December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
That’s right: “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric.” The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.
That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”
Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.
And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!
Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.
Jihadist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris have Americans on edge. Yet part of the Obama White House’s response to the attacks has been to invite Islamist groups that routinely demonize the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to the White House to discuss a religious discrimination. “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away,” President Obama said in his speech following the San Bernardino attack.
But partnering with such organizations sends the wrong message to the American people, said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID).
“I think it says a lot when the president uses those organizations that have an ACLU-type mentality. They should have a seat at the table. That’s fine,” Jasser said. “But not to include groups, which have completely different focuses about counter-radicalization, counter-Islamism creates this monolithic megaphone for demonization of our government and demonization of America that ends up radicalizing our community.”
A White House spokesperson acknowledged to the Investigative Project on Terrorism that the Dec. 14 meeting on countering anti-Muslim animus included Hassan Shibly, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida chapter. The same forum – attended by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – also included Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates; Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI); Mohamed Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); and Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) among others.
The White House guests, or the organizations they represent, have long histories of criticizing counter-terror investigations. CAIR leads the pack. Its Philadelphia chapter is advertising a workshop, “The FBI and Entrapment in the Muslim Community,” which features a spider with an FBI badge on its back, spinning a web of entrapment around an image of a mosque. The workshop “provides the tools needed to prevent entrapment of community members to become terrorists in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
Since 9/11, CAIR has repeatedly taken the side of defendants accused of financing or plotting attacks, calling their prosecutions a “witch hunt” against the Muslim community. For example, CAIR denounced the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, who turned out to be the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “politically motivated” and a result of the “Israelization of American policy and procedures.”
A year ago, CAIR similarly protested the incarceration of Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda” – convicted in 2010 of trying to kill two FBI agents. The protest came after the Islamic State (ISIS) offered to spare the lives of executed American photojournalist James Foley and aid worker Kayla Mueller in exchange for Siddiqui’s release.
CAIR also denounced the December 2001 shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation for Hamas support, saying, “…there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam.”
Demonizing law enforcement and spreading “the idea that America and Western societies [are] anti-Muslim – the whole Islamophobia mantra is part of the early steps of radicalization so that Muslims get separated out of society,” Jasser said. “These groups certainly aren’t on the violent end of the Islamist continuum, but if there’s a conveyer belt that goes towards radicalization then it certainly starts with this siege and separatist mentality.”
CAIR has used such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric for years, with its San Francisco chapter removing a poster urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance – Don’t Talk to the FBI” in 2011 after the IPT reported on it.
Later that year, a CAIR-New York official told a Muslim audience that FBI agents would break the law to force them to talk. That includes threats and “blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal,” Lamis Deek told the audience. “But they’ll do it.”
Jasser blames CAIR and others which spread similar rhetoric for the increased fear of Islam and Muslims in America since 9/11 because they refuse to discuss Islamic extremism and the role Muslims have in fixing the problem.
“This creates a climate where people don’t trust us to be part of the solution,” Jasser said. “People say that if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem, which creates more fear and distrust.”
Neither Jasser nor the AIFD, which advocates for “liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state,” were invited to the White House meeting. Also shut out were Jasser’s colleagues in the new Muslim Reform Movement, whose members “reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam” and stand “for secular governance, democracy and liberty. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.”
The White House did not reply to a request for comment about Jasser’s characterization of these groups; however, it previously said it engaged CAIR because of “their work on civil rights issues” despite the group’s Hamas ties.
Former FBI Associate Deputy Director Buck Revell also finds the White House’s choice of Muslim groups troubling.
“It’s a very confusing time and circumstance when you have the White House dealing with people who have fronted for the Muslim Brotherhood and are the spokespeople for Hamas in the United States and you bring them in for a conference at the White House and say they are supposed to speak for the Muslim community in America,” Revell said. “It’s unhelpful to have the White House essentially fronting for groups that want to make it harder to reach the jihadists in our society and in effect flush them out.”
Khera’s group Muslim Advocates has a pending lawsuit against the New York Police Department regarding its surveillance of mosques and other Islamic institutions using undercover police officers and informants.
“One of our key priorities at Muslim Advocates is ending racial and religious profiling by law enforcement,” Khera says in a YouTube video supporting the suit. “We’ve done work to combat profiling by the FBI, by Customs and Border Protection and now more recently we’ve had concerns about the way the New York Police Department – the nation’s largest police department – has been conducting itself.”
Like CAIR, Khera has called the FBI’s sting operations and informants against potential jihadists “entrapment operations” that rope in individuals who might otherwise never engage in terrorist activity.
CAIR’s Shibly also used the entrapment narrative in a June 2014 blog post in which he argued that the “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny. Many other CAIR representatives, such as Michigan director Dawud Walid, previously alleged the FBI has “recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.”
AAI stops short of embracing the entrapment narrative but labels surveillance programs by the NYPD and other government agencies “unconstitutional, ineffective, and counterproductive.” New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio disbanded the NYPD unit responsible for infiltrating the city’s mosques and Muslim gathering places looking for potential terrorists in April 2014 under pressure from Muslim groups.
Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which countsMagid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”
However, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which formerly accused the FBI of entrapment, conceded in 2013 that informants can be useful detecting terror cells and keeping them off balance.
“To be fair, informants at times can be effective in counterterrorism investigations even against cellular structures. Because terrorist groups are concerned about their operational security, fear of informants can create and increase tensions within a terrorist cell. As a result, it may generate enough paranoia that a cell may abandon a planned operation,” MPAC said in its 2013 report “Building Bridges to Strengthen America.”
Looking for jihadis before they strike is a bit like looking for a “needle in a haystack,” so sting operations are useful in finding them before it’s too late, according to Revell. He says such operations can be useful in preventing the next San Bernardino.
“If you don’t find them when they are talking jihad and you have to wait until they take an action then it’s too late to be able to prevent casualties and ensure that the public is safe,” Revell said. “There certainly is knowledge among those looking to do any type of jihadi activity that there is a force out there that is countering them and that they need to try to cover their activities to the greatest extent possible.”
In the past year, the Islamic State (ISIS) has published at least two documents instructing its jihadis how to evade being lured into stings by the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies. The ISIS manual “Safety and Security guidelines of the Lone Wolf Mujahideen” devotes a chapter to evading FBI stings by testing the weapons they receive prior to using them in an attack.
Khera’s organization stood front and center in 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive. She complained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter that counterterrorism materials then being used to train FBI agents about Islam used “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims.” Such allegedly misinformed statements included characterizing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat” and that “Accommodation and compromise between [Islam and the West] are impermissible and fighting [for Muslims] is obligatory.”
Yet numerous Muslim commentators, including from the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” published with editorial assistance from IIIT, says that zakat can be usedamong other things to help “(4) those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”
The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”
Top Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi similarly states in his book,Fiqh of Jihad, that zakat may be spent to finance “the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of the unbelievers,” particularly against Israel and India in Kashmir.
Numerous Islamic charities have been cited or closed down in connection with terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks. Qaradawi’s actions back up his words. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Union of Good, a network of charities headed by Qaradawi, for Hamas fundraising. That same year a federal court jury convicted the founders of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for illegally financing Hamas.
“The government’s policy has inflicted considerable harm,” MPAC’s Salam al-Marayatiwrote in 2001 after federal authorities closed the Benevolence International Fund (BIF). “By effectively shutting down these charities, it has given Americans the false impression that American Muslims are supporting terrorists. It has also given the Muslim world a similarly false impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority.”
Representatives of MPAC, CAIR and Muslim Advocates each condemned the HLF prosecution or its subsequent verdict.
In the end, the White House’s decision to empower these groups sends a mixed message to the American people that it isn’t fully interested in rooting out the causes of jihadist terror and preventing future attacks.
The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what a virus is to disease. Major terrorist leaders from the Caliph of ISIS to Arafat have the Muslim Brotherhood on their resume. And the current leader of Al Qaeda led a Muslim Brotherhood splinter terror group. But its linkages to Islamic terrorism are only a secondary aspect of the organization whose focus is on Islamizing nations through more subtle means.
Paradoxically the Brotherhood has met with far less success in the Muslim world than in the West. Its greatest victories in the Arab Spring would not have happened without Obama’s backing and its takeovers of Egypt and Tunisia were rolled back by popular uprisings while its efforts in Libya, Syria and Yemen were stymied by armed conflict with other Muslims.
The Muslim Brotherhood is unpopular in Egypt these days. It’s also unpopular with Americans.
In one poll, 61 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 11 percent had a positive view of the Islamic supremacist organization. Only 5 percent of Americans saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt as a positive development.
Unfortunately Obama is at odds with the views of most Americans. The Muslim Brotherhood may have lost power in Cairo, but it still wields a great deal of power in Washington D.C. Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA have open access to the media and dominate all discussions about Islam. The MSA dominates American campuses despite its history of terror ties.
As David Horowitz has warned, “The principal institutions of Islam in this country, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, to name a few — are all fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”
But not every country is equally willing to roll over for the Muslim Brotherhood’s hate network.
The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters was in London, but while Washington D.C. panders to the violent Islamic supremacist organization, the UK decided it did not want to host its Jihad. Last year, the British government authorized a report on the Muslim Brotherhood by veteran diplomat Sir John Jenkins. The report has been submitted to parliament and it’s making waves.
The British government report defines “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics” as “contrary to our national interests and our national security.” It’s a striking contrast with a White House where the Muslim Brotherhood has its own revolving door and a rogue’s gallery of operatives.
Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States have been allowed to dismantle our counterterrorism training and replace it with Islamist propaganda. Even now, Obama pushes Countering Violent Extremism programs that encourage law enforcement to partner with Brotherhood front groups. Secretary of State Kerry urges including the Muslim Brotherhood in the political process.
Meanwhile the UK government has stepped forward to assert that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the solution to terrorism, instead it’s the source of the problem.
The Jenkins report rejects the “moderate” label so often slapped on the hate group by lazy media hacks. Instead it describes the Brotherhood as a clandestine group organized into a “secretive ‘cell’ structure” seeking to create a “Caliphate under sharia law” using a doctrine that allows “the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society”. That ideology inspired “Al Qaida and its offshoots”. The most obvious offshoot to employ this Takfiri approach is ISIS.
It’s quite a contrast from the claim by Obama’s Director of National Intelligence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence”.
The British report rejects the idea that the Brotherhood is peaceful. Instead it states that it is prepared to engage in violence, but prefers “incremental change on the grounds of expediency” because it believes that the “political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete”.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate or peaceful. It just thinks long term. Its endgame is the same as ISIS. It just has a slower and surer way of getting there. As fellow Islamist dictator Erdogan once said in Turkey, democracy is “a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”
The British report takes a hard look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for Hamas and its local organizations in the UK. It notes that, “much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programmes” but that its front groups “which have claimed to represent Muslim communities” wield “an influence here which is disproportionate to their size”.
It’s a vital observation that can’t even be voiced in the Senate here, let alone in the media or the White House. It is utterly inconceivable that Obama and Hillary, who have fought wars on behalf of the Brotherhood, would ever be willing to authorize the creation of a similar report on the Brotherhood.
And yet such a report is desperately needed. The Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups have hijacked our foreign policy, involved us in foreign wars, endangered our national security and undermined our ability to fight terrorism. They promote a program of mass Muslim migration while pushing anti-American agendas with the ultimate aim of destroying the Constitution and replacing it with Islamic law.
Changes are already taking places in the UK after the release of the Brotherhood report. The Board of Deputies of the Jewish community distanced itself from the Brotherhood’s Muslim Council of Britain. While the government will not currently ban the Brotherhood, Prime Minister Cameron has stated that “membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism”. That may sound mild, but it should be contrasted with the position of Democrats and even some Republicans in this country that the Muslim Brotherhood is our best friend.
Prime Minister Cameron warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.” He stated that “it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism.” He concluded that aspects of its activities “run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This is a major development not only for the UK, but for the US where any criticism of the Islamic hate network has been banished as Islamophobic. The British finding is an important weapon in our own struggle with the Brotherhood and its collaborators on the left and the right.
Cameron has warned that the UK will keep a close watch to see “whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.” This is a clear warning to the Brotherhood not to abuse the hospitality of the UK or face government action. By taking this step, the UK is joining a diverse group of countries, from Egypt to the UAE to Israel, in confronting the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama insists that his critics are isolated, but his affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the elements that isolated his foreign policy even in the Muslim world. Western countries are beginning to wake up to the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and his CVE policy will one day go down in history as a shameless whitewashing of a violently bigoted organization that has endangered our national security.
The UK has found that the Muslim Brotherhood is a national security threat. It’s time for Republicans and Democrats to start speaking the truth about the Brotherhood.
Italian journalist Giulio Menotti documents the madness that has overtaken British universities–a madness that is eerily familiar:
“Rhodes Must Fall” cry the students and professors outside Oxford, many of whom are themselves part of the Rhodes Scholarship group, the program built by the “racist” tycoon to allow foreign students to study at Oxford.
It’s exactly like students at Amherst and Harvard denouncing Jeffrey Amherst and Isaac Royall.
Meanwhile, across the UK, a general air of hostility is spreading against opinions that could cause even only a hint of distress in students, forcing theFinancial Times to publish an editorial: “It is in the interest of universities to maintain a free and fertile academic environment.”
Ditto in the U.S.
Iranian dissident Maryam Lamaze … was attacked and prevented from speaking at many UK colleges, like Goldsmiths and Warwick. Her hymn against religion and for Western free speech “offended” British students of Islamic faith.
At University College in London, a former student, Macer Gifford, was prevented from telling his experience in the ranks of Kurdish fighters committed to battle against the Islamic State. The reason? “In every conflict there are two sides and our college does not want to take sides.”
Should we be anti-ISIS? That’s too close a question for universities in Britain, as in the U.S., to call.
The University of East Anglia has just banned the use of the sombrero, because it is considered hateful towards Hispanic students.
Just like the recent fiasco at Yale. It’s odd, though. Doesn’t every kind of hat originate with one culture or another, and mustn’t all hats therefore be banned? And why stop with hats?
Oxford has canceled a debate on abortion, because women’s organizations had complained about the presence, among the speakers, of “a person without a uterus.” Don’t laugh, it is really happening at the university founded in 1096.
Don’t laugh, because feminists don’t have a sense of humor, either here or in the U.K.
The University of Cardiff has tried to remove the feminist Germaine Greer, “guilty” of not considering women and transsexuals as equals.
Transsexuals, slightly more common than unicorns, have opened up whole new horizons of insanity.
Meanwhile, these British “safe spaces” are used by apologists for Islamist cutthroats who gather support and are affiliated with these universities (“Jihadi John”, the late Isis executioner, was a brilliant student of Westminster).
I hadn’t realized that. Apparently “brilliant” students aren’t what they used to be.
Some days ago, the Telegraph published an article entitled: “The ideology of the ISIS dominates British universities.”
Why are so many students and professors attracted to evil? It was true in the 1930s, too, when German students and professors were among the most enthusiastic supporters of National Socialism, and when Nazis were weirdly popular–as it seems today–on many American campuses.
The same universities that are uncomfortable accommodating heterodox feminists and Islamic dissidents, such as the Queen Mary University of London, allow events under the banner of Islam where women sit separated from men, in accordance with the Sharia or Islamic law, as if they were in Riyadh or Tehran.
Because that’s diversity.
Muslim activist for women’s rights, Maryam Namazie, has been driven away by fanatic Islamists with the approval of the stupid gay militants. In British colleges it was Namazie who needed a “safe space” to deliver her speech, protected by bodyguards….
Much like the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Michelle Malkin here in the United States. And finally:
Meanwhile, British professors, writers, musicians, intellectuals and professionals are busy promoting initiatives to boycott the Jewish State and its professors.
All of this is nauseatingly familiar. My question is: why? Why have British universities gone off the rails in precisely the same ways as American universities? Steve has referred to the “spreading virus” of madness on American campuses, but the virus has apparently replicated itself in England. Why?
I mean the question seriously. Have British students and professors taken inspiration from their American cousins? Or vice versa? Is it because Leftism is an international movement? Do left-wing British professors and students, like their American counterparts, hate the society that sustains them, and does their hatred produce eerily similar symptoms? I don’t know the answer to these questions. But a contagion is loose that transcends, apparently, international boundaries.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
A pro-Islamist resolution, HR 569, was introduced in Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee on December 17th. Although it is quite unlikely that a binding law implementing the resolution will be enacted anytime soon, the resolution shows that troublesome views are held by many members of Congress.
The fight for the rights of women is among the most difficult aspects of the fight against Islam and Islamisation. The views expressed in HR 569, if implemented, would make that fight even more difficult.
Here is a list of the seventy-four members who supported H.R. 569:
Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Ms.Kaptur, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Takai, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Keating, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.Butterfield, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Esty, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Lee, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sires, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Polis, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs.Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Mr.Conyers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Heck of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character. [Emphasis added.]
[S]ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
. . . .
I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.]
A problem with Obama’s stated desire to deal with Islam as it is, not as it isn’t, is that His perceptions of what it is and what it isn’t are essentially backward.
The House Resolution does not mention such Muslim “contributions” to America as those made at Ford Hood, Texas several years ago or those more recently made at San Bernardino, California. Nor does it mention their “contributions” of honor killings and female genital mutilation, about which more is provided later in this post. It bemoans the disparagements some Muslims have suffered due to their “contributions” and others simply because they are Muslims.
Here’s a particularly disturbing part of the bill, set forth under “Resolved:”
The House of Representatives
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim; [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; [Emhasis added.]
Note the inclusion in (3) of “hate speech” as a “hate crime.”
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker. [Emphasis added.]
In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to anotherif those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. [Emphasis added.]
Hate speech, fighting words and hate crimes
HR 569’s apparent inclusion of anti-Muslim “hate speech” as a “hate crime” is inconsistent with American law and the American Constitution. However, it is consistent with Attorney General Lynch’s remarks shortly after the December 2nd San Bernardino Islamic attack. She then
complained that the First Amendment allows people to say hateful things and noted that many do so from the safety of their computer keyboard. It’s something, she said, the DoJ would “take action” against, especially when that speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift…that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.” [Emphasis added.]
Later, in response to many objections, Ms. Lynch pulled back with this: “Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words.” Really?
Statements such as “Islam is the religion of death” or “Mohamed was a pedophile” could indeed “provoke” a devout Muslim and perhaps “cause” him to react violently. Are such statements “fighting words,” which we have “no right to speak?”
Can “hateful” words be construed as “hateful” actions or “hateful” deeds” and therefore “hate” crimes? Is the following passage from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Heretic, “hate” speech? Are her words “fighting words,” which the ABA material quoted above claims we have no right to speak? The quoted paragraph deals with an event in Somalia. However, she now lives in America, her books are sold in America and could offend devout Muslims in America.
In my homeland of Somalia, a thirteen-year-old girl reported that she had been gang-raped by three men. The Al-Shabaab militia that then controlled her town of Kismayo, a port city in the south, responded by accusing her of adultery, found her guilty, and sentenced her to death. Her execution was announced in the morning from a loudspeaker blaring from a Toyota pickup truck. At the local soccer stadium, Al-Shabaab loyalists dug a hole in the ground and brought in a truckload of rocks. A crowd of one thousand gathered in the hours leading up to 4: 00 p.m. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow— named after the Prophet Muhammad’s nine-year-old wife— was dragged, screaming and flailing, into the stadium. It took four men to bury her up to her neck in the hole. Then fifty men spent ten minutes pelting her with rocks and stones. After the ten minutes had passed, there was a pause. She was dug out of the ground and two nurses examined her to see if she was still alive. Someone found a pulse and breathing. Aisha was returned to the hole and the stoning continued. One man who tried to intervene was shot; an eight-year-old boy was also killed by the militia. Afterward, a local sheik told a radio station that Aisha had provided evidence, confirmed her guilt, and “was happy with the punishment under Islamic law.” [Emphasis added.]
She related that incident to point out that that sort of thing is, unfortunately, both Islamic and common. It is both, as indicated later in this article. Where, other than in Islamic lands, does it happen? Perhaps writing, publishing or selling any book that disparages the present condition of Islam “as it is” according to Obama, and seeks the reformation of what Obama insists upon calling the religion of peace and tolerance now, could be considered a “hate” crime. After all,
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned [Ayaan Hirsi Ali as] “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”
Neither HR 569, nor a criminal law based on it, will likely be passed anytime soon by either house of Congress. However, the mere introduction of such a bill, supported by seventy-four House members, is disturbing enough. It’s part of our multicultural, politically correct march for moral equivalence which ignores our — Judeo-Christian versus Islamic — distinctions between what is good and what is evil.
Was it good or evil to stone a thirteen-year-old Somali girl to death for her “crime” of having been raped by a gang of young men? Being raped was deemed to be her crime of adultery. Was her inability, and hence failure, to prevent her rape more or less evil than stoning her to death or, indeed, the rape itself? Few if any sane westerners would have difficulty answering such questions. Muslims? That’s different.
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other current and former Muslims, Muslims are taught about “honor” from infancy. However, Islamic conceptions of “honor” are very different from Judeo-Christian conceptions. In Islam, “honor” consists of honoring one’s family and clan, and thereby Mohamed and Allah. “Adultery” by a woman dishonors her husband, family, her clan, Mohamed and Allah. It does so even if her “adultery” consisted of being raped. It warrants death by stoning. To react “dishonorably” by not imposing such punishments would be a weakness which would dishonor them all.
Those women are not fighting for free birth control, abortions or even health care. Nor are they fighting for safe spaces against microaggressions or where unpleasant views cannot be heard. They are fighting for the most important “women’s rights,” absent under Islam. Has Obama ever spoken about the work those and other brave women are doing or why they are doing it? If so, I am not aware of it. American “feminists,” other American women and men? Europeans? If they are not, and I am not aware of many who are, they should be ashamed of themselves.
[W]hile certain stoning-related passages have been removed from Iran’s new penal code, other passages in the new code refer to stoning, and stoning remains as a possible form of punishment under the new Iranian penal code.
Amnesty International has documented 76 cases of lethal stoning between 1980-1989 in Iran, while the International Committee Against Execution (ICAE) has reported that 74 others were stoned to death in Iran between 1990-2009.
Is Iran better than the Taliban? Here’s a video, with the obligatory remarks that stoning adulterers is mandated by the Bible and denials that this sort of thing is either widespread or Islamic.
Great. Should the Taliban be given a pathway to “the bomb?”
Pakistan?
Pakistan already has nukes. Should we help her to get more and better nukes?
Saudi Arabia has a criminal justice system based on a hardline and literal form of Shari’ah law reflecting a particular state-sanctioned interpretation of Islam.
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4]including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10]and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13][Emphasis added.]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[14] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in August 2014.[15][16] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[14] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[17]
Crucifixion of the beheaded body is sometimes ordered.[7] For example, in 2009, the Saudi Gazette reported that “An Abha court has sentenced the leader of an armed gang to death and three-day crucifixion (public displaying of the beheaded body) and six other gang members to beheading for their role in jewelry store robberies in Asir.”[18] (This practice resembles gibbeting, in which the entire body is displayed).
In 2003, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, whom the BBC described as “Saudi Arabia’s leading executioner”, gave a rare interview to Arab News.[5] He described his first execution in 1998: “The criminal was tied and blindfolded. With one stroke of the sword I severed his head. It rolled metres away…People are amazed how fast [the sword] can separate the head from the body.”[5] He also said that before an execution he visits the victim’s family to seek forgiveness for the criminal, which can lead to the criminal’s life being spared.[5] Once an execution goes ahead, his only conversation with the prisoner is to tell him or her to recite the Muslim declaration of belief, the Shahada.[5] “When they get to the execution square, their strength drains away. Then I read the execution order, and at a signal I cut the prisoner’s head off,” he said.[5]
As of 2003, executions have not been announced in advance. They can take place any day of the week, and they often generate large crowds. Photography and video of the executions is also forbidden, although there have been numerous cases of photographed and videoed executions in . . . spite of the law against them.
Europe is different
In Germany, the rape victim most likely will not be stoned to death for the offense of being raped.
Sweden?
Conclusions
“Honor killings” and other Islamic infringements on women’s rights in general are becoming more common in America. It has been estimated that there are twenty-seven honor killings in America each year. That estimate is probably low, because
Honor killings and violence, which typically see men victimize wives and daughters because of behavior that has somehow insulted their faith, are among the most secretive crimes in society, say experts. [Emphasis added.]
“Cases of honor killings and/or violence in the U.S. are often unreported because of the shame it can cause to the victim and the victim’s family,” Farhana Qazi, a former U.S. government analyst and senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism, told FoxNews.com. “Also, because victims are often young women, they may feel that reporting the crime to authorities will draw too much attention to the family committing the crime.” [Emphasis added.]
Even cases that appear to be honor killings, such as the Jan. 1, 2008 murder of two Irving, Texas, sisters that landed their father on the FBI’s most wanted list, cannot always be conclusively linked to a religious motivation. Without hard evidence, critics say, ascribing a religious motivation to crimes committed by Muslims demeans Islam. Yet, federal authorities believe they must be able to identify “honor” as a motive for violence and even murder if they are to address a growing cultural problem. [Emphasis added.]
Doesn’t alleging an Islamic motivation for any crime “demean” Islam?
The report, which estimated that 23-27 honor killings per year occur in the U.S., noted that 91 percent of victims in North America are murdered for being “too Westernized,” and in incidents involving daughters 18 years or younger, a father is almost always involved. And for every honor killing, there are many more instances of physical and emotional abuse, all in the name of fundamentalist Islam, say experts. [Emphasis added.]
an aspect of human nature that denies the enormity of any disaster where death is imminent because the mantra of its impossibility was accepted and believed by all. Regarding the Titanic, it was touted as the largest and the safest ship ever built (true at that time) … it is unsinkable (false, nothing man builds is disaster free). When the mantra is believed by all, including the builders … the designers who did not provide adequate life boats … the passengers and crew whose minds denied acceptance of the reality of disaster and peril as incomprehensible. This denial continued even while the disaster was unfolding. They either would not or could not admit or acknowledge the imminence of their peril of floundering in the icy cold sea of the North Atlantic. [Emphasis added.]
It can happen in America, America is already moving in that direction and will arrive there unless we prevent it. Are American feminists working on the problems? Very few, at most.
♦ As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West.
♦ First to go will be the welfare states. Shrinking native populations cannot generate enough taxes to accommodate masses of immigrants with so few skills as to be effectively unemployable, or who do not want to contribute to “infidel” societies. Well before mid-century, the number of Muslims in Denmark will be large enough irreversibly to have changed the composition and character of the country.
♦ In the United States, a House of Representatives bill, H. Res. 569, has been sponsored that would censor one of the few countries left with freedom of speech. The bill, in accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), would criminalize all criticism of Islam, worldwide.
♦ Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Probably. Religion – or more accurately, Islamic ideology, which knows no distinction between religion and politics – is on the ascendant.
It was not supposed to have happened this way. In 1995 a number of EU member states signed the Schengen Agreement, integrated into European Union law in 1999. The signatory powers promised to abandon their internal border protection in exchange for a promise by the EU authorities that they would police Europe’s external borders. Then the EU authorities, while demanding that the Schengen states keep their borders open, spectacularly failed to honor their part of the agreement. There can be little doubt that the EU packed up, walked out and left its populations to their own devices.
Sadly, their policies have achieved the exact opposite of what they claimed to strive for. Instead of tolerance, we have witnessed division and irreconcilable enmity between cultures and ethnicities that often have nothing in common except a desire to squeeze as much out of the public coffers as they can. Instead of “inclusion,” Europeans have seen exclusion, low-intensity warfare, terror, no-go zones, rape epidemics, murder and mayhem.
Governments, parliamentary majorities and the stars of academia, the media and the commanding heights of culture cannot have failed to notice that their grand multicultural, Islamophile game did not produce the results they had promised their unsuspecting publics. Yet to this day, most of them persist in claiming that unfettered immigration from the Muslim world and Africa is an indisputable boon to Europe.
Recently, in the wake of the so-called “refugee crisis,” some of these notables have thrown out the script and are expressing concern that immigration is out of control. European governments are still allowing millions of so-called refugees to cross all borders and settle anyplace. According to the EU agency Frontex, charged with protecting Europe’s external borders, more than a million and a half illegals crossed Europe’s frontiers between January and November 2015.
Thousands of migrants cross illegally into Slovenia on foot, in this screenshot from YouTube video filmed in October 2015.
Right now there is an ever-widening gap between the people and their rulers. In a conference recently organized by the Danish Free Press Society to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the famous Muhammed cartoons, the British political analyst, Douglas Murray, noted that the European populations are reacting to decades of lies and deception by voting for political parties which, just a few years ago, were vilified as “racist” and “fascist.” Marine Le Pen, of the National Front party, has emerged as a strong candidate in France’s 2017 presidential election.
Perhaps the most momentous political earthquake in Europe was the recent 180-degree about-face by the Danish Social Democratic Party. Only a few years ago, it was a staunch proponent of Muslim immigration, and hammered away at anyone daring to deny the “cultural enrichment” brought about by the spread of Islam.
The leader of Denmark’s Social Democratic parliamentary group, Henrik Sass Larsen MP, on December 18 wrote:
“The massive migration and stream of refugees now coming to Europe and Denmark are of a magnitude that challenges the fundamental premises of our society in the near future… According to our analysis, the stark economic consequences of the current number of refugees and immigrants will consume all room for maneuver in public finance within a few years. Non-Western immigrants have historically been difficult to integrate into the labor market; the same applies to the Syrians that are now arriving. The more, the harder, the more expensive… Finally, it is our analysis that given our previous experience with integrating non-Western people into our society, we are facing a social catastrophe when it comes to handling many tens of thousands that are soon to be channeled into society. Every bit of progress in terms of integration will be put back to zero. … Therefore our conclusion is clear: We will do all we can to limit the number of non-Western refugees and immigrants coming to the country. That is why we have gone far — and much farther than we had dreamed of going… We are doing this because we will not sacrifice our welfare society in the name of humanitarianism. For the welfare society … is the political project of the Social Democratic Party. It is a society built on the principles of liberty, equality and solidarity. Mass immigration — as we have seen in, for example, Sweden — will undermine … our welfare society.”
Clearly, the Danish Social Democratic Party — the architect of Denmark as we have known it — has understood that there is political capital to be defended. It seems finally to have realized that it cannot persist in whittling away its accomplishments if it wants to keep its dwindling share of the votes.
One may speculate that if the Social Democratic Party means what it says, it might have an impact among Social Democratic and Socialist parties in other European countries.
However, as Douglas Murray also pointed out, Westerners suffer from the notion that regardless of how many jihadis, murderers and terrorists claim that their actions are motivated by their love of Allah, they cannot possibly mean it. There must be some other underlying “root cause” that the men of violence are not aware of, but which well-meaning Westerners are keen to tell them about: old Western imperialism, centuries of humiliation, racism, Israel, the Crusades, poverty, exclusion, the Muhammad cartoons, etc. And, of course, that it is all the fault of the West!
As long as we in the West are not prepared to take Muslims at their word when they claim to be waging bloody jihad because it is their religious obligation, we have no chance of repelling the current onslaught on the West. The latest sighting of this shift was just this week, in the form of a U.S. House of Representatives bill, H. Res. 569, to censor one of the few countries left with free speech. The bill, in accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, would criminalize, worldwide, all criticism of Islam. [1]
As long as the authorities are unwilling to protect their own populations from being overrun by foreigners, many of whom seem prepared to do them harm, we are likely to see the natives take protection into their own hands. On December 16, for instance, there was a violent protest in the small Dutch city of Geldermalsen, as the local authorities were trying to set up an asylum center behind the backs of the local population. No doubt the authorities were taken aback by the activism.
Western societies are based on an implied contract between the sovereign and the people: The sovereign — the king, the president, the government — promises to uphold law and order, protect his people from violence and foreign encroachment and apprehend and punish criminals. In exchange, the citizens promise not to take the law into their own hands. It follows that if the state fails to uphold its part of this social bargain, then the right — indeed the obligation — to protect oneself, one’s family, neighbors and the community, returns to the citizens.
There was also the recent spate of asylum-house burnings in Sweden. According to the Danish-Swedish website, Snaphanen, there have been 40 occasions during the past six months in which buildings intended to house asylum seekers have mysteriously burned to the ground — without anyone being hurt or killed. None of the perpetrators has been caught; no one has claimed responsibility. It all appears organized quite well.
Will citizen activism save Europe? Probably not. Vast areas are too far gone to be saved. Sweden is a broken country, as pointed out by Ingrid Carlqvist in several articles at Gatestone. By 2020, Germany may have 20 million Muslim residents.
We are probably beyond the point where effective change can be obtained by politics in the old sense, for the simple reason that central authorities are not strong enough to make their writ run throughout their national territories. This will spell the end of Europe as we know it, and people who cannot leave, or who choose to stand and fight, will be left to their own devices — and quite possibly entirely new modes of social organization.
First to go will be the welfare states. Shrinking native populations cannot generate enough taxes to accommodate masses of immigrants with so few skills as to be effectively unemployable, or who do not want to contribute to “infidel” societies.
What might post-European Europe look like? Think of Northern Ireland in the time of the Troubles or of ex-Yugoslavia during the civil wars of the 1990s.
When states break down, people’s first concern will be security. Who can and will protect my family and me?
For a long time in Europe there has been talk of “parallel societies” — in which the state ceases to function as a unitary polity — due to the cultural, religious and politico-judicial separation of non-Muslims and Muslims into incompatible and antagonistic enclaves.
There appears to be a growing realization among Danish demographers that third-world immigrants and their descendants, with or without citizenship, will constitute the majority of the Danish population before the end of the century.[2] A sizable segment of this third-world population will be Muslim, and well before the middle of the century, the number of Muslims will be large enough irreversibly to have changed the composition and character of the country.
Will Muslim non-integration spell the end of the secular state as we have known it? Probably. Religion — or more accurately, Islamic ideology — which knows no distinction between religion and politics, is on the ascendant as the constitutive principle among Danish Muslims. As Muslim institutions grow stronger, the Islamic court, or “din,” is bound to become even more powerful as the organizing principle of the Muslim parallel societies.
How will the old Danish, and nominally Christian, population react to this metamorphosis? To a large extent, that will depend on what organizing principle will determine the character of the Danish parallel society. Two possibilities stand out: “Danishness” and “Christianity.” “Danishness” would probably entail a society founded on a nationalistic or ethnic myth, whereas “Christianity” might be more ethnically inclusive and stress society’s Judeo-Christian and humanistic roots.
In either event, it is difficult to see how the secular state could survive, because the parallel societies will not be free to define themselves or determine their political systems or modes of governance. They will constantly be forced to maneuver in response to “the other’s” long-term objectives and immediate actions — as has been seen, for example, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Northern Ireland and the Basque provinces.
Under these conditions, the modern system of sovereign territorial states is likely to break down. We can only guess at what will replace it.
Lars Hedegaard, a Danish historian, journalist and author, established the Danish Free Speech Society in 2004.
____________________________________
[1] In accordance with the 10-year plan of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to implement U.N. Resolution 16/18 and criminalize all criticism of Islam worldwide, a group in the U.S. House of Representatives has sponsored H. Res. 569, in condemnation of violence, bigotry and “hateful rhetoric” toward Muslims in the U.S. This bill comes on the heels of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s post-San Bernardino attack statement to the Muslim American community that she will prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. Passage of this legislation will be the death knell for the First Amendment and the end of any and all discourse and education about the threat posed by the global jihad.
[2] See, for example, the calculations of the Copenhagen University demographer Hans Oluf Hansen, Berlingske Tidende, August 21, 2005.
The Obama administration’s anti-Israel sentiment knows no bounds. The latest example involves the denial of a security clearance to a Jewish-American dentist, Dr. Gershon Pincus, on the grounds that he has “divided loyalties.” All that Dr. Pincus wanted to do was to use the experience and skills he had gained over a lifetime of private practice to give back to his country – the United States of America. He wanted to serve American troops as a dentist at an off-base U.S. Navy clinic. Nothing doing, decided the Obama administration after a second security investigation of the dentist. Using a McCarthyite guilt by association rationale, the dentist was disqualified because of his close family ties in Israel and the possible contact of his family members with their Israeli neighbors.
Dr. Pincus’s original security investigation had reached a positive conclusion: “There is nothing in subject’s background or character that would make him vulnerable to blackmail, extortion, coercion or duress.” That should have ended the matter. After all, Dr. Pincus was not applying for a sensitive job in the Department of Defense or the CIA. He was simply seeking to provide dental services at an off-base U.S. Naval clinic.
However, the Obama administration was not through investigating Dr. Pincus. It ordered a second investigation, conducted this time by a contract investigator sent by the Office of Personnel Management. The bill of particulars resulting from this second investigation are set out in the “Statement of Reasons” for denying Dr. Pincus’s request for security clearance. They included such shocking details as the fact that the dentist’s ailing mother now lives in Israel along with his brother and sister. He sends money to his mother to help her pay her rent. He calls his family members and has even visited Israel three times in the last eight years for his father’s funeral, his niece’s wedding and to see his mother. Dr. Pincus’s deceased son was a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and also served for six months in the Israeli Army.
“Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern due to divided loyalties or financial foreign interests,” quoted the Statement of Reasons from the federal government’s Adjudicative Guideline B – Foreign Influence. They “may be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interests.”
Just regurgitating this expression of security concerns from the Guideline is meaningless without considering the context in which it is supposed to be applied. Guideline B lists a number of mitigating circumstances that investigators are expected to take into account, among which are whether “the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the U.S.”
In Dr. Pincus’s case, the Statement of Reasons explaining the decision to deny his security clearance does not point to any security risk posed by the dentist himself or his relatives living in Israel. There is not a single shred of evidence cited, including any questionable statements or associations, which calls into question the loyalty of Dr. Pincus’s family members to the United States. Nor are any activities referenced that could pose a conflict of interest for Dr. Pincus in serving as a dentist at the Navy clinic. The dentist’s son who had served in the Israeli army is no longer alive. His mother is ailing. His brother does not want to become an Israeli citizen. His sister does hold dual citizenship, but there is nothing to indicate that she is in a position of influence in Israel that would force Dr. Pincus to have to choose between Israel’s interests and the interests of the United States, assuming there were even a circumstance in which his dental activities and access to the Navy clinic could cause a problem.
Moreover, the Statement of Reasons admits that Dr. Pincus himself has “no intentions of moving to Israel, or obtaining Israeli citizenship.” Nevertheless, the second investigation led to his disqualification.
This disgraceful decision was not an isolated occurrence. Although subject to an appeal, there is not much cause for optimism that it will be reversed. A Wall Street Journal Op Ed by Bret Stephens reported that “there have been a total of 58 cases in which Israeli ties were a significant factor in the decision. Of these, 36 applicants—an astonishing 62% of the total—lost their appeals and had their clearance applications denied.”
Contrast the arbitrary, discriminatory treatment of a Jewish American dentist who has family ties to Israel with a Muslim American who has family ties to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter, Huma Abedin, was allowed to serve in the Obama State Department and remains a close confidante of Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s Office of Personnel Management and State Department evidently did not consider Ms. Abedin a security risk for a much more sensitive job than serving as a dentist at an off-base Navy clinic, despite the following undisputed facts:
1. Although born in the United States, Huma Abedin grew up in Saudi Arabia, where her parents were recruited by Abdullah Omar Naseef (a jihadist affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Muslim World League) to establish an organization known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). The principle underlying the notion of Muslim Minority Affairs is to discourage assimilation of Muslim minority populations into the culture and society of their host non-Muslim majority countries. Such separatism would enable the Muslim minority population to grow over time and expand the influence of sharia law in their host countries.
2. Huma Abedin returned to the United States from Saudi Arabia to attend George Washington University, where she was an executive board member of George Washington University’s Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim Students Association.
3. Huma’s late father founded IMMA’s Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, now run by Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin. Saleha Abedin is a sociologist with ties to numerous jihadist organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood. She has directed the Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which supports the implementation of strict sharia law. Saleha Abedin still lives in Saudi Arabia.
4. Huma Abedin served as an assistant editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for twelve years, leaving shortly before she joined the State Department in 2009. The first seven of the years in which Huma was an assistant editor overlapped with the al-Qaeda-affiliated Naseef’s active presence at IMMA, including one year in which Huma and Naseef served together on the editorial board of the journal.
5. Huma Abedin did not distance herself from her mother, despite her mother’s jihadist views that place sharia law over man-made law and self-governance. In fact, Huma Abedin introduced Hillary Clinton to her mother during a visit to Saudi Arabia, while Hillary was serving as Secretary of State.
In short, Huma Abedin has a family connection to Saudi Arabia, the source of the Wahhabi jihadist ideology and the country where fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from. She grew up there. Huma’s mother is a well-known jihadist in Saudi Arabia still active in pushing a sharia law agenda that is antithetical in material respects to the Constitution of the United States and American values. Dr. Gershon Pincus has a mother, brother and sister living in Israel, which, at least prior to the Obama administration, has been our closest ally in the Middle East. His mother has dementia and neither she, nor Dr. Pincus’s siblings, have expressed any ideology incompatible with the U.S. Constitution or American values.
Yet Huma Abedin, a self-proclaimed “proud Muslim,” slid through her security screening to a highly sensitive job at the State Department and is now a key adviser to the leading Democratic candidate for president. No such luck for Dr. Pincus, who just wanted to take care of the dental needs of some Navy personnel. If this isn’t an example of blatant discrimination against American Jews with family members living in Israel, then pray tell what is?
Yusuf Ibrahim Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times
[In a different case in 2013,] the police, politicians, the press and professors (i.e., the Establishment) have shown not the slightest interest in the Islamic angle, treating the double beheadings and amputations as a routine local murder. Symptomatic of this, the police report about Ibrahim’s arrest makes no mention of motivation; on the basis of this lack of mention, left-leaning Snopes.com (which describes itself as the “definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation”) goes so far as to dismiss as “false” the allegation that the mainstream media “deliberately ignored” this incident. The wagons have been circled.
If the body politic understood the full extent of jihad in America, the alarm would be much greater; the percentage of those calling terrorism a critical issue would rise much higher than the current 75 percent. That, in turn, might push the Establishment finally to get serious about confronting jihad.
******************
The police and press did an impressive job of sleuthing into the lives and motives of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the married couple who massacred 14 people on Dec. 2, in San Bernardino, Calif.
We know about their families, their studies and employment histories, their travels, their marriage, their statements, and their preparations for the assault. Most importantly, the cascade of background work reveals that the pair had jihadi intentions, meaning they attacked in their role as pious Muslims spreading the message, law and sovereignty of Islam.
We are all better off for knowing these facts, which have had a powerful impact on the body politic, making Americans far more concerned with jihadi violence than at any time since just after Sept. 11, 2001, as they should be. For example, in 2011, 53 percent told a pollster that terrorism was a critical issue; that number has now reached 75 percent.
But what about the case of Yusuf Ibrahim? In early 2013, when he was 27, this Egyptian-born Muslim lived in Jersey City, when he allegedly shot, then cut off the heads and hands and knocked the teeth out of two Coptic Christians, Hanny F. Tawadros and Amgad A. Konds, then buried them in Buena Vista Township, N.J.
He is charged with two counts each of murder, felony murder, kidnapping, robbery, desecration of human remains, and other crimes. In addition, he has pleaded guilty to a Dec. 22, 2011, carjacking and a Sept. 20, 2012, armed robbery, both in Jersey City (in the latter, he shot his victim in the foot). Early in 2015, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for these later crimes.
The twin beheadings were spectacular, gruesome and replete with jihadi (or in police parlance, “terrorist”) elements. Historian Timothy Furnish explains that “ritual beheading has a long precedent in Islamic theology and history,” making it a distinctly Muslim form of execution. A Muslim killing a non-Muslim fits the ageless pattern of Islamic supremacism. It also fits a tragic pattern of behavior in the United States in recent years.
Yet the police, politicians, the press and professors (i.e., the Establishment) have shown not the slightest interest in the Islamic angle, treating the double beheadings and amputations as a routine local murder. Symptomatic of this, the police report about Ibrahim’s arrest makes no mention of motivation; on the basis of this lack of mention, left-leaning Snopes.com (which describes itself as the “definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation”) goes so far as to dismiss as “false” the allegation that the mainstream media “deliberately ignored” this incident. The wagons have been circled.
Almost three years after the event, we know next-to-nothing about Ibrahim, his motives, his possible connections to others, or his institutional affiliations. We also do not know the relationship of the accused attacker to his victims: Was he a criminal who fell out with his accomplices, a friend who had drunk too much, a would-be lover knocking off his rivals for the affections of a woman, a family member eliminating aspirants for an inheritance, a crazy man randomly shooting passers-by? Or was he perhaps a jihadi seeking to spread the message, law, and sovereignty of Islam?
I cannot answer those questions because the case lingers in total obscurity, popping up from time to time only in connection with some technical procedural matter (such as the amount of Ibrahim’s bail or the admissibility of his confession) that sheds no light on the motives for his alleged crime.
Nor is the Ibrahim case unusual. There are long lists of other potential instances of jihadi violence in which the Establishment has colluded to sweep the Islamic dimension under the rug, treating the perpetrators as common criminals whose biographies, motives and connections are of no interest and, therefore, remain unknown.
This silence about possible jihad has the major consequence of lulling the American public (and its counterparts elsewhere in the West) into believing jihadi violence is far rarer than is the case. If the body politic understood the full extent of jihad in America, the alarm would be much greater; the percentage of those calling terrorism a critical issue would rise much higher than the current 75 percent. That, in turn, might push the Establishment finally to get serious about confronting jihad.
(Something similar seems to be happening in America. I don’t wonder why, since only “widows and three year old orphans” are on the rampage. It must be due to Islamophobia, racism and other non-multicultural, anti-German-values notions. The obvious solution is to ban all guns and other weapons for Germans.– DM)
♦ The scramble to acquire weapons comes amid an indisputable nationwide spike in migrant-driven crime, including rapes of German women and girls on a shocking scale, as well as physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies and burglaries — in cities and towns throughout the country.
♦ German authorities, however, are going to great lengths to argue that the German citizenry’s sudden interest in self-defense has nothing whatsoever to do with mass migration into the country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
♦ The spike in violent crimes committed by migrants has been corroborated by a leaked confidential police report, which reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 crimes a day — is only a fragment: many crimes are not reported.
♦ “Anyone who asks for the reasons for the surge in weapons purchases encounters silence.” — Süddeutsche Zeitung
Germans, facing an influx of more than one million asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, are rushing to arm themselves.
All across Germany, a country with some of the most stringent gun-control laws in Europe, demand is skyrocketing for non-lethal self-defense weapons, including pepper sprays, gas pistols, flare guns, electroshock weapons and animal repellants. Germans are also applying for weapons permits in record numbers.
The scramble to acquire weapons comes amid a migrant-driven surge in violent crimes — including rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults — in cities and towns throughout the country.
German authorities, however, are going to great lengths to argue that the German citizenry’s sudden interest in self-defense has nothing whatsoever to do with mass migration into the country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.
The German daily newspaper Die Welt recently produced a video report about Germany’s surge in sales of self-defense weapons, which was titled “The Weapons Business is Profiting from the Refugee Crisis.” (Image source: Die Welt video screenshot)
Since Germany’s migration crisis exploded in August 2015, nationwide sales of pepper spray have jumped by 600%, according to the German newsmagazine, Focus. Supplies of the product are now completely sold out in many parts of the country and additional stocks will not become available until 2016. “Manufacturers and distributors say the huge influx of foreigners in recent weeks has apparently frightened many people,” Focus reports.
According to KH Security, a German manufacturer of self-defense products, demand is up by a factor of five, and sales in September 2015 — the month when the implications of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door migration policy began to dawn on many Germans — were the highest since the company was founded 25 years ago. The company says there is an increased demand not only for self-defense weapons, but also for home alarm systems.
Another manufacturer of self-defense products, the Frankfurt-based company DEF-TEC Defense Technology, has reported a 600% increase in sales this fall. According to CEO Kai Prase:
“Things took off beginning in September. Since then, our dealers have been totally overrun. We have never experienced anything like this in the 21 years of our corporate history. Fear: This is not rational. The important term is: ‘refugee crisis.'”
The same story is being repeated across Germany. According to the public broadcaster, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, citizens in Saxony can regularly be seen queuing up in large numbers waiting for gun shops to open.
A store owner in the Saxon town of Pirna said he is now selling up to 200 cans of pepper spray each day, compared to five cans a week before the migrant crisis began. He said he is seeing many new customers who are not the typical clientele, including women of all ages and men who are buying weapons for their wives.
Günter Fritz, the owner of a gun shop in Ebersbach, another town in Saxony, told RTL News, “Since September, all over Germany, also at my shop, sales of self-defense products have exploded.” He added that his clients come from all walks of life, ranging “from the professor to the retired lady. All are afraid.”
Andreas Reinhardt, a gun shop owner in the northern German town of Eutin, said he now sells four to five self-defense weapons each day, compared to around two per month before the recent influx of asylum seekers. “The current social upheaval is clearly driving the current rush to self-defense,” he said. “I never thought that fear would spread so quickly,” he added.
Eric Thiel, the owner of a gun shop in Flensburg, a city on the Baltic Sea coast, said that pepper spray is no longer available: “Everything is sold out. New supplies will not arrive until March. Everything that has to do with self-defense is booming enormously.”
Wolfgang Mayer, the owner of a gun shop in Nördlingen, a town in Bavaria, said he has an explanation for the surge in gun licenses: “I think with the influx of refugees, the rise in break-ins and the many tricksters, the people are demanding greater protection.”
Mayer added that there is a growing sense within German society that the state cannot adequately protect its citizens and therefore they have to better protect themselves. “Since the summer, sales of pepper spray have increased by 50%,” Mayer said, adding that buyers are mainly women, of all ages — from the student in the city up to the widowed grandmother.
Pepper spray and other types of non-lethal self-defense weapons are legal in Germany, but a permit is required to carry and use some categories of them. Officials in all of Germany’s 16 federal states are reporting a spike in applications for such permits, known as the small weapons license (kleinen Waffenschein).
In the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein, nearly 10,000 people now hold a small weapons license, an “all-time record level,” according to the regional interior ministry. Retailers in the state are also reporting an “unprecedented surge” in sales of self-defense weapons, with supplies of pepper spray sold out until the spring of 2016.
In Saxony, retailers are reporting an unprecedented boom in sales of pepper spray, tear gas, gas pistols and even cross bows. Some stores are now selling more self-defense weapons in one day than they did in an entire month before the migrant crisis began.
Saxon officials are also reporting a jump in the number of people applying for the full-fledged firearms license (großen Waffenschein). The rush to arms can be attributed to a “subjective decline in the people’s sense of security,” Saxon Interior Minister Markus Ulbig said.
In Berlin, the number of people holding a small weapons license increased by 30% during the first ten months of 2015 compared to the same period in 2014, while the number of those holding the full-fledged firearms license jumped by some 50%, according to local police.
In Bavaria, more than 45,000 people now hold a small weapons license, 3,000 more than in 2014. This represents a “significant increase,” according to the regional interior ministry. As in other parts of Germany, Bavarian retailers are also reporting a boom in sales of self-defense weapons, including gas pistols, flare guns and pepper spray.
In Stuttgart, the capital city of Baden-Württemberg, local gun shops are reporting a four-fold increase in sales of self-defense weapons since August. One shop owner said she now sells more weapons in one week than she normally sells in one month. She added that she has never seen such high demand.
In Heilbronn, another city in Baden-Württemberg, local officials report that sales of pepper spray have doubled in 2015. According to one shopkeeper, the demand for pepper spray began surging in August, when many mothers started purchasing the product for their school-aged daughters. “Our clients are extremely afraid,” the shopkeeper said. “We are seeing this everywhere.”
In Gera, a city in Thuringia, local media reported that at one store, the entire inventory of 120 cans of pepper spray was sold out within three hours. The store, which subsequently sold out of another batch of 144 cans, is now on a waiting list to obtain more because of supplier shortfalls.
A woman in Gera who bought pepper spray for her 16-year-old daughter said:
“I think it is fundamentally proper for me to protect my daughter. She is at that age where she is out alone in the evening. If she says she needs this for protection, I think this is not unjustified. Of course, due to the current situation that we now have in Germany. We just do not know who is here. There are quite a lot of people who are not registered.”
Apologists for mass migration are accusing German citizens of overreacting. Some point to recent studies — commissioned by pro-migration groups — which claim, implausibly, that the number of crimes committed by migrants is decreasing, not increasing.
Others deny that the rush to self-defense has anything to do with migrants at all. They blame a variety of different factors, including the early darkness associated with the end of daylight savings time, the jihadist attacks in Paris (which occurred in November, three months after sales of self-defense weapons began to spike), and the need for protection from wild wolves in parts of northern Germany.
The Süddeutsche Zeitungdescribed the deception this way:
“Anyone who asks for the reasons for the surge in weapons purchases encounters silence. Officially, the regulatory agencies say that anyone who applies for the small weapons license does not need to provide a justification and therefore the government offices have no explanation. ‘But it is true that sometimes we clearly get the message that they are afraid because of the refugees,’ says one, on condition that his name and office will not be mentioned in the newspaper. ‘People have already told me: I want to protect my family.’ We have reported this to the Ministry…
“The retailers also say nothing officially about the reasons for the increase in sales. Call a small gun shop. Many refugees arrived at the end of August, and since September the numbers are up, can there not be a connection? ‘If you do not use my name: Sure, what else?’ Says the man on the phone. The people who come to the store are afraid. They believe that among the refugees there are ‘black sheep.’ Some customers openly admit it.”
Empirical evidence shows an indisputable nationwide spike in migrant-driven crime, includingrapes of German women and girls on a shocking scale, as well as sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking.
The spike in violent crimes committed by migrants has been corroborated by a confidential police report leaked to a German newspaper. The document reveals that a record-breaking 38,000 asylum seekers were accused of committing crimes in the country in 2014. Analysts believe this figure — which works out to more than 100 crimes a day — is only a fragment: many crimes are not reported.
Not surprisingly, a new poll shows that 55% of Germans are pessimistic about the future, up from 31% in 2014 and 28% in 2013. The poll shows that 42% of those between the ages of 14 and 34 believe their future will be bleak; this is more than double the number of those (19%) who felt this way in 2013. At the same time, 64% of those aged 55 and above are fearful about the future.
The poll also shows that four-fifths (79%) of the German population believe the economy will deteriorate in 2016 due to the financial burdens created by the migration crisis, and 70% believe that member states of the European Union will drift further apart in the coming year. The most predictable finding of all: 87% of Germans believe their politicians will experience a decline in public support during 2016.
(The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Judeo-Christian civilization has nothing in common with, and nothing to gain from, Islamic civilization as it now exists. They have been clashing for centuries. Now, Islamic civilization appears to be winning in much of the European Union and, to a lesser degree, in America.
Can anything be done to slow and then to halt the spread of fundamentalist Islam? Ayan Hirsi Ali hopes there is and that Muslims will do it. I also hope they will, but am quite dubious that it will happen in the foreseeable future. We need to take other steps promptly.
Preliminary disclosure
As I wrote here in 2012, I am an Agnostic and have been for more than half a century. I do not believe that one or more Gods exist, nor do I believe that none exist. I simply do not know and have no way to know. However, Judeo-Christian society has given me what I love most, freedom to think and to speak as I choose. That freedom is now under severe attack and is withering away. Far too few Christians and Jews seem to have noticed or to care.
When I was in tenth grade, my parents and I decided that I would have a better chance of being admitted to and succeeding at a good college if I were to transfer from public high school to a private high school. We researched area private schools and settled upon St. Stephen’s School for Boys, an Episcopalian school. The headmaster was an Episcopalian priest. During my admissions interview, I volunteered that I was an Agnostic. It did not seem to bother him, but he told me that I would be required to attend a daily religious opening ceremony and, during my senior year, a weekly sacred studies class which he would lead. The first did not bother me and I looked forward to the second.
During the morning religious ceremonies, I stood when the other boys stood and sat when they sat. When they sang hymns and recited creeds and bible verses, I did not. Nobody seemed to notice. During the sacred studies class, I voiced my views, the other boys voiced theirs and the Headmaster voiced his. Our discussions were collegial, not contentious.
These experiences have colored my views of Judeo-Christian culture as it has evolved through today: with increasing exceptions, it remains a culture of freedom and kindness. Sometimes, as with outreach to Islamists, it goes too far. Christian outreach to fundamentalist Islam is like bone cells inviting cancer cells in to discuss how they can be friends and get along. In the end, they can’t and won’t. The cancer cells will thrive and the owner of the infested bones will die painfully.
Fundamentalist Islam is a culture of compulsion and hate
Americans should learn far more than we have from the recent experiences of Sweden, Germany, England, France and other European Union countries in welcoming Muslims to Islamise their cultures. I posted a lengthy article on that on December 13th. If you haven’t read it yet, please do so now. It provides very helpful background for an understanding of the clash of Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations.
Here is a lengthy video by Walid Shoebat, once an Islamic jihadist and now a Roman Catholic opponent of Islam. Born in “Palestine,” he imbibed the Islamic culture of hate and compulsion as a youth, as did most of his acquaintances. Eventually, he changed from what he was to what he now is.
Here’s are Shoebat’s 2007 comments:
Most of Shoebat’s comments are consistent with my understanding of present-day Islam, which is largely fundamentalist, of “Palestine” and of its leaders. Here are videos of three who lead the “heroes of Palestine:”
Here’s are Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s 2015 comments on the possibility of an Islamic reformation, for which she argues in her recent book Heretic. (I just bought the Kindle version. After I have read it, I may post an article about it.) A former Muslim and now an Athiest, she is far more conciliatory than was Shoebat because she wants to promote change for the better within Islam. In her closing comments, she offers hope that someday Muslims will become as tolerant and peaceful as Christians and Jews. She does not expect that to happen during her life time, or for a long time thereafter. At seventy-four, I certainly don’t expect it during my remaining time on Earth.
Education today in Obama’s America
Obama’s America has become a multicultural, moral-equivalence based society dominated by political correctness. Many — including some nominal Christians and Jews — rail against Christianity and Judaism. Islam, on the other hand, has become a protected species: any suggestion that it is evil is condemned as “Islamophobic.”
At my alma mater, Yale (1959 – 63), freedom of speech and of thought now take back seats to politically correct condemnations of anything that anyone (except Christians and Jews) might find offensive.
I understand that the same sickness is spreading throughout the country. Maybe some fine day we will have an educational system like this:
Efforts to spread multicultural, moral-equivalence and hence Islamic values are not confined to our colleges. According to an article by The Clarion Project,
Controversy over the way public schools are presenting Islam has been making headlines in many school districts around the U.S. and worldwide:
♦ In Tennessee, a bill was introduced to prevent schools from teaching classes on “religious doctrine” before the 10th grade. The bill is in reaction to objections by parents to a three-week curriculum under the topic of world religion for middle-school students that covers the “Five Pillars of Islam” that obligated children to write assignments about Islamic principles of faith, such as “Allah is the only God.” Parents particularly objected because no other religion was taught at the same time and the amount of time spent on Islam was considerably more than that spent on any other religion.
♦ In Maryland, parents objected to the way Islam was taught in the school’s “World History” class, presenting Islam in an historically untrue way and listing all the “benefits” of Islam.
♦ After being threatened with a lawsuit, an Ohio school district agreed to remove a video about Islam from a seventh grade world-history curriculum that was challenged as falling under the category of proselytizing and favoring one religion over another (a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause). The video, titled 30 Days: Muslim and America, features a young Christian man who agrees to totally immerse himself in Islam for a month by living with a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan. It was shown to students as part of a course that requires students to “describe achievements by the Islamic civilization and how these achievements were introduced into Western Europe in the time period between 750 BC – 1600AD.”
♦ In Massachusetts, the Wellesley Middle School, another public school was caught in a controversy when a video (see below) of a student trip to the Roxbury megamosque was released. On the trip, students were taught propaganda – among other things, that Muslim women got the vote before women in the West – by the mosque staff. The boys can be seen prostrating themselves to Allah alongside Muslim men. The video was covered extensively on Boston TV and radio.
♦ In Massachusetts, the Newton public school system became enmeshed in a similar controversy about deceptive and anti-Semitic lessons concerning Muslim women being taught to their students. Even though the curriculum was removed, school administrators refused to tell the children the information was inaccurate (as was the case above with the Wellesley Middle School).
Here’s the referenced video of a 2010 high school trip to a mosque in Newton, Massachusetts:
Fethullah Gulen’s movement is just one more manifestation of what the Muslim Brotherhood has called civilization jihad, albeit a particularly sinister one with its large footprint, penetration of our educational system and well-established, sophisticated and successful influence operations. With this new monograph – the [eighth] in the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Readers Series, we hope to sound an alarm about this multi-faceted and dangerous Islamic supremacist cult that – despite significant setbacks in its native Turkey – constitutes a true Trojan Horse in our midst. [Emphasis added.]
It must be noted that those setbacks [in Turkey] are being dealt the Gulen cult and its empire by a rival Islamic supremacist movement: the AK Party and government of Turkish President Recep Tayyep Erdogan. Like erstwhile allies in organized criminal racketeering, these two Islamist mafia dons have had a toxic falling-out after they jointly took down the Ataturk legacy of secular governance in Turkey. Welcome as the rolling up of the Gulen empire and the extradition of its cult leader from the United States would be, nothing in this monograph should be seen as an endorsement of the no-less problematic Erdogan regime’s civilization jihadism and its ambitions to restore the Caliphate.
The state of Hesse has become the first in Germany to offer Islamic education in public schools, with religious instruction starting as early as the first grade.
Giving young children religious and moral instruction might sound like a good idea, if not for the content of the newly written Islamic curriculum and the influence of Islamist elements over the recruitment of teachers. [Emphasis added.]
The writing of textbooks is being overseen by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB). In an agreement reached between the State of Hesse and DITIB, the organization will play a key role in setting the curriculum, selecting the teachers and monitoring the Islamic religious instruction. The organization is apparently assuming a similar role in several other key German states. [Emphasis added.]
DITIB is the largest Muslim organization in Germany and controls several prominent mosques. The group depends heavily on the Turkish government for its funding, and maintains close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist party, the AKP.
Our “great ally” Saudi Arabia is also spending lots of money to promote fundamentalist Islam.
[T]he Kingdom funded Western tax exempt Islamic organizations engaged in dawah (proselytization for Islam). Among them were networks of charitable organizations that provide financial aid to prisoners (including non-Muslims to lure them to Islam) in Western jails, lavishly funded academic chairs in Middle East Studies in universities around the world, student-exchange programs and spending many millions of dollars to increase Saudi political influence in the West — even contributing $100 million to coordinate and assist the United Nations international counterterrorism efforts.
. . . .
The public outrage and rejection of Saudi King Salman’s offer to fund 200 new mosques for more than 800,000 new Muslim refugees in Germany, and the Vice Chancellor’s statement: “We have to make clear to the Saudis that the time of looking away is over” point in the right direction. But don’t hold your breath. Germany, the United States and the rest of the West have been turning a blind eye to Saudi funding of thousands of mosques, madrassas and Islamic centers that have propagated radical Islamic ideology for decades and are unlikely to face reality anytime soon. [Emphasis added.]
Far from being limited to a number of elitist leaders and institutions, the Western empowerment of the jihad is the natural outcome of postmodern thinking—the real reason an innately weak Islam can be a source of repeated woes for a militarily and economically superior West. [Emphasis added.]
Remember, the reason people like French President Francois Hollande, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in power—three prominent Western leaders who insist that Islam is innocent of violence and who push for Muslim immigration—is because they embody a worldview that is normative in the West. [Emphasis added.]
In this context, the facilitation of jihadi terror is less a top down imposition and more a grass root product of decades of erroneous, but unquestioned, thinking. (Those who believe America’s problems begin and end with Obama would do well to remember that he did not come to power through a coup but that he was voted in—twice. This indicates that Obama and the majority of voting Americans have a shared, and erroneous, worldview. He may be cynically exploiting this worldview, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s because this warped worldview is mainstream that he can exploit it in the first place.) [Emphasis added.]
Western empowerment of the jihad is rooted in a number of philosophies that have metastasized into every corner of social life, becoming cornerstones of postmodern epistemology. These include the doctrines of relativism and multiculturalism on the one hand, and anti-Western, anti-Christian sentiment on the other. [Emphasis added.]
Taken together, these cornerstones of postmodern, post-Christian thinking hold that there are no absolute truths and thus all cultures are fundamentally equal and deserving of respect. If any Western person wants to criticize a civilization or religion, then let them look “inwardly” and acknowledge their European Christian heritage as the epitome of intolerance and imperialism. [Emphasis added.]
Add to these a number of sappy and silly ideals—truth can never be uttered because it might “hurt the feelings” of some (excluding white Christians who are free game), and if anything, the West should go out of its way to make up for its supposedly historic “sins” by appeasing Muslims until they “like us”—and you have a sure recipe for disaster, that is, the current state of affairs. [Emphasis added.]
Western people are bombarded with these aforementioned “truths” from the cradle to the grave—from kindergarten to university, from Hollywood to the news rooms, and now even in churches—so that they are unable to accept and act on a simple truism that their ancestors well knew: Islam is an inherently violent and intolerant creed that cannot coexist with non-Islam (except insincerely, in times of weakness). [Emphasis added.]
The essence of all this came out clearly when Obama, in order to rationalize away the inhuman atrocities of the Islamic State, counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that their Christian ancestors have been guilty of similar if not worse atrocities. That he had to go back almost a thousand years for examples by referencing the crusades and inquisition—both of which have been completely distorted by the warped postmodern worldview, including by portraying imperialist Muslims as victims—did not matter to America’s leader.
Worse, it did not matter to most Americans. The greater lesson was not that Obama whitewashed modern Islamic atrocities by misrepresenting and demonizing Christian history, but that he was merely reaffirming the mainstream narrative that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing. And thus, aside from the usual ephemeral and meaningless grumblings, his words—as with many of his pro-Islamic, anti-Christian comments and policies—passed along without consequence. [Emphasis added.]
Conclusions
Too many of “We the people” demand “safe spaces” (offense-free zones) where rote acceptance of politically correct pablum is cherished rather than contested or even questioned. I doubt that another massively successful effort on the scale of the September 11, 2001 attack by Islamic fundamentalists would awaken many of them. Rather than begin to awaken and see what Islam is, how many would angrily demand to know what America did this time to offend our brothers and sisters of the Religion of Peace, Truth and love?
We once had a great culture and a great nation.
It is now fading and is in danger of being displaced by something far different and evil. What will WE do?
Getting rid of Obama will not be nearly enough, regardless of whether He is a Muslim.
Listen again to Ayan Hirsi Ali’s hopes for the reformation of Islam and think about what we can do to help. Read about Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who wants to make Muslims believe that much of fundamentalist Islam is not Islamic.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser – a Navy vet and founder of the American Islamic Forum of Democracy – is one of those individuals taking the stand against Islamic organizations that support terrorism and claim to speak for the entire community. From Fox News:
“CAIR is a primary obstacle in the effort of many honest American Muslims who recognize our need to own up and lead long-overdue reforms against the root causes of radicalization: Islamism and its separatism,” said Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an ex-U.S. Navy officer who founded and heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
and
“CAIR’s information is marketed and packaged so it seems that they speak for all of us, but they don’t speak for me and my group,” said Raheel Raza, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. “CAIR does not and has never represented the majority Muslim voices which are as diverse as Muslims in America.”
‘They don’t speak for me’: New Muslim groups reject CAIR representation http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/18/dont-speak-for-me-new-muslim-groups-reject-cair-representation.html
Dr. Jasser has assembled an alliance known as the “Muslim Reform Movement” consisting of about a dozen moderate Islamic groups in the US, Canada and Europe. This movement rebukes jihad and advocates the separation of “Mosque and state,” among other things. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that they reject the idea of an “Islamic State” and Sharia Law.
Although political correctness prevents Democrats and many Republicans from admitting it, it is already well established that CAIR has ties to terrorism.
CAIR, which masquerades as America’s largest Muslim civil rights group, is an outpost of international jihadism. It is an enemy propaganda organization whose longstanding ties to the terrorist underworld have been exhaustively documented at DiscoverTheNetworks and elsewhere. CAIR aims to influence America’s domestic and foreign policies. CAIR wants to make America safe for Sharia law by bullying Americans into not questioning Islam, a religion-centered ideology that has been generating a body count for 1,400 years. [Emphasis added.]
Accusing critics of so-called Islamophobia, a term invented by Islamists, is CAIR’s favorite method of silencing critics and opponents. It is part of a dangerous effort to discourage Americans from thinking freely and arriving at their own conclusions about Islam and mainstream the tenets of Islam in our society. The idea is to eventually make it as difficult and uncomfortable as possible to criticize the faith founded by Muhammad in the seventh century after the birth of Christ. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.” CAIR opened an office in the nation’s capital with a $5,000 grant from the Marzook-founded Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a charity that the Bush administration shuttered in 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization.” CAIR called the action “unjust” and “disturbing.” In 2004 Marzook was indicted on racketeering charges related to his pro-Hamas activities. Ahmad was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Ghassan Elashi, a co-founder of the Texas branch of CAIR, was convicted in 2005 of terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to 80 months in prison. CAIR civil rights director Randall Todd Royer was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on federal weapons and explosives charges in 2004. Bassem Khafagi, a community affairs director at CAIR, was convicted in 2003 on bank and visa fraud charges and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Rabih Haddad, a fundraiser for CAIR’s chapter in Ann Arbor, Mich., was detained in 2001 after overstaying his tourist visa. Authorities found a firearm and boxes of ammunition in his home. He served 19 months in prison and was deported to Lebanon in 2003. CAIR board member Abdurahman Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years imprisonment for funneling at least $1 million to al-Qaeda. CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. The three men, reports DiscoverTheNetworks, “had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook and founded as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States.”
CAIR and related Islamist organizations have often participated in White House meetings; Dr. Jasser and his group have been excluded.
[F]or the past seven years, the Obama White House has opened its doors to the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups, just like CAIR. These groups have rationalized the actions of Islamic terrorist groups that have killed Americans, warned American Muslims against cooperating with law enforcement, smeared genuine Muslim moderates like Zuhdi Jasser and Asra Nomani as traitors and accused anyone who dared to utter the term “radical Islam” as “Islamophobic.” These are the groups that the White House should have marginalized. The fact that Obama legitimized radical Islamist groups will be his real legacy.
Is Dr. Jasser’s version of Islam “fantasy Islam?” Historically and presently, it unfortunately is. It rejects aspects of Islamism with which very many Muslims agree.
But need that remain the case? Christianity has changed since the time of the Inquisition and perhaps Islam — which except technologically remains stuck in the middle ages — can eventually change as well — if and when Islamic nations encourage, rather than prohibit, free speech. I have seen few significant signs of that happening. Egyptian President Sisi — despised by Obama for opposing the Muslim Brotherhood — has tried and is trying. He may not be around much longer because of it.
Jasser’s hopes for the future generally parallel those of Ayan Hirsi Ali, who wants Islam to revert to relatively tolerant and peaceful Mecca Islam and to reject subsequent Medina Islam, the fruit of Mohamed’s greatly changed status in Medina to become a powerful warlord. I see little reason to expect that it will change in that direction even in the distant future, and less that it will do so soon. I hope that I am wrong.
In any event, Muslims will need to do most of the work themselves, and that will require that there be enough of them to do it. If and when that happens, perhaps we can help a little. The most important things that we can do will be to
1. Recognize that fundamentalist Islam is evil and shun rather than accept those who espouse it, such as CAIR and its affiliates and
2. Prevent the further invasion of the United States (it may well be too late for Obama’s America) by Muslims who adhere to fundamentalist Islam. Unfortunately, most of our current crop of Republicans seem quite unlikely even to try.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments