Archive for the ‘Muslim mayor of London’ category

Muslim mayor of London to Americans: Get used to terrorism

September 23, 2016

Muslim mayor of London to Americans: Get used to terrorism, American Thinker, Deborah C. Tyler, September 23, 2016

While visiting New York City on 9/21, London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan evidenced mild chagrin in saying terrorist attacks should be seen as “part and parcel of living in a big city.”  He added, “It is a reality, I’m afraid, that London, New York, and other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.”

Mayor Khan makes it clear that preparing for the sort of thing that causes streets to run with the blood of dozens of innocents should not involve a military response.  He advocates police staying “in touch with communities” and “exchanging ideas and best practices.”

Two aspects of conditioned helplessness are being inflicted on the citizens of Europe and the USA, numbing and incapacitating them enough to surrender their national sovereignty and traditional ways of life to the deepening darkness of globalism.  One aspect is the increasingly laughable harangue by left-wing politicians that patriotic people are racio/phobio/blah-blah-blahists suffering cases of blah-blah-blahism.  Americans receive a new mental diagnosis every week, and they all indicate something very, very bad about us.  President Obama doesn’t pass up a chance to insult the American people, preferably in front of an international audience.  Hillary brought a bit of literary flair to her insults with the “basket of deplorables” remark.  Shoulder to shoulder with the other prominent destroyers of great nation-states and proud developers of lawless tribal territories, Mayor Khan didn’t miss the chance to denigrate the tens of millions of Americans who support Donald Trump.  Khan’s racist-shmacist in-your-face-ist shot was that the Trump movement is “driven by scapegoating.”

But there is a deeper, more psychologically crippling aspect to the mass psychology of globalist takeover then the vilification of patriots, and Khan has chosen to spearhead it.  In his original learned helplessness experiments (now widely considered unethical), psychologist Martin Seligman electrically shocked dogs, which were divided into groups that could or could not do something to stop the shocks.  The dogs for whom the shocks were inescapable developed what Seligman called learned helplessness.  The most helpless dogs simply gave up, lay down, and whimpered.

The mayor of London has just said to all of us, you are those dogs, and there will be inescapable shocks causing death around you.  These shocking events will kill ordinary people like you and your family in the mundane places we all need to go to.  Get used to it.  Accept it.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.

Obama, Hillary, and Khan are committed globalists in the process of dismantling the geographic, legal, and traditional integrity of their respective nations.  But the American and British people are at different stages of conditioning of helplessness to resist.  Therefore, the statements of Obama and Hillary and Khan take different tacks in the normalization of terrorism.  Obama and Hillary are at the stage of insulting Americans’ intelligence about terrorism.  When a white kid commits a heinous mass murder in a church, they know exactly what happened and why it happened, and, as it should be, the outpouring of grief is enormous.  Following each Islamic terrorist attack, Obama and Hillary display the now familiar head-bobbling confusion and say, “We don’t know what just happened, and we don’t know why.”  Their expression of grief is slow in coming if it comes at all.

But England and America have very different histories.  We are an armed population founded on a God-given responsibility to defend ourselves.  Americans are not ready to hear that Islamic terrorism is part and parcel of their everyday lives, uncontrollable as the weather.

The British people are sufficiently crushed in spirit to hear the mayor of London say that what happened in New York during his visit was terrorism and it’s no big deal.  Khan leads the way in saying the lethal terrorism “thing” will be happening over and over around you, so lie down, whimper like the helpless experimental dogs, and get used to it.

Normalizing terrorism with its constant, grinding fear is the greatest tool the globalists have to persuade citizens of the functional democracies to relinquish their borders and rights.  That fear is indispensable to Mayor Khan and to the leftist-globalist cause.  The Islamic terrorist is London’s new Jihadi-Bobbie.  He is walking, watching, and waiting in the streets by night and day, serving a cause, which, according to the city’s mayor, cannot be stopped.

New London Mayor: Submit or You Will be Less Safe

May 14, 2016

New London Mayor: Submit or You Will be Less Safe, Fox News via YouTube, May 13, 2016

Op-Ed: Trump versus the Muslim mayor of London

May 13, 2016

Op-Ed: Trump versus the Muslim mayor of London,  Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, May 13, 2016

First the good news about Sadiq Khan. In his first act as London’s newly elected Muslim mayor he attended a Holocaust memorial service.

Terrific.

Next we hear that he plans a trip to Israel. This is still good. But after that, and even before that, the news is not so good.

He says that if Trump is elected he won’t come to the United States. (Ain’t that a shame.)

Then he says that if Muslims will be prevented, or limited, from entering the United States there will be consequences. Expect Islamic violence.

If other words, we’re asking for it if we don’t elect someone entirely favorable to the Muslim world. This, of course, excludes Trump and favors Hillary.

But this…

We get Muslim violence regardless who is president, don’t we? We got 9/11 while George W. Bush was in office. Trump was nowhere in sight.

We got Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and other acts of Muslim violence while Obama was in office and no one’s been more favorable to the Muslim cause than Obama – except maybe LBJ. Back in 1965, LBJ signed into law the (Hart-Celler) Immigration and Naturalization Act that opened America’s doors wide open for Muslims.

Trump was nowhere to be seen when a Muslim Palestinian Arab, Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert Kennedy in 1968.

LBJ was president and we already know that LBJ’s heart was in the right place for Islam.

So why Trump, when it’s Mayor Khan who should be in the hot seat. The day after he was declared the winner, buses in London were driving along with signs declaring “Glory to Allah” and we imagine that Hamas were handing out candy in Gaza and likewise the PA in Ramallah.

Where – Trump might ask Mayor Khan – yes where is the Jewish mayor of Islamabad?

Or where is the Christian mayor anywhere in Pakistan, Mayor Khan’s ancestral home?

Let me answer – that’ll be the day.

So while the West celebrates itself for being so elaborately diverse, don’t even dream about diversity anywhere along the world’s 57 Islamic states.

Don’t plan on “Glory to Tolerance” buses running through the Maelbeek neighborhood of Brussels.

Only Western Democracies, like Britain, like the United States, like Israel, are expected to extend hospitality and equality – and we do.

In Israel, the Muslim population numbers more than one and a half million and these Palestinian Arab citizens enjoy full and equal rights.

The number for London alone is about 600,000 – “Glory to Allah.” Except that here’s another question from Trump to Khan.

What about the rape epidemic that’s been sweeping parts of London throughout the years?

Khan needs to answer for his Pakistani countrymen who are alleged to be the dominant assailants against thousands of British women and girls.

No wonder, then, that Trump keeps calling for a pause on migrating Syrian refugees.

Altogether, Trump says, we need to think twice about a Muslim influx. He’s appointing Mayor Rudy Giuliani to study the situation.

Mayor Khan may turn out to be an okay guy.

But he’s no Mayor Rudy, who can still smell the burning flesh from what they came and did to us on 9/11.

 

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?

May 8, 2016

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist? Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, May 8, 2016

Sadiq-Khan-HPSadiq Khan makes his acceptance speech. (Photo: Video screenshot)

Majid Nawaz’s assessment of London’s new Muslim mayor, the newly elected Sadiq Khan, is that he is not an Islamist extremist. He is merely a manipulative politician willing to use guile and duplicity to achieve his electoral aims — not so different from the average politician.

Leading up to the mayoral vote, questions arose about Khan’s association with extremists, which constitutes a long list in the new mayor’s political history.

Consider:

  • In 2001, Khan was the lawyer for the American radical Islamist group Nation of Islam, successfully arguing in front of the UK’s High Court to overturn the ban on its leader, Louis Farrakhan.
  • In 2003, Khan appeared at a conference with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the banned al-Muhajiroun group that was founded by hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad (now prohibited from entering the UK) and led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary (whose many organizations have been said to have contributed “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history”). Sajeel also ran a terrorist training camp in Pakistan attended by 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.
  • In 2004, Khan testified to the House of Commons as head of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee. As council legal head, Khan argued in parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.” Qaradawi (also banned in the UK for his extremist views) advocates, among other sharia principles, for wife beating and suicide bombings against Israeli citizens. After the murder of an Ahmadi Muslim in Scotland for wishing his Christian customers a peaceful Easter, the council “condemned” the incident by pointing out that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
  • Khan was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist and confessed member of Al Qaeda.
  • Khan attended events for the extremist group CAGE and wrote a forward for one of their reports. CAGE is a primary supporter of the Islamic State executioner known as “Jihadi John,” who they described as a “beautiful young man.”
  • Khan appeared on panels with Muslim community leader and cleric Suliman Gani, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), no less than nine times.
  • In 2010, Khan shamelessly played the Ahmadi card, flaring up sectarian hatred in his reelection bid to the parliament when faced with stiff competition from Nasser Butt, an Ahmadi who had opposed the war in Iraq unlike Khan who had voted in favor of it.

Defending himself against charges of extremism, Khan points to his record on supporting rights for homosexual and transsexual rights. Since he was first elected to parliament in 2005, that support has been unwavering.

Khan has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism. Most recently, he stated he was “embarrassed and sorrowful” about the glaring anti-Semitism that has been spotlighted in his own party.

As the Muslim Public Affairs Committee in the UK (MPAC-UK) derogatorily pointed out in a comment piece on their website posted just two days before the election, “A Vote for Sadiq Khan in the London Mayor Elections is a Vote for Israel.”

Much to MPAC-UK’s chagrin and dismay, Khan is an opponent of the anti-Israel BDS movement. Although he called for sanctions against Israel in 2009, he says he has since changed his mind.

On the last day of his campaign, it was revealed that in an interview Khan gave in 2009 on Iranian television, he referred to Muslims fighting extremism as “Uncle Toms.”  (He has since apologized.)

Still, Majid Nawaz insists that Khan is no extremist. Khan was Nawaz’s lawyer when he was arrested in Egypt for working for the banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nawaz, now a prominent counter extremism campaigner, says he is forever indebted to Khan for visiting him in Egypt’s Mazra Tora prison, “while the world gave up on me.”

Ironically, it was Nawaz’s counter-extremism foundation Quilliam that were targeted by Khan in his “Uncle Tom” remarks.

Nawaz refrained from commenting on Khan and his electoral bid until after the election. In his first piece penned after the election, Nawaz paints a picture of Khan as a realist (read: opportunistic) and consummate politician.

“When push comes to shove, gaining power becomes more important for politicians from all parties, than defending principles,” writes Nawaz. “And sadly, extremists remain among the most powerful organized forces in Britain’s Muslim grassroots.”

Nawaz explains the unfortunate political climate in today’s Britain: “By 2009, extremism had grown so rife among my own British Muslim community that, in a sign of our times, a Muslim government minister for Social Cohesion [Khan] would find it politically expedient to call a group of Muslims, who were not in government, ‘Uncle Toms’ simply for criticizing extremism.”

Yet, Nawaz doesn’t give Khan a free pass, saying, “It did not need to be like this. As a column in the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ‘Other Muslim leaders took a different approach.’

“The struggles that reforming liberal and ex-Muslims face every day, the dehumanization, the delegitimization, the excommunication, the outcasting, the threats, intimidation and the violence makes this inexcusable … Why is it okay for a mayor to have shared panels with all manner of Muslim extremists, while actively distancing himself from, and smearing, counter-extremist Muslims?”

A good question it would behoove the new mayor to answer.