeting Islamist preachers suspected of recruiting ISIS supporters. Belgium launched a police hunt for an imam’s son who walked down the street loudly praying to Allah for the annihilation of all Christians. And France recently banned the “burkini” – the Muslim adaptation of a swimsuit. At this point, it’s a bandage on a gaping wound. More aggressive and strategic measures need to be taken to target the environment where Islamic supremacism flourishes, rather than just the behavior it produces. One place is in U.S. mosques.

For the last year, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has rallied for greater U.S. mosque surveillance. He’s introduced a series of ideas that are both shocking and bold in a climate where one more serious domestic terrorist attack could very likely escalate the situation beyond our control.

Principal among them, Giuliani proposed electronic monitoring tags and bracelets for Muslims on the terror watch list. The problem with this is ensuring the right people are on that list. If that watch list is anything like the TSA no-fly list (easy to get on, impossible to get off of), we have a problem. And just like with mosque surveillance that is made public, tracking radical threats doesn’t deter their activity. Islamic extremists have a start-up mentality: they are extremely flexible and expect to adapt to the environment. In the case of next generation Muslims, that activity will shift to universities, social venues, and online. This is why announcing a surveillance program is an ill-advised move. Don’t announce it, just do it.

The fact is, 80% of U.S. mosques are known to be complicit in promoting violence. The Islamic Society of Boston is one of them. At this one mosque we find, not only inciters of violence and hatred, but the inevitable result of that incitement: actual violent jihadists who’ve drawn blood. In the case of the ISB, it was perpetrators of the Boston Marathon Massacre in 2013.

And when Islamists complain about the need for mosques, chatter among Millennial Muslims show a growing frustration for mushrooming mosques at the expense of diminishing community services for Muslims in need.  In other words, Muslims themselves say the mosques aren’t necessary.

However, tracking activity within mosques is necessary given the causal relationship between extremism and mosque affiliation. For Giuliani, the imperative on tracking red-flagged Muslims with bracelets comes after a string of Western attacks by extremists who were on a terror watch list – or had at some point been detained for questioning. Though active monitoring can be implemented, there’s a greater question of resources. The reason many of these red-flagged terrorists went under the radar was because officials were simply overwhelmed with data.

The solution to curtailing America’s terror threat isn’t just one extreme solution or another; it’s a combination of extreme measures paired with creative initiatives. This starts with recognizing that mosques are a portal for Islamism and extremism. This is not to say that every mosque is hoarding ammunitions in the backroom, but rather mosques (1) aren’t challenging their own narratives of Islamic supremacy within their congregation and community, and (2) aren’t rejecting hate preachers who hold an animosity toward at West.

In addition to more sound surveillance programs that perhaps works with progressive Muslims, it would be advisable to put searing pressure on mosques, leaders, organizers and Islamic organizations that makes it clear that ambivalence, acceptance, and/or embrace of radical Islamic philosophy will not be tolerated. This means that as a collective society, we need Muslim Reformer-lead conversation about Islamic philosophy, a principle tenet in Trump’s foreign policy speech.

Alongside, the U.S. government has to recognize it’s in an ideological war, meaning that empowering counter narratives among Muslim reformers and critical thinkers – and funding initiatives and centers spearheaded by them – is no longer an option to be explored; it must be supported. This doesn’t mean additional funds for CVEor vague counter-terrorism funding. It means funds for hoisting the flag of reform and making it possible for true progressive to establish ideological lighthouses that build a movement.

But there’s a larger problem: a total lack of solidarity between party lines and across national and state agencies.

Giuliani correctly pointed out the need for continued surveillance programs, especially after the Orlando Shooting – an attack that is strongly suspected to have been triggered in part by radical imams. These programs were in place under Bloomberg but were halted under current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The New York City Police Department has also faced wavering support for its efforts to combat Islamic extremism in the city that has faced the most brutal Western assault by Islamic extremists. Though a post 9/11 era saw support for increased surveillance and controls, that support has dwindled with each changing of the guards – at a national stage from Bush to Obama, and more regionally, between NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to newcomer Bill Bratton. Bratton disbanded a critical undercover police unit assigned to look for terrorist activity in New York Mosques and social venues popular among local Muslims. Bratton also chose to shelf an instrumental 92 pages report that was heralded as groundbreaking.

And nationally, while the CIA and the FBI joined forces post 9/11 to pool resources and create efficient information networks, the FBI has largely failed in their attempt to recruit and deploy undercover agents. Caught between fruitless community relations with Islamists and a failure to put into action credible undercover assets, the FBI has faced a backlash from the Muslim community for entrapment scenarios that have actually created viable threats.

It’s clear that any plan moving forward is going to need having everyone on the same page. That starts with recognizing we’re dealing with an ideological problem that goes beyond jihadi training grounds overseas. We’re dealing with a mindset that goes beyond mosques and borders.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Mosques, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will National Security Finally Bring Warring Republicans Together?

August 19, 2016

Will National Security Finally Bring Warring Republicans Together? PJ Media, Roger L Simon, August 18, 2016

trump_patton_banner_8-18-16-1.sized-770x415xc

Will national security finally bring warring Republicans together?

That was what was on my mind when I perused an email from Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s national policy director, describing a roundtable on defeating radical Islamic terrorism the Trump campaign held Wednesday.  It read in part:

The participants talked about improving immigration screening and standards to keep out radicals, working with moderate Muslims to foster reforms, and partnering with friendly regimes in the Middle East to stamp out ISIS. This is a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton who wants to bring in 620,000 refugees with no way to screen them…

All well and good, I thought, but nothing extraordinary there, until I scanned the list of the sixteen participants.  Besides the usual Trump spokespeople—Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, General Mike Flynn—some surprising names popped up that had been critics of Donald, often severe ones.  Among them were former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who once called a Trump presidency dangerous in that notorious January 2016 edition of the National Review when a boatload of conservative intellectuals ripped into the real estate tycoon as the Devil’s son; Congressman Peter King, who as recently as August 10 remonstrated with Donald for his “dumb remark” on the Second Amendment that allegedly encouraged gun owners to go after Hillary (King agreed that it didn’t really, but insisted Trump should choose his words better); and Andrew C. McCarthy, the former U. S. attorney famed for his successful prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 first bombing of the World Trade Center.

McCarthy—now a best-selling author and columnist for the National Review and PJ Media, among other venues—had this to say on NRO about Trump after his July convention speech:

On Thursday night came the harvest: The party was formally taken over by an incoherent statist whose “conservatism” is not done justice by scare quotes. Oh… and he has trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys.

Whoa. Words like that don’t usually get you invited to the subject’s roundtable, at least without some considerable advance peacemaking.  And yet there was McCarthy, sitting at Trump’s table.

Andy McCarthy has been a friend of mine for some years, so I decided to call him and pick his brain about what went down.

As it turned out, McCarthy told me, the event was not contentious at all. Bygones were apparently bygones.  In fact, Trump was so cordial to him, Andy wondered whether Donald knew who he was.  (I strongly suspect he did.  As we all know, Trump watches The Kelly File—where McCarthy appears frequently—with some devotion.)

The meeting was quite substantive from Andy’s perspective with all agreeing that we are at war not with “terror” (a tactic) but with radical Islam (a violent ideology).  A good deal of time was spent in this lawyer-rich environment on the legalisms of how to pursue that war.  Congress originally authorized the use of military force against terrorists only three days days after September 11, 2001.  Given the gravity of the current situation, would that need to be amended or reauthorized for a Trump administration? And if so, how?  (One can assume a Hillary Clinton administration would not even go near this question.  For them, fighting terror is a police problem.)

McCarthy—who said he spoke seven or eight times, quite a bit for a two-hour session—delineated three goals for the war:

  1. To strike down jihad wherever it arises.
  2. To squeeze all terror-supporting regimes (not give them millions and billions as Obama just did Iran). And:
  3. To rid ourselves of political correctness so we can oppose and destroy the evil doctrine of radical Islam.

Also in attendance were the newbie Trump campaign leaders: new-media mogul Stephen Bannon (now CEO) and pollster Kellyanne Conway (now campaign manager).  Much has been made by the MSM and, alas, by some of Trump’s more persistent Republican critics that the candidate supposedly blew it again by announcing these promotions just after he made a well-received speech on urban policy.  Of course, these same people were complaining a week before that Trump was understaffed.

So it goes in our incessantly back-biting political world where few people want to keep their eye on the ball because that ball—radical Islam—is more than a little frightening.  This roundtable group convened by the Trump campaign evidently intends to keep its eye on that ball and if Republicans have any brains they will rally around them, finally rally around Trump.  Because here’s the painfully obvious truth:  If we don’t extinguish radical Islam, if it continues to spread throughout the world, nothing else matters.  Who cares if the tax rate is 5% or 500% when you don’t have a head.

And now, in his latest speech, Trump has said “in the heat of debate” he “may have caused personal pain.”  Get that?  The long-awaited apology.  Now let’s win!

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, National secuity, Republican Party
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

CAIR To Donald Trump: The Constitution Says Government Can’t Study or Criticize Radical Islam

August 18, 2016

CAIR To Donald Trump: The Constitution Says Government Can’t Study or Criticize Radical Islam, Breitbart, Neil Munro, August 16, 2016

(Please see also, Dr. Jasser discusses Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” as part of plan to stop ISIS, — DM)

Boston-marathon-Bombing-AP-640x480

An Islamic group tied closely to jihadi terror groups is complaining that Donald Trump will violate the constitution by helping Americans better understand the nature of radical, jihad-promoting Islam.

“One of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community,” Trump declared  in a reformist foreign policy speech on Monday.

“The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization … [and] we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism,” he said.

That promise of legal charges is a direct threat to the jihad-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has many material links to domestic and foreign groups that support Islamic war. CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation. 

CAIR responded to Trump’s speech by suggesting that rhetorical and religious support (although not actions) for Islamic jihad terrorism is a constitutional right, both for Americans and for would-be immigrants who wish to introduce jihad and other Islamic ideas into the United States.

Trump’s proposal for a ‘commission’ that would identify for Americans the tenets of ‘radical Islam’ crosses the line into government interference in religious beliefs. Will a Trump administration entangle itself in interpretation of [Islamic] religious principles? Who will Trump appoint to decide what constitutes ‘radical Islam’? His current stable of Islamophobic [sic] advisers indicates that this commission would be packed with anti-Muslim bigots.

This government promotion of a state version of a particular religion would violate the First Amendment and put America on a path to a society in which those in power get to choose which beliefs are ‘correct’ and which are ‘incorrect.’

CAIR is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various financial and terror-relatedoffenses.

Breitbart News has published evidence highlighted by critics showing that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “The FBI policy restricting a formal relationship with CAIR remains … [but] does not preclude communication regarding investigative activity or allegations of civil rights violations,” said an Oct. 2015 email from FBI spokesman Christopher Allen.

In 2009, a federal judge concluded that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.”

The United Arab Emirates has included CAIR on its list of Muslim Brotherhood groups. CAIR has posted its defense here.

Trump’s call for a better understanding of Islam is part of his plan to reorient U.S. foreign policy to crush and delegitimize political Islam.

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

The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.

This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners…. Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.

To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.

Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home

…. But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.

This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.

Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society. Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.

Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.

This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country. Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.

Jihad is part of orthodox Islam, which also opposes the separation of religious law and the state. That makes it very different from Christianity, which theologically postpones the enforcement of religious law into the afterlife and so can theologically co-exist with secular governments, such as the United States government.

Islam’s twinning of  jihad with religious piety explains the relative frequency of bloody jihad violence throughout the Muslim world, especially when inflicted on non-Muslims in the United States, Paris, Germany snd many other countries.

Also, Islam’s focus on Earthly rule, says critics, means that it is a hybrid idea that combines religion (which gets the protection of the First Amendment) with a violent political movement that can be constitutionally suppressed.

For example, Islam’s politicized ‘sharia law’ endorses the murder of Islam’s critics and of ex-Muslims — repeatedly, endlessly, forcefully — and its recommendations are deemed divine commandments by numerous killers and would-be killers.

Also, the Koran — which observant Muslims say is a list of verbatim commands from their deity, Allah — tells Muslims to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [penalty tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Islamic scriptures say that Islam’s reputed founder, Muhammad, personally ordered or supported the death of many enemies, including at 10 critics and poets, who were the pre-modern equivalent of modern journalist and writers — such as the machine-gunned cartoonists at the Paris-based Charlie Hebdo magazine. Traditionalist or orthodox Muslims says Muhammad is a perfect model of behavior and should be emulated by Muslims today.

In contrast, some Western Muslims are trying to develop a modern, pacific Islam that emphasizes the long-discarded early and relatively peaceful commandments in Islam.

Categories: CAIR, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dr. Jasser discusses Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” as part of plan to stop ISIS

August 17, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” as part of plan to stop ISIS, Fox News via YouTube, August 16, 2016

(Please see also, Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt. — DM)

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic terror groups, Sharia law, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Favoritism for Somali Immigrants from DHS

August 13, 2016

Favoritism for Somali Immigrants from DHS, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, August 13, 2016

DHS

We commonly hear of the refugee crisis coming out of Syria but they aren’t the only country with the problem. The war-town African country of Somalia has also been having substantial issues with its population. This overview shows the number of registered Somali refugees as of 2016 reaches nearly one million people just in Somalia’s geographic region, while another overview shows that Somalia has over one million internally displaced persons which creates many other issues. Furthermore, Minnesota has been impacted with tens of thousands of Somali Muslims refugees settling in Minneapolis from jihadi influenced Somalia, which has created a hotbed for terrorist recruitment. Numerous Somali Muslims in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area have left to join terrorist groups like Al Shabaab and ISIS or have been apprehended by government authorities. As reported last year by the StarTribune, “Minnesota leads the nation in the number of people who have left or sought to leave the country to fight with terrorists aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria[.]” Worse yet, there is a vocal segment within the Somali-Muslim community that doesn’t blame the terrorists for luring their children into the cause of jihad, but blames the authorities for ‘racial profiling’ – which reflects in them a type of victimhood mentality. For example, Breitbart reports how during a June terrorism trial that found multiple Somalis guilty of terrorism related charges a contributor to City Journal, Scott W. Johnson, was disturbed by the animosity of the Somali community toward the government:

Perhaps most shocking to me was what utterly ordinary members of the Minnesota Somali community the defendants and their friends appeared to be. So far as I can tell, Somali culture is alien and hostile to the United States. Many among the local Somali community considered the defendants to be persecuted innocents entrapped by the government. It would be unduly charitable to characterize the attitude as willful blindness.

We have seen this suspicion manifested before such as when Somali-Muslim leaders blamed the TSA for ‘racial profiling’ several months ago and called for an investigation into the matter. Even after Somali groups received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in federal and state grants under President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program, the Somali Muslim community is still distrustful of the government. Apparently this constant complaining by leaders from the Somali-Muslim community is a reoccurring theme even when DHS has attempted to be transparent and given them special access to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Judicial Watch reports:

On at least two occasions—December 18, 2014 and February 18, 2015—federal authorities granted the unprecedented excursions of the facility’s sterile and secure areas, according to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) records obtained by Judicial Watch. The DHS agency that conducted the expeditions, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), provided the Muslim participants with “an in-depth, on-site tour and discussion of CBP’s airport, including both inbound and outbound passenger processing,” the TSA files state. Besides multiple roundtable meetings between CBP and Somali community leaders including imams, the records show that a luncheon and “cultural exchange and educational brief” also took place between December 2014 and February 2015 so that attendees could ask about the agency’s “specific practices” at the airport.

The roundtable events and airport tours were organized by Abdirizak Farah, who is identified in the records as a policy advisor in the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL). Farah joined DHS in 2010 with an annual salary of $89,033 and by 2015 his yearly pay increased to $130,453, according to a government database. The TSA’s “Somali liaison officer” in Minneapolis, Andrew Rhoades, told Judicial Watch that the special airport tours were organized for Somali Muslims after they complained to Johnson [DHS secretary] that they felt “harassed and profiled” by CBP at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The DHS secretary had “a sympathetic ear to that,” Rhoades said, adding that no other group has been granted such airport access by DHS…

Not only is DHS’s preferential conduct disturbing, the fact they possibly gave Islamists or those associated with Islamist groups access to procedures and processes that protect airport security is even more troubling. We have already seen how the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has been used by jihadists traveling to Syria to join ISIS – this was the case with Abdi Nur in 2014. Also, one ISIS supporter/sympathizer allegedly once worked at the airport. DHS and other department’s ignorance of the threat of Sharia and jihad is sadly not surprising considering how federal bureaus and agencies have given into the political correctness of the Islamist agenda. For example, a June 2016 DHS CVE Subcommittee report recommends avoiding the use of words such as “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.” These kinds of suggestions handicap our authorities from detecting important ‘red flags’ that help in preventing Islamic terror attacks.

DHS is not only showing favoritism to the Somali-Muslim community in Minneapolis, but it is also jeopardizing U.S. security by giving into the demands of Islamists. In addition, there’s little to no evidence that the CVE programs are actually working to reduce extremism and build meaningful bridges with the Muslim community. Furthermore, a couple of months ago up to thirty Somali males harassed residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood, and one woman said a man made threats of kidnap and rape. With incidents such as this one, how are we supposed to believe that youth outreach is having a meaningful effect in Minneapolis? Our taxpayer dollars must be spent more wisely – President Obama can start by scrapping the whole CVE program.

Categories: Countering violent extremism, Department of Homeland Security, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Somali Muslims, Somalis in Michigan
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »