Islamic supremacy | WarSclerotic | Page 10

Archive for the ‘Islamic supremacy’ category

How Much of our Culture Are We Surrendering to Islam?

June 21, 2016

How Much of our Culture Are We Surrendering to Islam? Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, June 21, 2016

♦ The same hatred as from Nazis is coming from Islamists and their politically correct allies. We do not even have a vague idea of how much Western culture we have surrendered to Islam.

♦ Democracies are, or at least should be, custodians of a perishable treasury: freedom of expression. This is the biggest difference between Paris and Havana, London and Riyadh, Berlin and Tehran, Rome and Beirut. Freedom of expression is what gives us the best of the Western culture.

♦ It is self-defeating to quibble about the beauty of cartoons, poems or paintings. In the West, we have paid a high price for the freedom to do so. We should all therefore protest when a German judge bans “offensive” verses of a poem, when a French publisher fires an “Islamophobic” editor or when a music festival bans a politically incorrect band.

It all occurred in the same week. A German judge banned a comedian, Jan Böhmermann, from repeating “obscene” verses of his famous poem about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A Danish theater apparently cancelled “The Satanic Verses” from its season, due to fear of “reprisals.” Two French music festivals dropped Eagles of Death Metal — the U.S. band that was performing at the Bataclan theater in Paris when the attack by ISIS terrorists (89 people murdered), took place there — because of “Islamophobic” comments by Jesse Hughes, its lead singer. Hughes suggested that Muslims be subjected to greater scrutiny, saying “It’s okay to be discerning when it comes to Muslims in this day and age,” later adding:

“They know there’s a whole group of white kids out there who are stupid and blind. You have these affluent white kids who have grown up in a liberal curriculum from the time they were in kindergarten, inundated with these lofty notions that are just hot air.”

As Brendan O’Neill wrote, “Western liberals are doing their dirty work for them; they’re silencing the people Isis judged to be blasphemous; they’re completing Isis’s act of terror.”

A few weeks earlier, France’s most important publishing house, Gallimard, fired its most famous editor, Richard Millet, who had penned an essay in which he wrote:

“the decline of literature and the deep changes wrought in France and Europe by continuous and extensive immigration from outside Europe, with its intimidating elements of militant Salafism and of the political correctness at the heart of global capitalism; that is to say, the risk of the destruction of the Europe and its cultural humanism, or Christian humanism, in the name of ‘humanism’ in its ‘multicultural’ version.”

Kenneth Baker just published a new book, On the Burning of Books: How Flames Fail to Destroy the Written Word. It is a compendium of so called “bibliocaust,” the burning of books from Caliph Omar to Hitler, and includes the fatwa on Salman Rushdie. When Nazis incinerated books in Berlin they declared that from the ashes of these novels would “arise the phoenix of a new spirit.” The same hatred is coming from Islamists and their politically correct allies. We do not even have a vague idea of how much Western culture we have surrendered to Islam.

Theo Van Gogh’s movie, “Submission,” for which he was murdered, disappeared from many film festivals. Charlie Hebdo‘s drawings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed are concealed from the public sphere: after the massacre, very few media reprinted these cartoons. Raif Badawi’s blog posts, which cost him 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison in Saudi Arabia, have been deleted by the Saudi authorities and now circulate like forbidden Samizdat literature was in the Soviet Union.

871 (1)

After the massacre of Charlie Hebdo’s staff, very few media reprinted their Mohammed cartoons. Pictured above, Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor and publisher of Charlie Hebdo, who was murdered on January 7, 2015 along with many of his colleagues, is shown in front of the magazine’s former offices, just after they were firebombed in November 2011.

Molly Norris, the American cartoonist who in 2010 drew Mohammed and proclaimed “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day,” is still in hiding and had to change her name and life. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York pulled images of Mohammed from an exhibition, while Yale Press banned images of Mohammed from a book about the cartoons. The Jewel of Medina, a novel about Mohammed’s wife, was also pulled.

In the Netherlands, an opera about Aisha, one of Mohammed’s wives, was cancelled in Rotterdam after the work was boycotted by the theater company’s Muslim actors, after it became evident that they would be a target for Islamists. The newspaper NRC Handelsblad headlined its coverage “Tehran on the Meuse,” the river that passes through the Dutch city.

In England, the Victoria and Albert Museum took down Mohammed’s image. “British museums and libraries hold dozens of these images, mostly miniatures in manuscripts several centuries old, but they have been kept largely out of public view,” The Guardian explained. In Germany, the Deutsche Opera cancelled Mozart’s opera Idomeneo in Berlin, because it depicted the severed head of Mohammed.

Christopher Marlowe’s “Tamburlaine the Great,” which includes a reference to Mohammed being “not worthy to be worshipped,” was rewritten at London’s Barbican theater, while Cologne’s Carnival cancelled Charlie Hebdo‘s float.

In the Dutch town of Huizen, two nude paintings were removed from an exhibition after Muslims criticized them. The work of a Dutch Iranian artist, Sooreh Hera, was yanked from several Dutch museums because some of the photographs included the depictions of Mohammed and his son-in-law, Ali. According to this disposition, one day London’s National Gallery, Florence’s Uffizi, Paris’ Louvre or Madrid’s Prado might decide to censor Michelangelo, Raffaello, Bosch and Balthus because they offend the “sensibility” of Muslims.

The English playwright Richard Bean has been forced to censor an adaptation of Aristophanes’s comedy, “Lysistrata“, in which the Greek women hold a “sex strike” to stop their men from going to war (in Bean’s script, Muslim virgins go on strike to stop suicide bombers). Several Spanish villages stopped burning effigies of Mohammed in the commemoration ceremony celebrating the reconquest of the country in the Middle Ages.

There is a video filmed in 2006, when the death threats against Charlie Hebdo became worrisome. Journalists and cartoonists are gathered around a table to decide on the next cover for magazine. They speak about Islam. Jean Cabu, one of the cartoonists later murdered by Islamists, puts the issue this way: “No one in the Soviet Union had the right to do satire about Brezhnev.”

Then another future victim, Georges Wolinski, says, “Cuba is full of cartoonists, but they don’t make caricatures about Castro. So we are lucky. Yes, we are lucky, France is a paradise.”

Cabu and Wolinski were right. Democracies are, or at least should be, custodians of a perishable treasury: freedom of expression. This is the biggest difference between Paris and Havana, London and Riyadh, Berlin and Tehran, Rome and Beirut. Freedom of expression is what gives us the best of the Western culture.

Thanks to the Islamists’ campaign, and the fact that now only some “crazies” still venture in the exercise of freedom, are we now going to be just fearful? “Islamophobic” cartoonists, journalists and writers are the first Europeans since 1945 who have withdrawn from public life to protect their own lives. For the first time in Europe since Hitler ordered the burning of books in Berlin’s Bebelplatz, movies, paintings, poems, novels, cartoons, articles and plays are literally and figuratively being burned at stake.

The young French mathematician Jean Cavailles, to explain his fateful involvement in anti-Nazi Resistance, used to say: “We fight to read ‘Paris Soir’ rather than ‘Völkischer Beobachter’.” For this reason alone, it is self-defeating to quibble about the beauty of cartoons, poems or paintings. In the West, we have paid a high price for the freedom to do so. We should all therefore protest when a German judge bans “offensive” verses, when a French publisher fires an “Islamophobic” editor or when a music festival bans a politically incorrect band.

Or is it already too late?

Categories: Britain, Censorship, Europe, Freedom of speech, Islam - submission, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists, Obama's America
Tags: Britain, Censorship, Europe, freedom of speech, Islam - submission, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists, Obama's America

Comments: Be the first to comment

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists

June 20, 2016

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists, Understanding the Threat, June 20, 2016

(Please see also, Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off U.S. List. –DM)

Two former U.S. government officials made explosive revelations on national radio this past Friday including the charge the U.S. government is a “tool” for the jihadi movement here, and that the driving force behind America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and our foreign policy is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

UTT2

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

The exchange took place on the Sean Hannity radio program between the host, Philip Haney (former DHS law enforcement officer with Customs and Border Protection) and Richard Higgins (a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programs at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section).

Both Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins revealed there is a massive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States, and made clear the MB’s influence is so significant they control how the issue of terrorism is discussed and how it is handled at the national security level.

huma

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

When asked about language being scrubbed from the U.S. government Mr. Higgins responded by saying, “What (leaders in the US government) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies.”

He went on to say, “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. And the way they control it is by prohibiting US national security personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil (Haney) had it.”

magid_mcdonough

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood: the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him. Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”

UTT has written about the willful surrender to our enemies by American leaders here, here, and here.

elibiary

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

With regard to the Marxist/Socialist collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood – as UTT has detailed via the Black Lives Matter/Hamas relationship – Mr. Higgins warned, “Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately respond with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments. That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Philip Haney’s story is devastating to hear because he publicly states he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of terrorists and terrorist organizations from DHS databases which he inputted through the course of investigations he was conducting.

This is a violation of the law. The names removed included several known Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

His story can be found here or here, and his powerful new book See Something, Say Nothing is now available.

Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years: “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”

It’s all about sharia.

Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the jihadi threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies.

Philip Haney said it best when he articulated, “This is the first and foremost obligation of the U.S. government: to protect it’s citizens from a threat, both foreign and domestic. And I can also tell you that if we don’t address it voluntarily with courage and conviction now, we’re going to be addressing it involuntarily, and we are going to be at a much greater disadvantage than we already are right now.”

The full audio for the show can be found HERE and the discussion with Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins begins at approximately minute 14.

Categories: CAIR, Dept. of Homeland Security, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Leftists, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law
Tags: CAIR, Dept. of Homeland Security, Huma Abedin, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Month of Islam in Germany: May 2016

June 18, 2016

A Month of Islam in Germany: May 2016, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, June 18, 2016

♦ During an investigation into the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, a chief superintendent from the Cologne police department revealed that he was ordered to remove the term “rape” from an internal police report about the assaults.

♦ The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, says it will process more than one million asylum requests in 2016.

♦ Thousands of Christians in German refugee shelters are being persecuted by Muslims, sometimes even by their security guards. — Open Doors, German branch.

♦ “German security officials have indications that and of organizations are being smuggled in with refugees in a targeted, organized way in order to launch attacks in Germany.” — German Federal Police.

♦ Muhterem Aras was elected as the female first Muslim speaker of the state parliament in Baden-Württemberg. Aras has been a proponent of allowing migrants without German citizenship to vote in local elections.

♦ A 26-year-old migrant from Afghanistan was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for raping a woman who had offered him accommodation in her home in Cologne by means of a website, “Refugees Welcome.”

May 1. The anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the third-most popular political party in Germany, adopted a manifesto calling for curbs to migration and restrictions on Islam. The document calls for a ban on minarets, Muslim calls to prayer and full-face veils.

May 2. Hans-Georg Maaßen, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, revealed that around 90 “predominately Arabic-speaking” mosques in Germany are under surveillance. He said they involve mostly “backyard mosques” where “self-proclaimed imams and self-proclaimed emirs” are “inciting their followers to jihad.” He called on moderate Muslims to work with the government to fight extremism and defend the constitutional order. Maaßen was speaking ahead of a security conference in Berlin at which he said that his agency we receiving on average four terror alerts every day: “The Islamic State is committed to attacking Germany and German interests.”

May 2. During an investigation into the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, a chief superintendent from the Cologne police department revealed that he was ordered to remove the term “rape” from an internal police report about the assaults. The superintendent, identified only as Jürgen H., said that he received a telephone call on January 1 from an official at the interior ministry in North-Rhine Westphalia, who told him in an angry tone: “This is not rape. Remove this term from your report. Submit a new report.” The revelation adds to suspicions that there was a political cover-up to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

May 3. A 20-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted a six-year-old boy in the changing room of a sports hall in Munich. Police said the same migrant had sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in 2013.

May 3. A high court in Düsseldorf ruled that a group of eight German Islamists who dressed up in orange vests with the words “SHARIA POLICE” and who attempted to enforce Islamic law on the streets of Wuppertal in 2014 would face trial. The ruling overturned a lower court decision in December 2015 that the men would not face trial. The upper court said that the men had violated a law banning the wearing of uniforms at public rallies. The law, which prohibits uniforms that express common political views, was originally designed to ban neo-Nazi groups from parading in public. If convicted, the Islamists face up to two years in prison.

1653

A high court in Düsseldorf, Germany ruled that a group of eight Islamists who dressed up in orange vests with the words “SHARIA POLICE” and who attempted to enforce Islamic law on the streets of Wuppertal in 2014 would face trial. They are charged under a law that prohibits the wearing of uniforms at public rallies — a law originally designed to ban neo-Nazi groups from parading in public.

May 5. A new INSA poll found that 60% of the Germans surveyed believe that Islam does not belong to Germany. By contrast, only 22% said they believe Islam is an integral part of German society. Nearly half (46%) of those surveyed said they are worried about the “Islamization” of Germany. In a similar poll conducted in January 2015, 37% of respondents said Islam belongs to Germany, 15% more than now. The results indicate that German attitudes toward Islam are changing after the decision by Chancellor Angela Merkel to allow more than 1.1 million mostly Muslim migrants to enter the country in 2015.

May 6. A YouGov poll found that 62% of the Germans surveyed do not have any Muslims among their close personal friends. Around 60% of those surveyed also said that in their daily life they had noticed an increased number of Muslims in the country. German multiculturalists blamed Germans for their lack of openness to diversity. Others said the poll proved that Muslims in Germany are isolating themselves from the larger society.

May 7. A gourmet hamburger restaurant in Cologne closed after receiving threats over its “Erdogan Burger.” In April, Jörg Tiemann, the manager of “Urban Burgery,” added to his menu a burger with goat cheese and named it the Erdogan Burger. He was responding to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s effort to prosecute the German comedian Jan Böhmermann for a poem mocking the Turkish leader. In a Facebook post, Tiemann wrote:

“Urban Burgery is forced to close until further notice. Because of concrete threats, we can no longer guarantee the safety of our employees. But one thing is certain: We will not be muzzled by the enemies of democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.”

May 9. Frank-Jürgen Weise, the director of Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, BAMF), said that his agency will process more than one million asylum requests in 2016. This number includes 430,000 applications from 2015 that are currently being processed; another 300,000 applications from migrants who arrived in Germany in 2015 but have not yet filed claims; and 500,000 applications from migrants who will arrive in Germany in 2016.

May 9. The German branch of Open Doors, a non-governmental organization supporting persecuted Christians, reported that thousands of Christians in German refugee shelters are being persecuted by Muslims, sometimes even by their security guards. The report, which asserts that in most cases German authorities have done nothing to protect the victims, alleges that German authorities and police have deliberately downplayed and even covered up the “taboo issue” of Muslim attacks on Christian refugees, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

May 10. A German man shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the Greatest”) and “infidels must die”stabbed one person to death and slashed three others in an early morning attack at a train station near Munich. Police said the suspect, a 27-year-old unemployed carpenter identified only as Paul H., was mentally ill and did not appear to have any ties to Islamist groups.

May 11. The Federal Police (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA) revealed that federal and state authorities are investigating 40 cases in which Islamic militants entered Germany while posing as refugees. “German security officials have indications that members and supporters of terrorist organizations are being smuggled in with refugees in a targeted, organized way in order to launch attacks in Germany,” according to a BKA spokeswoman.

May 11. The first Muslim woman was elected as speaker of the state parliament in Baden-Württemberg. Muhterem Aras, 50, was born in Turkey and moved to Stuttgart at the age of 12. She is a tax accountant and financial affairs spokeswoman for the Green party. Her election has been widely hailed as a Muslim integration success story. “We wrote history today,” Aras said, adding that Baden-Württemberg had sent “a message of openness, tolerance, and successful integration.” Aras has been a proponent of allowing migrants without German citizenship to vote in local elections.

May 12. In an interview with Deutsche Welle, Germany’s most prominent feminist, Alice Schwarzer, talked about her new book on the sexual assaults in Cologne on December 31. She said that although more than 600 women have filed complaints, she does not expect any of the perpetrators to be convicted:

“For one, because of the method they used: from a huge group of over a thousand men, small groups split off, surrounded and mistreated the women, only to disappear in the large mass again. It was difficult for the victims to identify the perpetrators. Also, what is trivialized as ‘sexual harassment’ in German penal law isn’t punishable to this very day.”

May 12. Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox leaders issued a joint statement calling on Christians in Germany to welcome Muslim migrants with “openness, with the spirit of charity.” The letter — which does not distinguish between legitimate asylum seekers and hundreds of thousands of economic migrants posing as refugees — said:

“The right to asylum, which is laid down in the Basic Law, and the obligations arising from the Geneva Convention, requires our country to grant anyone who seeks refuge with us access to an individual, fair and impartial procedure, regardless of how many people are currently in need of protection and irrespective of the country of origin.

…

“Refugees are people with individual stories; they expose us to new experiences, hopes and ideas. We are convinced: The more people we meet, the less space remains for prejudice, hatred and rejection.”

May 14. The newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported the contents of a leaked document from the Finance Ministry which revealed that the migrant crisis would end up costing German taxpayers €93.6 billion ($105 billion) between now and 2020. About €25.7 billion would be for social spending, especially unemployment benefits and housing support. About €5.7 billion would be destined for language courses and €4.6 billion for integrating refugees into the workforce.

May 15. Nearly a dozen women between the ages of 16 and 48 reported being sexually assaulted by groups of male migrants at a music festival in the Kreuzberg district of Berlin. The attacks at the Carnival of Cultures, where groups of men encircled the women and assaulted and robbed them, were similar to those in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

May 16. In an interview with Die Welt, Beatrix von Storch, the deputy leader of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, called on Germany’s main Islamic associations to “explicitly distance” themselves from Islamic sharia law, something they so far refused to do. She said the AfD had nothing against individual Muslims, but it opposed political Islam, which she said contradicts the German constitution.

May 17. A court in Hamburg ruled that the author of a poem lampooning Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was prohibited from publicly reciting passages of his work. The court said that comedian Jan Böhmermann was allowed to recite only six of the 24 lines of his poem, thereby handing Erdogan a legal victory in a case that prompted a debate in Germany over freedom of speech. Chancellor Angela Merkel personally authorized criminal proceedings against the comic. She was accused of pandering to Erdogan’s autocratic government.

May 18. The Berliner Morgenpost reported that a Turkish-born Salafist had been given access to the secure areas of both of the Tegel and Schönefeld airports in Berlin for nearly a year after authorities discovered his ties to fundamentalist Islam. The 24-year-old man, identified only as Recep Ü., was fired after he attempted to smuggle brass knuckles into the secure area of the Schönefeld airport. Wisag Airport Service Berlin, the company that directly hired the man, said that neither German police nor German intelligence had passed on information that the man was an active member of Germany’s Salafist scene.

May 18. The Berliner Morgenpost reported that large groups of male migrants have been gathering at the Boulevard Berlin shopping mall in the Steglitz district of the capital, where they have been sexually assaulting female passersby. At least 35 teenage migrants have been loitering at the mall for several weeks, in part because there is free access to the Internet. When security guards asked them to leave the premises, the youths called for back-up and soon dozens more teenage migrants arrived to taunt and harass the guards, who were required to use pepper spray to defend themselves.

May 22. A doctor in Cologne is being sued for discrimination after he declined to treat a Muslim woman who refused to shake his hand. The woman said she could not shake the doctor’s hand on religious grounds, but the doctor noted that the Koran does not prohibit handshakes. After the woman became confrontational, the doctor declined to treat her on the grounds that there was no basis of trust between doctor and patient. The woman’s husband is now suing the doctor for religious discrimination. The doctor faces a fine of €2,000 ($2,250).

May 23. A 23-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq who was wearing a T-shirt saying “I’m Muslim Don’t Panic” was assaulted by fellow refugees for offending Islam. After ripping his T-shirt to shreds, a 27-year-old Syrian and a 33-year-old Lebanese beat the man so badly that he was hospitalized. The two men were arrested and charged with causing grievous bodily harm.

May 23. Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann announced a new plan to recruit migrants to the police force regardless of whether they have acquired German citizenship. He said he hoped the initiative would create a “more direct line” to people with an immigrant background by hiring those who speak their language and understand their mentality. Herrmann said the plan was motivated not by the threat of Islamic terrorism, but by a series of xenophobic murders committed between 2000 and 2007 by a now defunct neo-Nazi group called the National Socialist Underground (Nationalsozialistischer Untergrund, NSU).

May 24. Police arrested a 26-year-old migrant from Pakistan suspected of murdering a 70-year-old woman in her home near Heilbronn. The man, who was living in an asylum shelter in Öhringen, had left documents in Arabic and English “of an overwhelmingly religious nature” at the scene of the crime.

May 25. Germany’s coalition government agreed on a new “Integration Law” aimed at regulating the rights and responsibilities of asylum seekers in Germany. The main focus of the law is to encourage refugees to learn enough German to be able to find a job and help pay for their living expenses. Critics say the new law is a largely symbolic measure directed at reassuring German voters and blunting the rise of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party. They say the new law is inadequate to deal with Germany’s integration problems, in part because it applies only to legitimate asylum seekers, not to the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who have entered Germany illegally by posing as asylum seekers.

May 25. A 19-year-old migrant from Iraq was sentenced to two years in prison for raping a 21-year-old woman at the train station in Bad Schwartau, a town in northern Germany. The man —who admitted to dragging the woman into the men’s restroom and raping her — received the minimum possible sentence according to Section 177 of Germany’s criminal code.

May 26. A 26-year-old migrant from Afghanistan was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for raping a woman who had offered him accommodation in her home in Cologne. The woman had offered the room by means of a website called “Refugees Welcome” (Flüchtlinge Willkommen), which “supports decentralized housing solutions for refugees.” According to the website: “Through our work, we aspire to contribute to nurturing an open society based on principles of solidarity and equality of all. One of our core principles as an organization is that no one is illegal.”

May 26. The news magazine Focus reported that increasing numbers of Germans are relocating to Hungary because of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door migration policy. A real estate agent in a town near Lake Balaton, a popular tourist destination in western Hungary, said that eight out of ten Germans who want to relocate there cite Germany’s migration crisis as the reason for their desire to leave the country.

May 27. The head of the Protestant Church in Germany, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, called for Islam to be taught in all German public schools as a way to distance young Muslims from radical ideologies. In an interview with the Heilbronner Stimme, Bedford-Strohm said that teaching Islam in schools nationwide would give Muslim students the opportunity to take a critical approach to their own religion: “Tolerance, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience should apply to all religions. These principles can be best taught if religion is part of the state’s educational mission.” Bedford-Strohm said German Islamic associations — many of which have ties to foreign governments, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia — should be responsible for developing and teaching these courses.

May 27. A Protestant church in Hamburg held a funeral service for a convert to Islam who was killed fighting for the Islamic State in Syria. The controversial funeral at the St. Pauli church was for a teenager named Florent, who was born in Cameroon and raised as a Christian in Hamburg. When he was 14, Florent converted to Islam and changed his name to Bilal. He quickly became radicalized and joined the German Salafist movement. He left for Syria on a false passport in May 2015 and was killed three months later. Pastor Sieghard Wilm, who organized the “interfaith” funeral, was criticized for “idealizing” the life of the terrorist. He responded by saying that the church should be a “place of learning for the respect of other religions.”

May 29. Green party politician Stefanie von Berg called for new mosques to be built in every district of Hamburg so that the city’s burgeoning Muslim population has enough space to pray. She said the construction of visible new mosques is essential for integrating the Muslim community. The Heinrich Böll Foundation, a think tank linked to the Green party, estimates that there are more than 150,000 Muslims in Hamburg, the second-largest city in Germany, but less than 50 mosques.

May 31. Groups of male migrants sexually assaulted at least 18 women at an outdoor festival in Darmstadt. The attacks at the Schlossgrabenfest, in which large numbers of men surrounded women and sexually assault them, were similar to those that occurred in Cologne on New Year’s Eve and the Carnival of Cultures in Berlin on May 15. The phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped and raped is known in Arabic as “taharrush” (al-taharrush al-jinsi, Arabic for “sexual harassment”).

May 31. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Dalai Lama said that Germany has accepted “too many” migrants and that they should eventually be returned to help rebuild their home countries. “Germany cannot become an Arab country,” he said. “Germany is Germany.”

Categories: Germany, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Merkel
Tags: Germany, Islam - submission, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Merkel

Comments: Be the first to comment

Robert Spencer Moment: Trump Was Right.

June 18, 2016

Robert Spencer Moment: Trump Was Right via YouTube, June 17, 2016

Categories: Civilization jihad, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, National secuity, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law
Tags: Civilization jihad, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic Jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, national security, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law

Comments: Be the first to comment

Border Control vs. Gun Control

June 18, 2016

Border Control vs. Gun Control, Power Line, John Hinderaker, June 17, 2016

The Pulse night club massacre was the latest in a series of Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, quite a few of which have succeeded, while others have been foiled. These attacks have used a variety of weapons: box cutters, knives, pistols, pressure cookers and rifles. There is a sharp partisan divide with respect to how such terrorist attacks should be viewed.

Republicans say that we should try harder to keep potential terrorists out of the country. Since we have no practical way to vet immigrants, and, in any event, Islamic extremists tend to be second generation Muslims like Omar Mateen, the only realistic way to do this is by reducing, or suspending altogether, immigration from Muslim-dominated countries. This is Donald Trump’s proposal.

That would be a radical departure from present practice. Senator Jeff Sessions’ Senate subcommittee has released this chart, which shows that the Obama administration will soon have issued one million green cards to immigrants from Islamic countries. Click to enlarge:

Green cards

Sessions’ office adds this explanation:

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Notably, the 832,014 figure does not include temporary, nonimmigrant visas issued to migrants who come to the United States simply to work, nor does it include those who have come to the United States on temporary visas and overstayed their authorized period of admission.

Among those receiving green cards are individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, who are required to apply for adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident (green card) status within 1 year of admission. A green card entitles recipients to access federal benefits, lifetime residency, work authorization, and a direct route to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Why are we doing this? When did we vote for it? Who decided that it was a good idea to import, for example, 102,000 Pakistanis? A few of them are doctors and so on, but what about the rest? Why do we need them? We know the downside, what is the upside?

There are 37,000 Somalis on the list. Hardly any of these are physicians, scientists, etc., and most have been shipped to my home state. Why? More than 50% of Somali-American men in Minnesota are not in the labor force. On what theory does this benefit the United States? I have never seen such a rationale articulated.

No doubt the majority of these million-plus Muslims are good people. But no one questions that some percentage of them will turn out to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Or their sons and daughters will be. No one knows what that proportion is, but even if it is small, the risk is large. Why are we taking it?

Democrats don’t think this way at all. They say it is impossible to know who will turn out to be a terrorist, and therefore, the best we can do is to make sure that would-be terrorists don’t have guns. The solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism (not that any Democrat admits that Islamic terrorism is a problem) is gun control.

To support this interpretation of events, Democrats portray Islamic terrorists as indistinguishable from crazy people who commit similar outrages–people like Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Charles Whitman. Islamic terror, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us, has nothing to do with Islam. It is just random insanity. On that theory, it is pointless to keep out any category of immigrants, and preventing future ~~terrorist attacks~~ mass murder incidents is pretty much hopeless. All we can do is try to prevent murderers from obtaining firearms (or certain firearms, anyway) so that their victims might be fewer in number.

And yet…there does seem to be something going on here. David French reminds us of what has happened, just during the last two years:

* From April to June, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown killed four Americans on a “mission of vengeance” against the United States.

* On September 25, 2014, Alton Nolen beheaded an Oklahoma woman with a knife. His social media pages were covered with evidence of jihadist leanings and motivations.

* On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked an exhibit of Mohammed images in Garland, Texas. They wounded a security officer, but police killed them before they were able to carry out mass murder.

* On July 16, 2015, Mohammad Abdulazeez killed five people at two Chattanooga recruiting stations. FBI director James Comey declared that Abdulazeez was “inspired/motivated” by terrorist propaganda.

* On November 4, 2015, Faisal Mohammed went on an ISIS-inspired stabbing spree — wounding four — before he was killed by campus police.

* On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS then killed 14 people and wounded 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.

* On January 8, 2015, Edward Archer pledged himself to ISIS and attempted to assassinate a Philadelphia police officer. The wounded officer chased down and apprehended Archer before he could commit any other acts of violence.

* On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen pledged himself to ISIS and killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The Europeans could add many more to that list. Somehow, the random insanity theory doesn’t seem to fit.

Moreover, we now know that Omar Mateen’s wife–who, like so many Islamic radicals, grew up wealthy–knew about his plans for mass murder in the name of Allah, accompanied him when he scoped out murder venues and bought ammunition, and exchanged texts with him as he carried out his “mission.” And it came out today that Mateen’s brother in law refuses to say whether he knew about Mateen’s plan for jihad.

Consider the other mass murderers who, liberals say, were just like Mateen and the many other Islamic terrorists. Did Adam Lanza’s relatives know about his plans? Did they help him carry them out? Of course not. Lanza’s plan included murdering his mother. It is only Islamic terrorists whose cries of “Allahu Akbar!” as they open fire are joined in by accomplices and supporters. This isn’t random insanity, it is a global movement.

Those are arguments for immigration control. How about the Democrats’ arguments for more gun control? Would their proposals do any good?

The Democrats want to ban semi-automatic rifles, but only if they are black. (There is a funny Twitter meme–a picture of an AR-15 that says, “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”) This is an amazingly dumb idea. Rifles are the least popular murder weapons, ranking well below blunt objects, knives, shotguns and bare hands. Democrats say: but you can kill so many, so fast, with a rifle! News flash: you can pull the trigger on a pistol just as fast as on a rifle, and, unless you are 50 yards or more distant, which is never the case in a mass murder situation, the pistol is just as lethal.

Democrats also want anyone on the FBI’s no-fly list to be barred from buying guns. Intuitively, that sounds like a good idea. But the first problem is that the no-fly list is a joke. Ted Kennedy was on it, Omar Mateen wasn’t. As far as we know, not a single murderer, terrorist or otherwise, has ever been on the no-fly list. (I assume for this purpose that Kennedy’s grossly negligent drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne was not murder.) So best case, the no-fly ban does no good.

The second problem is that the no-fly list is concocted in secret and there is no way to get off it. This is a significant civil rights issue. The NRA says that the FBI should have to go through a judge, the equivalent of a search warrant, and show probable cause to put someone on the list.

The third problem, and the reason why the FBI opposes the Democrats’ proposal, is that it gives actual terrorists an easy way to find out whether the authorities are on to them: try to buy a gun. So the Democrats’ plan to ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun is at best ill-considered.

More broadly, the Democrats’ core idea–go ahead and admit lots of potential terrorists, but don’t let them get their hands on a gun–flies in the face of reality. Convicted criminals are legally prohibited from buying guns. Does that prevent them from being armed? Of course not. Further, has any terrorist attack ever been thwarted because the would-be terrorist couldn’t find a gun? Not that I know of. A fundamental problem with all gun control proposals is that law-abiding citizens will follow them, but criminals (including, above all, terrorists) will not.

As is so often the case, the Democrats’ proposals are intended to gain political advantage, not to produce positive results. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to have succeeded in converting the debate over the terrorist attack in Orlando to one about gun control. This is sad, but but doesn’t change reality: while neither approach is a panacea, it makes much more sense to control our borders than to admit all comers and try to foil terrorists through even more gun control measures than are already in place.

Categories: Border controls, Democrats, Donald Trump, Insanity, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, No fly lists, Obama and gun control, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans
Tags: Border controls, Democrats, Donald Trump, Insanity, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, No fly lists, Obama and gun control, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans

Comments: Be the first to comment

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy

June 16, 2016

House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy, Breitbart, Neil Munro, June 15, 2016

Domestic-Islamic-Terrorists-Radical-Islam-San-Bernardino-Fort-Hood-Orlando-Boston-Chattanooga-AP-640x480

House GOP leaders are set to endorse President Barack Obama’s failed domestic anti-jihad strategy, according to Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert.

The GOP’s Obama endorsement is hidden in a new bill, titled the ‘‘Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act.” The showpiece bill’s title and language is undermined by numerous exceptions that allow the president to continue his failed “Countering Violent Extremism” strategy, Gohmert said.

The bill is a post-Orlando showpiece that actually entrenches Obama’s harmful policies, he said. “All this is doing is giving more and more credibility to this ridiculous term ‘CVE’ instead of describing the killers that were behind 9/11, the Boston bombings, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando shooting, the bomber in Times Square… all these people who are trying to kill us in America,” he said.

“We’re doing the same thing as the president… we’re not identifying radical Islam” as the enemy which nurtures and motivates attackers, Gohmert. “There is going to be more and more killings of Americans … until we can train our people to recognize radical Islam,” he said.

Under the CVE strategy, Obama has blocked FBI investigators from examining the supposedly non-political and peaceful networks of mosques that actually nurture jihadi attitudes, while redirecting FBI attention to less dangerous non-Islamic groups, such as small-government militias. The strategy has also put FBI agents under the supervision of an oversight panel influenced by Muslim political activists, including an immigrant who reportedly welcomed the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in 2001 by her Muslim co-religionists.

Moreover, Obama’s tight restrictions on investigators have not earned the expected cooperation from Islamic groups. In fact, many self-segregating Islamic groups have rejected Obama’s proposal to allow local Imams to police their young men in exchange for sharing information about jihadi groups with the FBI.

The GOP endorsement bill is slated for a vote as early as Thursday, June 16.

Under a subtitle, “AMPLIFYING LOCAL EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT TERROR,” the bill simply authorizes extra training, the creation of a committee and establishes some conditional reporting requirements, according to the draft given to Breitbart. The bill does not reform Obama’s CVE strategy, training rules or investigative priorities.

The bill was drafted by staff working for Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Press aides at the committee declined to comment on the bill, or even if the committee plans to hold oversight hearing on Obama’s failed CVE strategy in the run-up to the 2016 election.

In March, McCaul endorsed Obama’s tacit alliance with U.S-based Islamic religious groups, many of which share overlapping umbrella networks that are exempt from normal FBI anti-terror monitoring.

“The effective thing is … effective outreach to the Muslim community, so you can pull the religious leaders really on to our team, if you will, to protect us from radicalization from within those communities,” he said March 27. “I think we can get good intelligence from the Muslim communities in our outreach efforts, in our working with the religious leaders in the communities in the United States,” he said.

In contrast, federal prosecutors do not offer political favors to let the Catholic priests run law-enforcement tasks in Latino neighborhoods, for example, keeping track of MS-13 and various drug-gangs.

In practice, much of that hoped-for intelligence about emerging jihadis has been blocked by determined opposition from Islamist advocates. For example, Linda Sarsour, a prominent Islamic advocate who is called a “Champion of Change” by Obama’s deputies, is a strong opponent of the information-exchange.

The government’s practice of providing funds to Muslim community partners in the fight against violent extremism has also raised concerns about the true goal of these partnerships. Are they being formed in order to gather intelligence and information about community members, or to actually engage in valuable community outreach about civil rights protections? CVE programs can foster mistrust between government entities and community members.

In December 2015, George Selim, then the director of the Office for Community Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security, told NPR that Muslim communities are not identifying emerging jihadis.

The research and the statistics have all indicated that peers, people that are in close association with subjects that ultimately commit an act like this, see something that’s a little bit out of the norm, but they don’t necessarily report it. And so part of our goal is to create the type of partnerships in which peers know when and how to elevate those type of suspicions.

There’s growing evidence that wife of the Orlando jihadi knew of his pending attack, but did not warn Americans.

Gohmert is trying to reform the McCaul bill before the vote — but he’s skeptical the GOP leadership is willing to fight for an effective anti-jihad strategy.

“There are plenty of representatives who are concerned about this, but the Speaker [Rep. Paul Ryan] and the Majority Leader [Rep. Kevin McCarthy] control what comes to the floor for a vote. and they have no intentions of bringing a bill that says we’ll stop radical Islamists,” he said.

Anti-jihad groups are urging voters to protest the planned bill. “Congress is about to help President Obama whitewash his approach to Counterterrorism to hide any mention or focus on Islamists or their Jihad against the free world,” said Jim Hanson, an executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy. “The Countering Violent Extremism Bill ignores the very Islamic nature of the Sharia ideology that motivates our enemies to slaughter innocents from Paris to Orlando,” he added.

The problems in Obama’s CVE strategy, said Gohmert, include the tight curbs on FBI investigations and training, the gag order to prevent any discussion of Islamic ideas — such as ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia’ or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ — an intrusive oversight panel staffed by Islamic advocates, the legal shield for Islamic networks and political groups, and an eagerness to direct stigma and investigations against non-Islamic groups, such as “right wing militias,” plus its failure to win cooperation from self-segregating Islamic political groups.

For example, the gag-order means “the FBI is not allowed to learn or discuss or look for the things that radical islamics read, or the type of activities they’re doing when they going through radicalization,” Gohmert said.

In contrast, GOP 2016 candidate Donald Trump has called for more oversight over the Islamic networks. “We have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques and we have to check other places because this is a problem that, if we don’t solve it, it’s going to eat our country alive,” he said during his June 15 campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia.

Obama’s CVE strategy also created an advisory group of outsiders who have much influence over FBI investigations.

The committee has pushed for a FBI focus on non-Islamic groups, and just before the Orlando massacre, presented a report to top DHS officials asking for a gag-order that would prevent officials from studying, debating or even recognizing jihadi ideas. Officials should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English,” said the report, which also urged officials to use “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,” according to the The Daily Caller.

That’s the equivalent of President Franklin Roosevelt and his generals and their soldiers waging war against National Socialist Germany without mentioning “Blitzkrieg,” “U-boat,” “Fuhrer,” “Lebensraum,” “Panzer,” “Stuka,” or “Untermensch” or “Flak,” “Panzerfaust” or “SS.”

Committee co-chair Farah Pandith was born in the Muslim-vs.-Hindu battleground of Kashmir. For decades, that area has suffered from Muslim attacks, and many non-Arab Muslims consider that war to be as important as the Arab fight to destroy the Jewish state.

In 2012, co-chair Adnan Kifayat threatened this reporter with criminal charges for asking George Selim about the White House’s many quiet contacts with the Council on American Islamic Relations. “That was wrong… it is really bad form … You’re putting a career at risk by asking [questions] without telling him… you cannot ambush people and expect them to actually cooperate,” Kifayat told this reporter.

The CAIR group 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-related offenses. Critics show 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, and that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS.

Another member, Mohamed Elibiary, quit in 2014 after he tweeted that the Islamic empire, dubbed the “caliphate,” will return.

CAIR tweets

Obama’s deputies have recently appointed a young Muslim activist from Syria to the panel, Laila Alawa. She wears a hijab in observance to Islam, has tweeted a message supporting the 9/11 atrocity by her fellow Muslims, and tweeted a series of hateful messages about jihad opponents, according to a new report in The Daily Caller.

Alawa1

The new GOP bill eliminates any GOP oversight or leverage over Obama’s counter-productive CVE strategy by adding numerous loopholes in the weak GOP bill, Gohmert said. For example, the bill says;

COORDINATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, where appropriate, coordinate the efforts described in subsection (a) with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, and, to the extent practicable, engage nongovernmental and international partners in the identification and use of testimonials described in such subsection.

But the phrase “to the extent practicable” really means “only if you want to … if it is not too much trouble,” Gohmert said. The phrase “where appropriate” really means “if you feel like you want to,” he said.

“Shakespeare has the appropriate phrase— much ado about nothing,” he added.

“We all know most Muslims are not terrorists,” said Gohmert. “At the same time, it is ridiculous to not recognize there are radical islamists who are in America, who want to bring this country down and who think they go to paradise if they kill Americans.”

Categories: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Homeland Security, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, National secuity, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Radical Islam, Republicans, Sharia law, Supporting terrorism, U.S. Congress
Tags: CAIR, Countering violent extremism, Homeland Security, Islamic integration, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, national security, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, radical Islam, Republicans, Sharia law, Supporting terrorism, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

From Baghdad to Boston: The moderate Muslims need to be given a prominent space to counter the extremist narrative

June 15, 2016

From Baghdad to Boston: The moderate Muslims need to be given a prominent space to counter the extremist narrative, The Nation, Sam Westrop, June 15, 2016

(Please see also, Muslim reformers vs. Islamists. — DM)

from-baghdad-to-boston-the-moderate-muslims-need-to-be-given-a-prominent-space-to-counter-the-1465986607-1386

When policymakers at the State Department or journalists at the New York Times demand to speak with the Muslim community, it is the Islamist movements and their be-suited press relations officers that step forward.

On a national level, it is Muslim Brotherhood groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that have positioned themselves as gateways to the American Muslim community. These Islamist movements have learned to practice politics and interfaith dialogue by day, but preach hatred and violence at night.

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

Whether in the Middle East, South Asia, Europe or the United States, the West’s failure to understand the extraordinary diversity of Islam hampers efforts to tackle the threats posed by Islamist extremism and terrorism.

Kenan Makiya’s recent novel, The Rope, examines the violent disorder of Iraq in the years following the 2003 US led invasion. The reader is exposed to a crescendo of internecine, inter-Islamist conflict, the corrupting impact of fundamentalist ideology on Iraq’s youth and the hunger for power and influence sought by Shia and Sunni groups alike.

One of the novel’s most striking features, however, is its illustration of Western ignorance about the composition of Iraq’s population. The Iraqi nation, the author so vividly shows, does not just comprise Sunnis and Shiites, but an impossible array of religious sects and political factions.

From the fighting between the three great Shia Houses to the hundreds of independent Sunni and Shia militias, branches of Lebanese and Iranian terror groups, former Ba’athists, Kurdish independence movements, and religious revivalist cults – in the absence of Saddam’s tyrannical grip, Iraq becomes a land drenched in blood, chaos and ferocious ambition.

The West’s stark inability to deal with the vast range of competing Islamic forces in Iraq is also apparent in its response to domestic terrorism and extremism. Today, America and Europe battle some of same threats at home that they face abroad. Most politicians and media, however, approach the problem of home-grown terrorism as if the turmoil of intervention in Muslim lands never happened. And for radical, violent Islamist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, this naivety affords an opportunity to grab power and influence.

In America, Muslims are treated by policymakers as just one community – a homogenous bloc with a single representative voice. It is the very opposite, of course, that is true. The many Sunni religious sects and movements that constitute American Islam, however, have distinctly little say in how their own views are represented.

For Muslims living in Western democracies, the lack of a hierarchical clergy within Sunni Islam produces a natural vacuum for political representation. And as inherently political movements, it is the unrepresentative Islamist groups that are best prepared to fill that void. Traditional moderate Muslim groups, lacking media savvy and political know-how, simply cannot compete.

When policymakers at the State Department or journalists at the New York Times demand to speak with the Muslim community, it is the Islamist movements and their be-suited press relations officers that step forward.

On a national level, it is Muslim Brotherhood groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that have positioned themselves as gateways to the American Muslim community. These Islamist movements have learned to practice politics and interfaith dialogue by day, but preach hatred and violence at night.

Despite warnings by Muslim countries such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates about Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, its spokespersons are nevertheless quoted as American Muslim spokesmen in American newspapers almost daily. Its officials are invited to events at the White House, and many of its press conferences enjoy prime-time news coverage.

Yet few American Muslims themselves actually believe CAIR is an authentic voice of American Islam. According to Gallup poll in 2011, about 88% of American Muslims believe CAIR does not best represent their views.

By treating Muslim Brotherhood groups as the representatives of American Islam, politicians and journalists end up legitimizing the extremists and abandoning the moderates. It is this very failure of policymakers to delve deeper – to discern the extremist minority from the voiceless majority – which allows the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood to exert an ever-growing influence over Muslim youth. Increasingly, these young Muslims become radicalized to the point where they switch their soapbox for a Kalashnikov. Perhaps the most prominent example can be found in the city of Boston in Massachusetts. Its universities and mosques have produced a frightening list of graduates, including – but not limited to –notorious Al Qaeda operatives Abdulrahman Alamoudi, Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddqui; the Lashkar-i-Taiba fundraiser Hafiz Masood; the Boston marathon bombers; and Ahmad Abousamra, one of the Islamic State’s chief propagandists. These terrorist operatives shared something in common: they all passed through the doors of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), one of the largest mosques on the eastern seaboard, but also one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s flagship institutions in the United States.

The ISB’s Muslim Brotherhood links are clear to see. It was founded by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, a key figure in the American Muslim Brotherhood, whom the Treasury Department would later designate as a prominent Al Qaeda fundraiser. ISB trustees have included Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the notorious spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood; Jamal Badawi, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international clerical body; and Muhammad Attawia, who was listed as an American Muslim Brotherhood leader in evidence presented by federal prosecutors during the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial in 2008.

Today, the ISB is managed by the Muslim American Society, another key institution of the American Muslim Brotherhood. It teaches a tarbiya educational program to its young congregants, which includes violent, bigoted texts by Muslim Brotherhood luminaries such as Sayyid Qutb, Hassan al-Banna and Fathi Yakan.

Over the past decade, twelve congregants, supporters, officials and donors of the ISB have been imprisoned, deported, killed or are on the run in connection with terrorism offenses. In spite of this, politicians and media treat the ISB as a credible voice of Massachusetts Muslims – an unpleasant imposition on Boston’s historically moderate Muslim community.

The mayor, the police commissioner, Christian and Jewish community leaders, and various public officials regularly work with the mosque and speak before its congregation. The very land on which the ISB was built was subsidized by the local city government; and the ISB was even invited by Obama’s Justice Department to take part in the federal government’s Countering Violent Extremism program.

Through pure ignorance, Boston is fuelling its own extremism problem.

It is only by understanding American Islam and its constituents that we can refute Muslim Brotherhood claims to leadership, identify and assist the leaders of the moderate Muslim majority, and stop the political legitimization of extremist ideology.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance has joined forces with Muslims Facing Tomorrow, a Canadian Muslim organization, to examine the extremist foundations of Muslim Brotherhood groups posing as ordinary Muslim institutions.

The first dossier we have produced clearly demonstrates that the Islamic Society of Boston is a Muslim Brotherhood institution working to impose its ideology over Massachusetts Muslims. From details of its trustees’ extremist links, to evidence of its financial connections with Al Qaeda fundraisers and its hosting of prominent extremist preachers, this dossier serves to educate politicians, journalists and the public.

Ours is an initiative we hope will be replicated across North America, in cooperation with Muslim organizations working to counteract the extremism and terror-connections of the Muslim Brotherhood network. It is only by working with the moderate Muslim majority, in both the Islamic world, Europe and North America, that this can be achieved. The Muslim Brotherhood is certainly not the only problem with which moderate Muslims and Western democracies must cope. From Iranian-backed Shia Islamism to the puritanism of the Salafists and the asceticism of South Asia’s Deobandis, there are undoubtedly many challenges. But whether it is the violent chaos of Iraq, the murderous bombings of the Boston marathon or the considerable number of Western Muslim youth running away to join the Islamic State, we will only be able to tackle Islamist extremism once we learn to recognize the forces which drive it and understand the communities it exploits.

Categories: CAIR, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam
Tags: CAIR, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam

Comments: Be the first to comment

Orlando and Willful Blindness at the New York Times

June 14, 2016

Orlando and Willful Blindness at the New York Times, PJ Media, Andrew C. McCarthy, June 14, 2016

It is really not that difficult to grasp our enemies’ ideology. We just need to end the willful blindness.

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

The New York Times has an interesting profile of Omar Mateen, the Orlando terrorist who murdered 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at a gay nightclub over the weekend. In the main, the Gray Lady grapples with the profound challenge the FBI faces in striking the balance between investigating ambiguous signs of potential terrorist inclinations and clearing suspects (or “persons of interest,” as they say in the biz) as to whom the evidence seems weak.

It will take some time to draw firm conclusions about Mateen’s case. Still, FBI Director Jim Comey has been admirably open in explaining that while agents appear to have (twice) probed Mateen responsibly, the Bureau must keep exploring whether clues were missed and more could have been done.

That aside, there are two major flaws in the Times’ account, and quite possibly in the government’s self-examination of its performance.

These errors illuminate Washington’s quarter-century of consciously avoiding the proximate cause of jihadist terror: sharia-supremacist ideology.

Our opinion elites resist acknowledging this because it is drawn literally from Islamic scripture.

Sharia-Supremacist Ideology

Drawing on an interview with Mateen’s ex-wife and on aspects of Mateen’s behavior that have been uncovered so far — e.g., frequenting gay bars, possibly using a gay dating app — the Times reasonably speculates that Mateen may have been gay and deeply conflicted about “his true identity out of anger and shame.”

The paper, however, steadfastly avoids asking: What could have caused such wrenching self-loathing?

After all, if he was gay, Mateen would hardly have been the first person to experience great anguish over his sexual preference, despite the fact that American culture has dramatically normalized homosexuality. Yet, those people manage to control their psychological turmoil and depression without walking into a gay club and committing mass-murder.

Assuming that the “he was gay” angle pans out, what could cause such deep conflict in Mateen that he would carry out such an atrocity?

Part of the explanation — probably the explanation — has to be sharia supremacism.

The Times account includes some indicators that Mateen, despite his “Americanization,” leaned toward Islamic fundamentalism: his Afghan roots, his two pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia, his apparently inflated claims of acquaintance with terrorists, his sometimes discriminatory and cruel treatment of his ex-wife. We now know, moreover, that Mateen came onto the FBI’s radar screen because he was acquainted with and attended the same mosque (the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Florida) as Mohammed Abu Salha, an American fundamentalist of Palestinian descent. Salha, who had been trained by al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al-Nusra, ultimately returned to Syria and died carrying out a jihadist attack.

Yet the Times omits the possibility, reported by Fox News, that Mateen also enrolled in an online radical indoctrination course: the Islamic “seminary” run by Marcus Robertson (aka Abu Taubah), whose jihadist roots trace back to the early 1990s.

Robertson’s lectures are said to have been extremely hostile to homosexuals. In conjunction with other facts that have been developed, the “seminary” connection suggests that in recent years Mateen had immersed himself in sharia supremacism.

That is significant because of a point I stressed over the weekend — a point the Times ignores: For over a millennium, classical sharia has endorsed the condemnation and brutal killing of homosexuals.

The Times and the Obama administration have gone to great lengths to nail down whether there was a Mateen tie to ISIS: Was he merely “inspired” by the jihadist organization with which he expressed solidarity even as he carried out his attack? Or was there — as seems highly unlikely — some more formal, operational relationship between Mateen and ISIS?

I do not mean to suggest that this is an irrelevant question. But it does miss a key point that Washington and the media always resist exploring: The persecution of gay people is not an ISIS thing or an al-Qaeda thing; it is an Islam thing.

More specifically, it is a bedrock of sharia law and has been since long, long before there was an ISIS.

If Mateen was deeply conflicted over his alleged homosexual leanings, it had to be because they cut so deeply against the grain of his adherence to sharia supremacism. That ideology, not “inspiration by ISIS” (or by other jihadists Mateen invoked, like the Boston Marathon bombers), is far more likely the root of Mateen’s inner rage.

The Sunni-Shiite Alliance Against Common Enemies

The second weakness of the Times report is its botching of historical alliances between jihadist groups. In a transparent attempt to minimize the Islamist ideological underpinnings of Mateen’s atrocity, the report states:

The F.B.I. director said on Monday that Mr. Mateen had once claimed ties to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah — two radical groups violently opposed to each other.

The not-so-subtle takeaway for readers is that sharia-supremacism cannot really have much to do with Mateen’s actions because Mateen seems to have been woefully confused about it.

No, the Times is confused.

To be sure, al-Qaeda is Sunni and Hezbollah (Iran’s Lebanon-centered jihadist militia) is Shiite. Uninformed analysts, perhaps looking only at the current conflict in Syria where the two organizations find each other on opposite sides, jump to the conclusion that al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are “violently opposed to each other.” The opposite, however, is actually closer to the truth: al-Qaeda and Hezbollah have had a close working alliance for a quarter-century.

This is not open to debate. It has been proved in court and in major investigations by congressional panels and special commissions. For example, in the prosecution of the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Justice Department’s indictment expressly alleged:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances … with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

Investigators have proved the al-Qaeda/Hezbollah alliance again and again. I’ve laid out some of the highlights several times, including in a recent National Review column:

Iran had an alliance with al-Qaeda beginning in the early 1990s. It principally included training by Hezbollah (the Beirut-based terrorist faction created and controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and such joint ventures as the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed….

Toward the conclusion of its probe (and thus without time to investigate the matter fully), the 9/11 Commission learned that Iran had provided critical assistance to the [al-Qaeda] suicide hijackers by allowing them to transit through Iran and Lebanon as they moved from obtaining travel documents in Saudi Arabia (Saudi passports and U.S. visas) to training for the attacks in al-Qaeda’s Afghan safe havens.

Indeed, we now know that Iran’s assistance was overseen by none less than Imad Mugniyah, the now-deceased Hezbollah master terrorist who spent much of his life killing Americans, most notoriously in the Beirut marine-barracks bombing in 1983, and almost certainly at Khobar Towers. In October 2000, Mugniyah went to Saudi Arabia to “coordinate activities” (as the 9/11 Commission put it) with the [al-Qaeda] suicide hijackers. (See 9/11 Commission Report at page 240, as well as affidavits of former CIA officers and a 9/11 Commission staffer, here and here). Thereafter, Mugniyah and other senior Hezbollah members accompanied [al-Qaeda’s] “muscle hijackers” on flights through Iran and Lebanon.

By enabling the hijackers to cross through these countries without having their passports stamped — an Iranian or Lebanese stamp being a telltale sign of potential terrorist training — Iran made it much more likely that the jihadists’ applications for Saudi passports and U.S. visas would be approved, as they were. That is why, on the topic of potential Iranian [and derivatively, Hezbollah] complicity in the plot, the 9/11 Commission wrote, “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.”

There is, furthermore, an extensive, well-known history of alliance between Hezbollah and Hamas. The latter is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian terrorist branch, and notwithstanding its Sunni roots, Hamas has been lavishly backed by Iran’s Shiite regime.

Patently, it is not a sign of confusion about, or overstated connection with, sharia-supremacism to claim, as Mateen did, ideological sympathy with both Sunni and Shiite jihadists. The Iranian regime, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood have been expressing it for at least 25 years.

Indeed, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, one of the more notable al-Qaeda- and Hamas-linked terrorists prosecuted by the Justice Department since 9/11, was recorded at a White House rally in 2000proclaiming:

We are all supporters of Hamas! Allahu Akbar! I wish to add here I am also a supporter of Hezbollah!

The bottom line is quite simple. Despite their differences and simmering hostilities, Sunni jihadists and Shiite jihadists enthusiastically collaborate with each other when dealing with a common enemy — in particular, the United States or Israel. But when the common enemy is not much of a factor, they tend to turn quite viciously on each other, as they are doing in Syria (even as they continue to collude against the U.S. and Israel on the global jihad’s other fronts).

It is really not that difficult to grasp our enemies’ ideology. We just need to end the willful blindness.

We just need to accept that, if we are ever to prevail, we have to study sharia supremacism, including its Islamic roots, and see it plain.

Categories: Islam - Shiite vs. Sunni, Islam - submission, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic supremacy, Media and Islam, Orlando massacre
Tags: Islam - Shiite vs. Sunni, Islam - submission, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic supremacy, Media and Islam, Orlando massacre

Comments: Be the first to comment

In Times of Crisis Ignorance Doesn’t Help

June 14, 2016

In Times of Crisis Ignorance Doesn’t Help, Clarion Project, Raheel Raza, June 14, 2016

[W]e Muslims have a huge crisis of a virus within our ranks which we are not accepting. This problem is increased by the lack of acknowledgement by Western leaders. Reform minded Muslims like us can only expose the problems. It’s up to the authorities to take corrective action.

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

In the wake of yet another terror attack by jihadists, this time in Orlando, Florida, we are deeply saddened but not shocked. This attack is not the first or the last. It’s just another checkmark in a string of attacks by the extremists as they gleefully cross off the targets they have destroyed while planning for more attacks.

Once again media pundits and experts are using the language of ‘lone wolf’ and ‘mental issues.’ Even Hillary Clinton in her address to the nation, mentioned that it could be a lone-wolf attack.

Is it just naivety on part of our leadership or is it ignorance? It doesn’t take rocket science to deduce that this is not a lone-wolf attack. This is a premeditated attack, ideologically supported by all the extremist groups around the world who want to destroy the West. Connect the dots from Boston to Brussels to Paris to Ottawa to San Bernardino and now Orlando.

As far as mental issues are concerned, it’s obvious the radical jihadist mindset is the result of a mentally-deranged ideology.

There, I said it. Now you repeat after me: It’s-a-war-on-the-west-stupid!

But no. You can’t. Political correctness, fear or appeasement keeps your lips sealed. And while you, holding on to your white liberal guilt complex are unable to articulate the real cause of terrorist attacks, they will continue unabated. Why? Because the radical jihadists know your weakness and fear of being called an Islamophobe, so they play you like a piano pressing all the right keys while you sing their song.

Meanwhile, Muslim organizations are competing about who will snare the first news conference. Great idea if they plan to slam the Radical Jihadists, or name them and acknowledge (perhaps for the first time) that we have a problem within the House of Islam. But that’s not the rhetoric in this case. Muslim organizations and places of worship are not generally inclined to be warm and fuzzy towards the LGBTQ community and regularly slam those of us who support them.

In Florida, an Islamic religious scholar was caught on YouTube gently and firmly suggesting that it’s compassionate to kill gays. Why is he not in jail?

Raheel Raza hosts By The Numbers:

CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) came on Fox News very soon after the Orlando attack. The CAIR representative said all the right things about not killing people in the name of God. And then he condemned ISIS saying “1.7 billion people (Muslims) are united in rejecting their (ISIS) extremism, their interpretation, their acts and senseless violence.”

How much can one person lie on public television? Sadly many people will believe the CAIR representative and of course Muslims are thrilled because he has now absolved all 1.7 billion from any responsibility whatsoever.

If CAIR was really concerned about the Orlando attacks, they would condemn the comments of the religious scholar from Florida, they would speak about ways in which radicalization of our youth can be stemmed and they would openly and publicly reject the concept of “armed jihad” as a 7^th Century construct, no longer applicable in the 21^st Century. They will never say this because they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Herein lies a huge problem which must be addressed. Both Muslims and non-Muslims must understand that while all Muslims are not terrorists, most of the terrorists today are Muslims. The ideology of ISIS is the same as Hamas, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Are they not represented in the 1.7 billion? After killing four innocent people in Tel Aviv, the Hamas operatives who celebrated the murder are also part of the 1.7 billion Muslims.

According a to Pew Poll shown in the Clarion documentary By the Numbers, there are between 40,000 to 200,00 Muslims who are ‘members’ of ISIS; up to 100,000 al-Qaeda affiliates; 7-9,000 members of Hamas, 15,000 to 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards and about 15,000 members of Hezbollah. All these are terrorist organizations and jihadists who should be included in the 1.7 billion Muslims making ALL Muslims not so peaceful. While these are the overtly violent groups, the mindset of millions of other Muslims (according to the poll) is also skewed towards violence and acceptance of violence against other human beings.

This is all to say that we Muslims have a huge crisis of a virus within our ranks which we are not accepting. This problem is increased by the lack of acknowledgement by Western leaders. Reform minded Muslims like us can only expose the problems. It’s up to the authorities to take corrective action.

It’s taken 15 years for the term ‘Radical’ to become accepted usage. How long more will it take to stop the Radicals from carrying out their nefarious agendas and waging a war on the West?

Categories: CAIR, Homeland Security, Hypocrisy, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre, Political correctness
Tags: CAIR, Homeland Security, Hypocrisy, Islam and homosexuals, Islamic Jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Orlando massacre, Political correctness

Comments: Be the first to comment

Orlando Shooting- Gun Control or Jihadist Control?

June 13, 2016

Orlando Shooting- Gun Control or Jihadist Control? Fox News via YouTube, June 13, 2016

Categories: CAIR, Gun control, Hillary Clinton, Homosexuals, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic Society, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Orlando massacre
Tags: CAIR, Gun control, Homosexuals, Islamic Jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic Society, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Orlando massacre

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives