Obama’s America | WarSclerotic | Page 8

Archive for the ‘Obama’s America’ category

Obama Names Official Linked to MB as Gov’t Liaison to Muslims

May 30, 2016

Obama Names Official Linked to MB as Gov’t Liaison to Muslims, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, May 30, 2016

Zaki-Barzinji-IP

Zaki Barzinji (Photo: White House)

The Obama Administration has chosen the grandson of a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect as its new liaison to the Muslim-American community. The new official also led the youth section of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an identified Muslim Brotherhood entity that was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial.

The official, Zaki Barzinji, previously served as the deputy director of intergovernmental affairs for Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (more on that further down in this article), who is now under investigation for possible political corruption. Before that, Barzinjiw as the president of the Muslim Youth of North America, whichdescribes itself as the youth wing of ISNA.

ISNA was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history, with the Justice Department specifically listing it as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood’s own documents list ISNA at the top of its list of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

ISNA’s links to the Brotherhood and Hamas are laid out in bipartisan legislation titled the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. The bill now has over 75 supporters in the House and Senate.

How did Zaki Barzinji rise through the ranks in ISNA and McAuliffe’s office to become the new associate director of public engagement for the White House?

He is the grandson of a prominent Islamist leader named Jamal Barzinji, who passed away last year. Indeed, Jamal Barzinji was a founder and/or senior official in virtually every group identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front in America. He also frequently donated to political campaigns. He was nearly prosecuted, but the Obama Justice Department dropped the planned indictment.

Zaki accepted an award on his grandfather’s behalf in 2013 at the Hamas/Brotherhood-linked Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Virginia, which the late Barzinji helped found. The mosque is most known for having Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki as its imam in 2001 before he officially joined the terrorist group.

Jamal Barzinji was most involved with the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). The group’s office, Jamal Barzinji’s home and the offices of other organizations that Jamal Barzinji was affiliated with were raided in 2002 as part of a terrorism investigation. The affidavit said has being investigated because of evidence leading the U.S. government to “believe that [Jamal] Barzinji is not only closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad (as evidenced by ties to [Sami] Al-Arian…), but also with Hamas.”

Jamal Barzinji’s group was so close to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian that IIIT’s president considered his group and Al-Arian’s to be essentially one entity. The indictment of Al-Arian and his colleagues says that they “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights.”

Keep that quote and the investigation into McAuliffe’s political contributions in mind when you consider how Zaki Barzinji apparently rose to his new position with some help from his grandfather’s political connections.

In 2011, IIIT (again, the late Jamal Barzini’s organization) donated $10,000 to the New Dominion PAC, which has strong Democratic party ties in the state, particularly as a donor to current Senator (former Governor) Tim Kaine, who spoke at a New Dominion PAC event honoring Jamal Barzinji in 2011.

Barzinji’s grandson became the outreach coordinator for McAuliffe’s campaign for governor in April 2013, per his LinkedIn profile. The Barzini/IIIT-linked PAC raised $15,000 for McAuliffe’s campaign two years later on September 29, 2013.

Zaki Barzinji became McAuliffe’s special assistant for policy in January 2014 and was promoted to deputy director of intergovernmental affairs in July 2014. This month, he became the White House’s liaison to the Muslim-American community as its new associate director of public engagement. Quite a rapid rise for a 27-year old.

There are no Islamist-sounding quotes from Zaki Barzinji but important questions remain.

Is it really wise to have the grandson of a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect, who served as the head of the youth wing of an identified Muslim Brotherhood identity with Hamas links, as the White House’s liaison to the Muslim-American community?

What role did the political ties and donations of his Islamist grandfather and IIIT play in his remarkably fast rise through state politics and to the White House?

And what about his own work as president of the youth wing of ISNA, an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood?

Categories: Corruption, Hamas, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islam, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America
Tags: Corruption, Hamas, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islam, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America

Comments: Be the first to comment

Muslim reformers vs. Islamists

May 26, 2016

Muslim reformers vs. Islamists, Dan Miller’s Blog, May 26, 2016

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

Whether Islam will eventually be reformed is an open question. The topic is much discussed by Muslims, a few of whom favor reformation and more of whom oppose it. The issue is important for America, and indeed the free world in general. There is little that non-Muslims can do to assist a reformation beyond recognizing the substantial differences between moderate and radical (mainstream) Muslims, supporting the former and purging the latter. Please don’t conflate the cops with the killers.

Reformation of Islam

Here’s are comments by an American Muslim reformer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

In the following December 2015 video, the Fox News host misrepresented Donald Trump’s position as banning “all” Muslims, apparently permanently. Trump’s proposal was to ban Muslims until we can vet them adequately. Dr. Jasser agreed that Muslims advocating Islamist political ideology should be banned and that we should temporarily ban them all until we can distinguish moderate Muslims from “radical” Muslims. His suggestions for vetting Muslims included cessation of reliance on the Council on American – Islamic Relations (CAIR), et al, which are on the side of the Islamists.

An article by Raymond Ibrahim delves into Muslim perceptions of moderate vs. “radical” (i.e., mainstream) Islam and posts these views, as articulated by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, an Islamist. Dr. Khadr stated,

“Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘moderate Muslims’ is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘radical Islam’ has no basis in Islam — neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Among the major distinctions (translated verbatim) made in Khadr’s article are:

Radicals want the caliphate to return; moderates reject the caliphate.

Radicals want to apply Sharia (Islamic law); moderates reject the application of Sharia.

Radicals reject the idea of renewal and reform, seeing it as a way to conform Islam to Western culture; moderates accept it.

Radicals accept the duty of waging jihad in the path of Allah; moderates reject it.

Radicals reject any criticism whatsoever of Islam; moderates welcome it on the basis of freedom of speech.

Radicals accept those laws that punish whoever insults or leaves the religion [apostates]; moderates recoil from these laws.

Radicals respond to any insult against Islam or the prophet Muhammad — peace and blessing upon him — with great violence and anger; moderates respond calmly and peacefully on the basis of freedom of expression.

Radicals respect and revere every deed and every word of the prophet — peace be upon him — in the hadith; moderates do not.

Radicals oppose democracy; moderates accept it.

Radicals see the people of the book [Jews and Christians] as dhimmis[barely tolerated subjects]; moderates oppose this [view].

Radicals reject the idea that non-Muslim minorities should have equality or authority over Muslims; moderates accept it.

Radicals reject the idea that men and women are equal; moderates accept it, according to Western views.

Radicals oppose the idea of religious freedom and apostasy from Islam; moderates agree to it.

Radicals desire to see Islam reign supreme; moderates oppose this.

Radicals place the Koran over the constitution; moderates reject this [assumption].

Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.

Radicals embrace the wearing of hijabs and niqabs; moderates reject it.

Radicals accept killing young girls who commit adultery or otherwise besmirch their family’s honor; moderates reject this [response].

Radicals reject the status of women today and think that the status of women today should be like the status of women in the time of the prophet; moderates oppose that women should be as in the time of the prophet.

Radicals vehemently reject that women should have the freedom to choose partners; moderates accept that she can choose a boyfriend without marriage.

Radicals agree to clitorectomies; moderates reject them.

Radicals reject the so-called war on terror and see it as a war on Islam; moderates accept it.

Radicals support jihadi groups; moderates reject them.

Radicals reject the terms “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic fascism”; moderates accept them.

Radicals reject universal human rights, including the right to be homosexual; moderates accept them.

Radicals reject the idea of allying with the West; moderates support it.

Radicals oppose secularism; moderates support it. [Emphasis added.]

Dr. Jasser’s views on what American Islam should be are remarkably similar to the perceptions of moderate Islam set forth by Dr. Khadr, albeit with contempt as “a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them.” Mr. Ibrahim concludes his article by suggesting that “the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.” I agree. What is being done now is actually furthering “radical” Islam.

The former president of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University called, rather amorphously, for reform in the Islamic religious discourse.

Here’s an address to the Canadian Parliament by a moderate Muslim journalist. Please watch the whole thing, because it sets forth quite well the differences between Islamists who want to overpower us and moderate Muslims who support freedom and want to eliminate Islamism.

Moderate Islam is not mainstream Islam

Germany’s largest Muslim organization recently had a moderate Muslim theologian fired from the University of Munster.

Islamic apologists routinely claim that violent Qur’an verses have no validity beyond Muhammad’s time, but this story illustrates that this is not the mainstream view in Islam. The persecution of Mouhanad Khorchide also shows the uphill battle that genuine Muslim reformers face: branded as heretics and/or apostates, they’re often shunned (or worse) by the very community that needs their ideas the most. [Emphasis added.]

The author, Robert Spencer, quotes a May 23rd article by Susanne Schröter in a German periodical:

When the theologian Mouhanad Khorchide, who teaches at the University of Münster, published “Islam Is Compassion” in 2012, he received a variety of diverse reactions. Many non-Muslims celebrated the work as the revelation of a humanistic Islam: an Islam that no one needs to fear. This feeling arose in part because the author created a picture of God that is not “interested in the labels of Muslim or Christian or Jewish, believer or nonbeliever.”

Korchide threw out the idea that Koran verses that appear violent or hostile toward women or non-Muslims may be valid for all eternity. He wanted them to be viewed as the words of a bygone era.

It seemed that the professor, with the swoop of his pen, managed to brush aside all those reservations that made people wonder whether Islam really “belonged to Germany,” as former President Christian Wulff said famously in a 2010. One might even have thought that Muslims would offer Khorchide a pat on the back.

On the website for DITIB, Germany’s Turkish Islamic union and the country’s largest Muslim organization, one can read that Khorchide’s statements were a “rejection of the teachings of classical Islam” and an “insult to Muslim identity.” For this reason, the professor was removed from his post at the university.

Canadian journalist Tarek Fatah, the moderate Muslim in a video provided above, wrote

In November 2014, while testifying before the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, I raised the issue of Islamic clerics using mosque sermons to attack the foundational principles of Western civilization and liberal secular democracy.

The Senate Committee session referred to is the one presented in the video referenced above.

Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell was outraged by my testimony that at most Canadian mosques, the Friday congregation includes a ritual prayer asking, “Allah to give victory to Muslims over the ‘Kufaar’ (non-Muslims).” In a heated exchange with me, the senator suggested I wasn’t telling the truth, implying I was motivated by Islamophobia. Sadly, Sen. Mitchell is not alone in such views.

But neither is there any let-up in the attacks on Canadian values emanating from many mosque pulpits and Islamic conferences hosted by radical Islamist groups.

For example, in a sermon on Friday, May 6, delivered at a mosque in Edmonton, an imam invoked the memory of Prophet Muhammad to whip up hatred against Israel. He declared peace accords with Israel are “useless garbage” and vowed that Jerusalem will be conquered “through blood.”

In February, the same cleric predicted Islam would soon conquer Rome, “the heart of the Christian state.”

The Edmonton mosque diatribe was not isolated.

On May 13, just north of Toronto, an Islamic society hosted a celebration of Iranian mass murderer, Ayatollah Khomeini. The poster promoting the event described Khomeini as a, “Liberator and Reformer of the Masses.”

On Saturday, the Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, banned in some countries, hosted a conference to discuss the re-establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.

Here are excerpts from an article about the Hizb-ut-Tahrir meeting referenced by Mr. Fatah.

The first speaker was Brother Mostafa, of Arabic roots. Mostafa started by calling nationalism and sectarian conflict the main reasons for division in the Ummah (Islamic nation). He reminded Muslims that they are obligated to implement Allah’s demands that fulfill the Islamic State. It is “not permissible for us to choose, ” he said. He cited the verse: [Emphasis added]

“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.” — Surat-Al-Ahzab (33), verse 36. ]Emphasis added.]

. . . .

As the event started late, Naeema [a woman in the audience] began a conversation. We talked about our origins and how long we had been in Canada. She said she had been here 40 years, so I asked about the disconnect between enjoying 40 years of democracy, yet trying to end it. I mentioned a book published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir:

“Democracy is Infidelity: its use, application and promotion are prohibited.”

“الديمقراطية نظام كفر، يحرم أخذها أو تطبيقها أو الدعوة إليها”

Naeema said she was not qualified to debate the topic, but that democracy had done nothing good for people, so she and other believers would follow the rule of Allah. [Emphasis added]

The meeting participants are comparable to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood – Hamas affiliated organization which, along with similar groups, provides Obama and His “fighting violent extremism” cohorts their marching orders on fighting, not Islamist jihad or Islamisation , but “Islamophobia.”

Conclusions

America would fare better in fighting “violent extremism” if the principal enemy were named: it is political Islam — Islamism. Presently, naming it is forbidden and those engaged in “fighting” it — supposedly on our behalf — are Islamists dedicated to the Islamisation of America.

Suppose that, instead of relying on CAIR, et al, as representative of “peaceful” Islam, our government rejected CAIR and its Islamist colleagues favored by Obama and instead supported and relied upon Dr. Jasser’s moderate group, American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

A devout Muslim, Dr. Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. Dr. Jasser is a first generation American Muslim whose parents fled the oppressive Baath regime of Syria in the mid-1960’s for American freedom. He is leading the fight to shake the hold that the Muslim Brotherhood and their network of American Islamist organizations and mosques seek to exert on organized Islam in America. [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps, if our next president is neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders, we will do that. If we don’t, the Islamists will continue to win, the Islamisation of America will continue and American principles will go down the toilet. We cannot permit that to happen.

In an 1886 Fourth of July address to the citizens of the Dickinson Dakota Territory, Theodore Roosevelt said,

We only have the right to live on as free men, so long as we show ourselves worthy of the privileges we enjoy. We must remember that the republic can only be kept pure by the individual purity of its members, and that if it once becomes thoroughly corrupt it will surely cease to exist.

. . . .

All American citizens whether born here or elsewhere, whether of one creed or another, stand on the same footing; we welcome every honest immigrant, no matter from what country he comes, provided only that he leaves behind him his former nationality and remains neither Celt nor Saxon, neither Frenchman nor German, but becomes an American, desirous of fulfilling in good faith the duties of American citizenship. [Emphasis added]

When we thus rule ourselves we have the responsibilities of sovereigns not of subjects. We must never exercise our rights either wickedly or thoughtlessly; we can continue to preserve them in but one possible way – by making the proper use of them.

It has been my observation (and to a substantial extent that of the Canadian journalist and moderate Muslim in a video embedded above) that the principal loyalty of many Islamists is not geographical or to a state. Rather, it is to their version of Islam, be it Shiite, Sunni or some variation thereof. For example, Hezbollah members fight, not to help Lebanon or Syria, but to support the Iranian version of Shiite Islam — an apocalyptic vision in which the hidden iman will return and bring the world to an end. It is reasonable to assume that the principal loyalty of mainstream Muslims (Islamists) in America is, and will continue to be, to Islam, not to America.

American origins and views are very different and perhaps uniquely so.

This land was made, not for Islamists but for immigrants who leave behind their former nationalities and remain “neither Celt nor Saxon, neither Frenchman nor German, but become an American, desirous of fulfilling in good faith the duties of American citizenship.” How many of America’s current crop of immigrants do that?

We have had little of this thus far. How much do we want? It’s pretty much up to us.

Categories: CAIR, Canada, Free world, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama's America
Tags: CAIR, Canada, Free world, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and Christianity, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamist moral values, Islamists in America, Islamists in Canada, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama's America

Comments: 1 Comment

The Muslim World is a Permanent Refugee Crisis

May 25, 2016

The Muslim World is a Permanent Refugee Crisis, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 25, 2016

syrian_refugees_having_rest_at_the_floor_of_keleti_railway_station._refugee_crisis._budapest_hungary_central_europe_5_september_2015

The permanent Muslim refugee crisis will never stop being our crisis unless we close the door.

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

Forget the Syrian Civil War for a moment. Even without the Sunnis and Shiites competing to give each other machete haircuts every sunny morning, there would still be a permanent Muslim refugee crisis.

The vast majority of civil wars over the last ten years have taken place in Muslim countries. Muslim countries are also some of the poorest in the world. And Muslim countries also have high birth rates.

Combine violence and poverty with a population boom and you get a permanent migration crisis.

No matter what happens in Syria or Libya next year, that permanent migration crisis isn’t going away.

The Muslim world is expanding unsustainably. In the Middle East and Asia, Muslims tend to underperform their non-Muslim neighbors both educationally and economically. Oil is the only asset that gave Muslims any advantage and in the age of fracking, its value is a lot shakier than it used to be.

The Muslim world had lost its old role as the intermediary between Asia and the West. And it has no economic function in the new world except to blackmail it by spreading violence and instability.

Muslim countries with lower literacy rates, especially for women, are never going to be economic winners at any trade that doesn’t come gushing out of the ground. Nor will unstable dictatorships ever be able to provide social mobility or access to the good life. At best they’ll hand out subsidies for bread.

The Muslim world has no prospects for getting any better. The Arab Spring was a Western delusion.

Growing populations divided along tribal and religious lines are competing for a limited amount of land, power and wealth. Countries without a future are set to double in size.

There are only two solutions; war or migration.

Either you fight and take what you want at home. Or you go abroad and take what you want there.

Let’s assume that the Iraq War had never happened. How would a religiously and ethnically divided Iraq have managed its growth from 13 million in the eighties to 30 million around the Iraq War to 76 million in 2050?

The answer is a bloody civil war followed by genocide, ethnic cleansing and migration.

What’s happening now would have happened anyway. It was already happening under Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad has one of the highest population densities in the world. And it has no future. The same is true across the region. The only real economic plan anyone here has is to get money from the West.

Plan A for getting money out of the West is creating a crisis that will force it to intervene. That can mean anything from starting a war to aiding terrorists that threaten the West. Muslim countries keep shooting themselves in the foot so that Westerners will rush over to kiss the booboo and make it better.

Plan B is to move to Europe.

And Plan B is a great plan. It’s the only real economic plan that works. At least until the West runs out of native and naïve Westerners who foot the bill for all the migrants, refugees and outright settlers.

For thousands of dollars, a Middle Eastern Muslim can pay to be smuggled into Europe. It’s a small investment with a big payoff. Even the lowest tier welfare benefits in Sweden are higher than the average salary in a typical Muslim migrant nation. And Muslim migrants are extremely attuned to the payoffs. It’s why they clamor to go to Germany or Sweden, not Greece or Slovakia. And it’s why they insist on big cities with an existing Muslim social welfare infrastructure, not some rural village.

A Muslim migrant is an investment for an entire extended family. Once the young men get their papers, family reunification begins. That doesn’t just mean every extended family member showing up and demanding their benefits. It also means that the family members will be selling access to Europe to anyone who can afford it. Don’t hike or raft your way to Europe. Mohammed or Ahmed will claim that you’re a family member. Or temporarily marry you so you can bring your whole extended family along.

Mohammed gets paid. So does Mo’s extended family which brokers these transactions. Human trafficking doesn’t just involve rafts. It’s about having the right family connections.

And all that is just the tip of a very big business iceberg.

Where do Muslim migrants come up with a smuggling fee that amounts to several years of salary for an average worker? Some come from wealthy families. Others are sponsored by crime networks and family groups that are out to move everything from drugs to weapons to large numbers of people into Europe.

Large loans will be repaid as the new migrants begin sending their new welfare benefits back home. Many will be officially unemployed even while unofficially making money through everything from slave labor to organized crime. European authorities will blame their failure to participate in the job market on racism rather than acknowledging that they exist within the confines of an alternate economy.

It’s not only individuals or families who can pursue Plan B. Turkey wants to join the European Union. It’s one solution for an Islamist populist economy built on piles of debt. The EU has a choice between dealing with the stream of migrants from Turkey moving to Europe. Or all of Turkey moving into Europe.

The West didn’t create this problem. Its interventions, however misguided, attempted to manage it.

Islamic violence is not a response to Western colonialism. Not only does it predate it, but as many foreign policy experts are so fond of pointing out, its greatest number of casualties are Muslims. The West did not create Muslim dysfunction. And it is not responsible for it. Instead the dysfunction of the Muslim world keeps dragging the West in. Every Western attempt to ameliorate it, from humanitarian aid to peacekeeping operations, only opens up the West to take the blame for Islamic dysfunction.

The permanent refugee crisis is a structural problem caused by the conditions of the Muslim world.

The West can’t solve the crisis at its source. Only Muslims can do that. And there are no easy answers. But the West can and should avoid being dragged down into the black hole of Muslim dysfunction.

Even Germany’s Merkel learned that the number of refugees is not a finite quantity that can be relieved with a charitable gesture. It’s the same escalating number of people that will show up if you start throwing bags of money out of an open window. And it’s a number that no country can absorb.

Muslim civil wars will continue even if the West never intervenes in them because their part of the world is fundamentally unstable. These conflicts will lead to the displacement of millions of people. But even without violence, economic opportunism alone will drive millions to the West. And those millions carry with them the dysfunction of their culture that will make them a burden and a threat.

If Muslims can’t reconcile their conflicts at home, what makes us think that they will reconcile them in Europe? Instead of resolving their problems through migration, they only export them to new shores. The same outbursts of Islamic violence, xenophobia, economic malaise and unsustainable growth follow them across seas and oceans, across continents and countries. Distance is no answer. Travel is no cure.

Solving Syria will solve nothing. The Muslim world is full of fault lines. It’s growing and it’s running out of room to grow. We can’t save Muslims from themselves. We can only save ourselves from their violence.

The permanent Muslim refugee crisis will never stop being our crisis unless we close the door.

Categories: Europe, Islam and colonialism, Islamic conquests in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic nations, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Obama's America
Tags: Europe, Islam and colonialism, Islamic conquests in Europe, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic nations, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Obama's America

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamic Words and Concepts that Americans Must Understand. Now.

May 22, 2016

Islamic Words and Concepts that Americans Must Understand. Now, Dan Miller’s Blog, May 22, 2016

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

Ten Islamic words and concepts — well understood by Islamic jihadists and others who strive to impose Sharia law on us — define and articulate the Islamic quest for world domination. However, few charged with “countering violent extremism” understand their meanings and none are permitted to consider such “islamophobic” Islamic concepts when doing their jobs. Thank you, Obama, CAIR and related Muslim Brotherhood – linked Quislings.

Imagine that while learning to “counter violent extremism” on behalf of the Obama-CAIR collective, you encounter a ravenous lion intent upon eating you for dinner. You have been assured, repeatedly, that it, like adherents to “the religion of peace and tolerance,” is only a falsely-maligned, tame and starving kitten in need of food and that you must act accordingly. Don’t succumb to catophobia! What would you do? Become dinner? Run away? Shoot the lion?

A non-fiction article by Matthew Bracken, author of three novels about traitors, foreign and domestic, was recently published by Gates of Viena. The article focuses on these Islamic words and the concepts they embody: dawah, dhimmi, hijra, jizya, kafir, shaheed, shariah, takfir, taqiyya and ummah.

Bracken wrote,

[I]f you are a national security professional, senior military officer or political leader involved in any aspect of the “Global War On Terror,” AKA “Countering Violent Extremism,” these are ten words that should already be a part of your working vocabulary. If you can’t readily discuss their meaning, significance, and relationships, then you are worse than a fool, you are a disgrace to your office and a danger to your country.

He’s right. Obama, Kerry and their many followers are, indeed, dangers to our country as well as to Western Civilization in general. Rather than learn about Islam, they pretend that it is what they have been told, falsely, that it is. Those who understand Islam and want to prevent what it seeks for America from happening are disparaged as “Islamophobes.” Parallels could perhaps be drawn to “idealists” drawn to Communism as a peaceful and tolerant ideology, without bothering to learn about “Uncle Joe” Stalin and what he was doing. Uncle Joe knew what he was doing and thought it was good. Representatives of the fifty-seven Islamist Member nations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) know the meanings of the words highlighted by Bracken and the purpose of Islam: to make Islam dominant throughout the world. They consider that good and act accordingly.

Mr. Bracken’s important Arabic words are used in context in the following quotations from his article.

[I]f you are an Army general or Navy admiral who, right here and now, without looking at your smart phone, cannot discuss how a kafir becomes a dhimmi, and what a dhimmi’s rights and options (if any) are under shariah, then you are as ignorant of your job as an European-theater Army general circa 1942 who did not know a panzer from a pancake, or a schutzstaffel from a schnitzel. A person as ignorant as you should be kept away from any responsibility for protecting our nation. You are incompetent, and you are a fool.

If you don’t know how to determine when a Muslim suicide bomber is a shaheed and when he is a terrorist according to the shariah, then you are as dangerous to our national safety as a North Atlantic ship captain who believes that icebergs are a fairy tale concocted by conspiracy theorists. Full speed ahead, Captain Smith!

If you don’t know takfir from taqiyya, and can’t discuss the meaning and importance of both, you are as useless as a WW2 intelligence officer who didn’t know the Kriegsmarine from the Luftwaffe, (but who thought that one of them was a private flying club, based on conversations that he overheard among his ever-helpful German cleaning staff).

If you cannot, right now, intelligently discuss the global ummah and its relationship to the OIC in the context of the GWOT, then you should be working for the Department of Parks and Recreation, and not the Department of Homeland Security. If you don’t know what the OIC refers to in this context, put on a dunce cap, and go stand in the corner. And if you don’t know whether your office is in the Dar al Islam or the Dar al Harb, please jump out of an upper-story window, and when you hit the sidewalk, ask any immigrant who is engaged in hijra. He’ll know the answer, even if you do not.

If you don’t know how dawah relates to jihad when faithful Muslims are engaged in long-term hijra, you should turn in your official credentials and take early retirement. You are as oblivious as a WW2 U.S. Army general who thought that the Geheime Staatspolizei were German motorcycle policemen much like our American state troopers, because a helpful German passer-by told him so.

If you don’t know what the three options are for a kafir who violates the shariah when living in the dar al Islam, then please get out of the national security business. If you don’t know why a dhimmi would care about jizya, please retire, and hand your duties over to someone who has the natural curiosity and personal integrity to conduct his own study of our actual enemies and their actual strategies. But in the meantime, you must immediately stop lapping up the false narrative being spoon-fed to you by hostile foreign agents, domestic traitors, useful idiots, and cowards who know better—but who won’t make waves while their pensions are beckoning.

If your job is national security, and you didn’t score at least an eighty on the ten-word quiz, then you have obviously swallowed the big lie that we can safely delegate the understanding of our Islamist enemies to the WW2 equivalent of “moderate Nazis.” Sounds insane, doesn’t it? But under President Obama, this is indeed our national policy for fighting the GWOT: allow a range of Muslim Brotherhood front groups to conduct America’s narrowly limited analysis of so-called “radicalized Islam,” and thereafter guide our policies toward Islam and Muslims in general.

Here is an important example straight from current events. Please tell us, oh national security professional, whom has the United Nations delegated the critical task of selecting and “screening” the Muslim “refugees” who are currently arriving in the USA at the rate of thousands per month? Any guesses? It is the same organization that the Obama administration has also optimistically granted the authority to choose our new Muslim “refugee” immigrants. If you don’t know the answer, please get out of the national security business.

So who is it? It’s the fifty-seven-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, headquartered in Saudi Arabia, which I referenced above. The mission of the OIC is to promote the spread of Islam across the globe until there is no more dar al harb, and all of the kafirs have either been converted to Islam, killed, or forced into submission as dhimmis. If you didn’t know, dhimmis are formally and legally subjugated second-class citizens who must pay the special jizya tax as the price of their being allowed to live under shariah in the ummah.

But this special offer is only extended to Christians and Jews: all others must choose between conversion to Islam, and the sword. That is, if their Muslim conquerors grant them the option of conversion. According to the Shariah, the defeated kafirs may also be killed or enslaved, if either of these two outcomes would be considered more beneficial to the ummah, based on local conditions and needs. (Of course, the captured women and girls may be taken as sex-slaves.) Mohammed did all of the above, and he commanded that these practices be continued in perpetuity, and they are.

The charter of the OIC puts Islamic shariah law ahead of secular law. This means, for example, that the official position of the OIC is that Muslims who leave the faith should be killed, and that any faithful Muslim who kills an apostate ex-Muslim has done no sin, but instead should be thanked and congratulated for the deed. It’s the same with adulterers: they should die, and killing an adulterer is no crime.

Yes, that really is their position, and they really do believe it, and much more than that. The OIC is made up of fifty-seven Muslim nations, united by a common belief in the supremacy of Islam, and their mutual obligation to conduct both dawah and jihad until the Dar al Islam covers the globe, and Allah’s eternal and immutable shariah has supplanted godless democracy and all manmade laws. This dawah includes the practice of using taqiyya when making arrangements or having negotiations with as-yet unsubmitted kafirs in the dar al harb.

So it’s no wonder that ninety-nine percent of the “refugees” being “screened” by the OIC and transported into the USA are Muslim, even though the Christians and other non-Muslims (who until recently made up over ten percent of the populations of Syria and Iraq) are suffering a brutal genocide and holocaust at the hands of Islamic State kidnappers, mass-rapists and mass-executioners.

. . . .

Let me offer you another simple test that you may apply to your own national security work space and mission. If you have been ordered to purge the ten listed Arabic words (and others) from your official GWOT lexicon, and instead to hand over the task of analyzing “Islamic radicalism” to alleged “moderate Muslims,” then you are being played for a fool by our nation’s most implacable and devious enemies, both foreign and domestic.

. . . .

Today, we are literally outsourcing our intelligence analysis in the GWOT to the OIC and various Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Simply do a search for “Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, CAIR, and FBI” to begin your overdue education. Is it any wonder that the official “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative holds that there is utterly no connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam? That the Islamic State, which quotes chapter and verse of the Koran as justification for its every decision, is not Islamic? That Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of ISIS, who holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad, knows less about Islam than President Obama and his American-trained national security staff? [Emphasis added.]

In 2016, ignorance of the reality of the Islamist threat is no longer an excuse. Many resources are readily available if you are willing to look unblinkingly at the light of truth. I would suggest the online video lectures given by Stephen Coughlin and Dr. Bill Warner as starting points. Those who need or desire to read an exhaustively researched (over a thousand footnotes) academic treatise on the present Islamist threat should carefully study Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”

After 9-11, Mr. Coughlin was an acclaimed subject matter expert and frequent high-level lecturer at the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon, until 2008 when he was made persona-non-grata on federal property as an unwelcome “Islamophobe.” And who made the determination of Mr. Coughlin’s “Islamophobia?” The same Muslim Brotherhood front groups that our intelligence agencies now rely upon for their understanding of “violent extremism,” which, of course, we are assured has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

We know this must be true, because President Obama has told us so. Unless, of course, he is practicing taqiyya on behalf of the ummah. Taqiyya is a bedrock principle of Islamic shariah, a ready tool for Muslims to use when they are dealing with kafirs. And not only radical Muslims, but ordinary, everyday, “moderate” Muslims. According to the shariah, it’s not a sin when a Muslim lies to a kafir in order to promote Islam. In that case, taqiyya is just a very clever form of dawah, helping to prepare the kafirs for the final Islamic jihad victory.

Conclusions

Obama, et al, complicit with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups, require “our” Countering Violent Terrorism forces to assist, rather than fight against, Islamic terrorism. That’s perverse and some (I am one of them) consider it treason.

As I observed here, Islamic terrorists torture and murder — quite legitimately under Islamic doctrine — thousands of people. That’s deplorable. What Islamists and their modern-day Quislings have done even without chopping off heads, and continue to do to European nations, is even worse. They have moved in and have done a great job of Islamising entire nations. With the help of Allah, Obama and His band of Quislings, that’s what they are doing and hope to do more of to America.

“Our betters” lie to us, repeatedly.

Hillary Clinton lies even when it’s inevitable that her lies will be discovered. Many of her supporters are attracted, or at best not repelled, by her lying. At least she is consistent: the truth simply is not in her.

Islamists and their fellow travelers who are taking over Europe must be prevented from doing the same to our “land of the free and home of the brave.”

Obama and His followers seek to have us forget all about that as well as those who fought and died to create and then to preserve America. Shall we, must we, become dhimmis and yield to the OIC, Iran, CAIR and Obama’s other Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood friends by electing Obama’s soul mate, Hillary Clinton, as our next Commander in Chief?

Not on my watch, not on Trump’s watch and, I hope, not on your watch. Isn’t it time to make up your mind? The Muslims in the following video have already decided to support Hillary and have contributed funds accordingly.

According to this source, Ms. Clinton managed to collect “half-a-million dollars, making it one of the top five private fundraisers Clinton has had in this country.” She did not get Muslim money because of her charming personality.

Many of the Pakistanis at the event were pleased with Clinton’s vocal support of the Muslim religion.

Aisha Zahid said, “Talking about Muslims and favoring Muslims, so I really appreciate her whatever effort she is making against Islamaphobia, so I really think she needs to be the next President of the United States.”

If you haven’t already watched the following video, please do so. If you have, please watch it again. It makes more sense about “Republican principles” and why we need to honor them today than any other video I have watched.

If we want to continue to affirm these Republican principles, we need to keep a country in which to do it. America still is, and must remain, our country.

Although America remains our country, she is slipping away. How long do we have to stop and reverse the process of Islamisation which is, thus far slowly but inexorably, leading to America becoming part of the ummah? We the people must save her from Islamists, dhimmis and their fellow travelers.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Donald Trump, Europe, Free world, Hillary Clinton, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, OIC
Tags: CAIR, Clash of civilizations, Donald Trump, Europe, Free world, Islam - submission, Islam and colonialism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic Jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic supremacy, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, OIC

Comments: 1 Comment

Ten Arabic Words: Bracken’s Challenge to National Security Professionals

May 20, 2016

Ten Arabic Words: Bracken’s Challenge to National Security Professionals, Gates of Vienna, Baron Bodissey, May 20, 2016

(A good, strong and highly relevant analysis of our “Global War on Terrorism.” — DM)

constitutionshahada

Ten Arabic Words: A challenge to national security professionals engaged in the Global War On Terror

by Matthew Bracken

If you are a politically-correct bliss-ninny with a coexist bumper sticker slapped on the back of your Subaru, and you don’t have the slightest clue what the following ten words mean, then this essay is not meant for you. You are excused.

dawah, dhimmi, hijra, jizya, kafir, shaheed, shariah, takfir, taqiyya, ummah

But if you are a national security professional, senior military officer or political leader involved in any aspect of the “Global War On Terror,” AKA “Countering Violent Extremism,” these are ten words that should already be a part of your working vocabulary. If you can’t readily discuss their meaning, significance, and relationships, then you are worse than a fool, you are disgrace to your office and a danger to your country.

ummahdc

If you don’t already have a firm grasp of the meaning of these words, then you are as prepared to conduct the GWOT as President Obama’s “Pajama Boy” is prepared to fight a heavyweight MMA champion in a no-quarter steel-cage death match.

If you couldn’t accurately define at least eight out of the ten directly from your personal knowledge base, then as a national security professional, you are an abject failure. You are as dangerously ignorant as a parent who would send his ten-year-old son to a NAMBLA summer camp, because a friendly self-identified “Namblan” neighbor said it was like Boy Scout Camp, but even more fun, and completely free of charge.

In effect, you sent your innocent and vulnerable young son to a summer camp run by perverts, pedophiles and predators, and you didn’t even know it, because you couldn’t be bothered to learn the actual meaning of NAMBLA independently from your helpful Namblan neighbor. Sounds insane, doesn’t it? Nobody could be that stupid, right? Wrong. That level of stupidity is official Obama administration policy when it comes to fighting the GWOT.

So, if you are an Army general or Navy admiral who, right here and now, without looking at your smart phone, cannot discuss how a kafir becomes a dhimmi, and what a dhimmi’s rights and options (if any) are under shariah, then you are as ignorant of your job as an European-theater Army general circa 1942 who did not know a panzer from a pancake, or a schutzstaffel from a schnitzel. A person as ignorant as you should be kept away from any responsibility for protecting our nation. You are incompetent, and you are a fool.

If you don’t know how to determine when a Muslim suicide bomber is ashaheed and when he is a terrorist according to the shariah, then you are as dangerous to our national safety as a North Atlantic ship captain who believes that icebergs are a fairy tale concocted by conspiracy theorists. Full speed ahead, Captain Smith!

If you don’t know takfir from taqiyya, and can’t discuss the meaning and importance of both, you are as useless as a WW2 intelligence officer who didn’t know the Kriegsmarine from the Luftwaffe, (but who thought that one of them was a private flying club, based on conversations that he overheard among his ever-helpful German cleaning staff).

whitehouseoic

If you cannot, right now, intelligently discuss the global ummah and its relationship to the OIC in the context of the GWOT, then you should be working for the Department of Parks and Recreation, and not the Department of Homeland Security. If you don’t know what the OIC refers to in this context, put on a dunce cap, and go stand in the corner. And if you don’t know whether your office is in the Dar al Islam or the Dar al Harb, please jump out of an upper-story window, and when you hit the sidewalk, ask any immigrant who is engaged in hijra. He’ll know the answer, even if you do not.

If you don’t know how dawah relates to jihad when faithful Muslims are engaged in long-term hijra, you should turn in your official credentials and take early retirement. You are as oblivious as a WW2 U.S. Army general who thought that the Geheime Staatspolizei were German motorcycle policemen much like our American state troopers, because a helpful German passer-by told him so.

If you don’t know what the three options are for a kafir who violates the shariah when living in the dar al Islam, then please get out of the national security business. If you don’t know why a dhimmi would care about jizya, please retire, and hand your duties over to someone who has the natural curiosity and personal integrity to conduct his own study of our actual enemies and their actual strategies. But in the meantime, you must immediately stop lapping up the false narrative being spoon-fed to you by hostile foreign agents, domestic traitors, useful idiots, and cowards who know better—but who won’t make waves while their pensions are beckoning.

flagusaikhwan

If your job is national security, and you didn’t score at least an eighty on the ten-word quiz, then you have obviously swallowed the big lie that we can safely delegate the understanding of our Islamist enemies to the WW2 equivalent of “moderate Nazis.” Sounds insane, doesn’t it? But under President Obama, this is indeed our national policy for fighting the GWOT: allow a range of Muslim Brotherhood front groups to conduct America’s narrowly limited analysis of so-called “radicalized Islam,” and thereafter guide our policies toward Islam and Muslims in general.

Here is an important example straight from current events. Please tell us, oh national security professional, whom has the United Nations delegated the critical task of selecting and “screening” the Muslim “refugees” who are currently arriving in the USA at the rate of thousands per month? Any guesses? It is the same organization that the Obama administration has also optimistically granted the authority to choose our new Muslim “refugee” immigrants. If you don’t know the answer, please get out of the national security business.

usaoicminarets

So who is it? It’s the fifty-seven-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, headquartered in Saudi Arabia, which I referenced above. The mission of the OIC is to promote the spread of Islam across the globe until there is no moredar al harb, and all of the kafirs have either been converted to Islam, killed, or forced into submission as dhimmis. If you didn’t know, dhimmis are formally and legally subjugated second-class citizens who must pay the specialjizya tax as the price of their being allowed to live under shariah in theummah.

But this special offer is only extended to Christians and Jews: all others must choose between conversion to Islam, and the sword. That is, if their Muslim conquerors grant them the option of conversion. According to the Shariah, the defeated kafirs may also be killed or enslaved, if either of these two outcomes would be considered more beneficial to the ummah, based on local conditions and needs. (Of course, the captured women and girls may be taken as sex-slaves.) Mohammed did all of the above, and he commanded that these practices be continued in perpetuity, and they are.

The charter of the OIC puts Islamic shariah law ahead of secular law. This means, for example, that the official position of the OIC is that Muslims who leave the faith should be killed, and that any faithful Muslim who kills an apostate ex-Muslim has done no sin, but instead should be thanked and congratulated for the deed. It’s the same with adulterers: they should die, and killing an adulterer is no crime.

Yes, that really is their position, and they really do believe it, and much more than that. The OIC is made up of fifty-seven Muslim nations, united by a common belief in the supremacy of Islam, and their mutual obligation to conduct both dawah and jihad until the Dar al Islam covers the globe, and Allah’s eternal and immutable shariah has supplanted godless democracy and all manmade laws. This dawah includes the practice of using taqiyya when making arrangements or having negotiations with as-yet unsubmitted kafirs in the dar al harb.

So it’s no wonder that ninety-nine percent of the “refugees” being “screened” by the OIC and transported into the USA are Muslim, even though the Christians and other non-Muslims (who until recently made up over ten percent of the populations of Syria and Iraq) are suffering a brutal genocide and holocaust at the hands of Islamic State kidnappers, mass-rapists and mass-executioners.

The same OIC which is choosing our Muslim “refugees” is also strong-arming the European Union, the United States and the United Nations into acceptingshariah-compliant religious blasphemy laws, which will turn criticism of Islam into illegal “hate speech.” It’s worth noting that Bill and Hillary Clinton have collected millions of dollars in “speaking fees” and “donations” from OIC members, and perhaps unremarkably, Hillary Clinton also supports outlawing criticism of Islam, if the criticism leads to violence by Muslims.

flagusaummah

In light of this, it’s particularly sad to see disgraced former General David Petraeus heap even more shame upon himself, with his recent call for a mindless capitulation to Islamic extortion threats, extortion threats which have been ongoing against kafirs for 1,400 years. With fourteen centuries of history to examine, “Don’t make the Muslims angry, or they’ll run amok like uncontrollable sub-human savages, and kill lots of innocent people” is a wretched strategy for a former American general and intelligence agency director to espouse.

His call for the end of free speech rights anywhere and anytime that they “offend” Muslims is no different than warning a beaten wife not to anger her chronically abusive husband again, lest he give her yet another violent thrashing—which would then be entirely her fault. In fact, she should be punished again, just for provoking him after being warned not to!

This is not merely the heckler’s veto, which we are, sadly, familiar with today on the American college campus. This is the Muslim terrorist’s veto, and it means forced submission to Islam’s shariah law as the price of temporarily forestalling Muslim violence. Shame on David Petraeus for siding with the perpetrators of Islamic terrorism, and not the victims. But at least his motives are transparent: pure greed. Petraeus, who has no background in finance or economics, is making millions of dollars by hustling in Muslim nations for the multi-billion-dollar global hedge fund KKR. They want something for their money, and he gave it to them in his recent Washington Post column. (Read “Why David Petraeus really wants you to shut up about Islamism,” TheFederalist.com, May 18, 2016.)

Let me offer you another simple test that you may apply to your own national security work space and mission. If you have been ordered to purge the ten listed Arabic words (and others) from your official GWOT lexicon, and instead to hand over the task of analyzing “Islamic radicalism” to alleged “moderate Muslims,” then you are being played for a fool by our nation’s most implacable and devious enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Fifteen years after the twin towers came down, you have no excuse for such obliviousness. After the next 9-11, you will not be able to plead ignorance yet again. As a national security official, you have a duty to perform your own due diligence. You must educate yourself, and reject the politically-correct blindfold that you have been ordered to wrap around your own mind.

Sun Tzu wrote: “if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

Today, we are literally outsourcing our intelligence analysis in the GWOT to the OIC and various Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Simply do a search for “Holy Land Foundation, Hamas, CAIR, and FBI” to begin your overdue education. Is it any wonder that the official “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative holds that there is utterly no connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam? That the Islamic State, which quotes chapter and verse of the Koran as justification for its every decision, is not Islamic? That Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of ISIS, who holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad, knows less about Islam than President Obama and his American-trained national security staff?

In 2016, ignorance of the reality of the Islamist threat is no longer an excuse. Many resources are readily available if you are willing to look unblinkingly at the light of truth. I would suggest the online video lectures given by Stephen Coughlin and Dr. Bill Warner as starting points. Those who need or desire to read an exhaustively researched (over a thousand footnotes) academic treatise on the present Islamist threat should carefully study Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.”

After 9-11, Mr. Coughlin was an acclaimed subject matter expert and frequent high-level lecturer at the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon, until 2008 when he was made persona-non-grata on federal property as an unwelcome “Islamophobe.” And who made the determination of Mr. Coughlin’s “Islamophobia?” The same Muslim Brotherhood front groups that our intelligence agencies now rely upon for their understanding of “violent extremism,” which, of course, we are assured has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

We know this must be true, because President Obama has told us so. Unless, of course, he is practicing taqiyya on behalf of the ummah. Taqiyya is a bedrock principle of Islamic shariah, a ready tool for Muslims to use when they are dealing with kafirs. And not only radical Muslims, but ordinary, everyday, “moderate” Muslims. According to the shariah, it’s not a sin when a Muslim lies to a kafir in order to promote Islam. In that case, taqiyya is just a very clever form of dawah, helping to prepare the kafirs for the final Islamic jihad victory.

Now, go look up the Arabic words that you didn’t know, and read the article again, with fuller understanding. Then, go ask your colleagues how they did on the quiz. In the current threat environment, when mistakes are punished with passenger jets falling out of the sky, seventy is a failing grade for a trained and educated national security professional.

Please strive to do better. Your country is depending on you. Don’t let us down again. Educate yourself, and then prepare to stand firm against the prevailing winds of political correctness. Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Remember your core values, and stand tall against America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic.

hillarywh

Matthew Bracken was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1957, and attended the University of Virginia, where he received a BA in Russian Studies and was commissioned as a naval officer in 1979. Later in that year he graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, and in 1983 he led a Naval Special Warfare detachment to Beirut, Lebanon. Since then he’s been a welder, boat builder, charter captain, ocean sailor, essayist and novelist. He lives in Florida. Links to his short stories and essays may be found at EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com. For his previous essays, see the Matthew Bracken Archives.

Categories: Domestic policy, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamic warnings, Islamisation, Obama administration, Obama and Islam, Obama's America, OIC, Petraeus, Sharia law
Tags: Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, Islamic warning, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Obama Administration, Obama and Islam, Obama's America, OIC, Petraeus, Sharia law

Comments: 1 Comment

John Kerry: Enthusiastic Proponent of a ‘Borderless World’

May 20, 2016

John Kerry: Enthusiastic Proponent of a ‘Borderless World’ Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, May 20, 2016

john_kerry_senator_from_ma-2 (1)

How the Secretary of State’s globalist agenda renders him unfit for his job.

John Kerry’s Department of State is responsible for functions that are so essential to the well-being of America and Americans that the Secretary of State is in the line of succession to the U.S. Presidency.

On May 6, 2016 Time Magazine published the transcript of the commencement address Kerry delivered at Northeastern University.

Here is an important excerpt from his remarks:

“I think that everything that we’ve lived and learned tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from soundbite salesmen and carnival barkers who pretend the most powerful country on Earth can remain great by looking inward and hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt,” Kerry said. “The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of a past that did not really exist in any case.”

His delusional statement that it is impossible and unwise to look inward or attempt hide behind walls should give us all a serious “cause for pause.” His blatantly globalist philosophies are diametrically opposed to oath of office and responsibilities and America’s best interests.

It is, perhaps understandable that Kerry, a key member of the Obama administration would not want Americans to “look inward” because looking inward will disclose the rot and dysfunction that America is now suffering from. Record levels of heroin addiction, a rapidly shrinking middle class, wage suppression and contrary to labor statistics, record levels of unemployment by working age Americans.

On May 12, 2016 CBS News posted an Associated Press report, “Middle class shrinks in 9 of 10 US cities as incomes fall.”

As for “hiding behind walls”- metaphorically, our borders are America’s walls. With the growing threats posed by ISIS and other international terrorist organizations and transnational criminal gangs and organizations, our borders must be secured and seen for what they truly are- our first and last line of defense. I discussed these issues in my recent video, Michael Cutler Moment: Obama’s Pathway to the ‘Borderless World’.

During his commencement address Kerry referenced the Boston terror attack- stating:

And as we were reminded earlier, you are still mourning the tragic loss of Victoria McGrath and Priscilla Perez Torres. Even before, on Patriot’s Day 2013, when Victoria was among those hurt by a terrorist’s bomb, this community felt the weight of a wounded world. So this morning, we grieve and we celebrate all at the same time.

Yet Kerry ignored that the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out that deadly attack, were admitted into the United States with visas the State Department issued or that the recent San Bernardino, California terror attack involved a woman, Tashfeen Malik, who was admitted into the United States on a K-1 (Fiancee) visa.

While CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Inspectors inspect aliens seeking to enter the United States, the State Department issues visas to aliens who are required to secure visas prior to entering the United States. It also determines policies concerning the admission of refugees into the United States.

Indeed, over the past several decades, most of the terrorists who have carried out, or attempted to carry out, attacks in the United States were aliens who had been admitted into the United States with visas.

The State Department is an integral component of border security and hence, national security.

The 9/11 Commission focused considerable attention on the lack of integrity to the visa adjudications process. The preface of the “9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel” begins with the following paragraph:

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

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot:”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

Each year roughly one half million nonimmigrant aliens who are admitted into the United States subsequently violate their terms of admission. This should cause the State Department to consider how to more effectively screen aliens who apply for visas but under Kerry’s “leadership,” this has not been done.

Carefully scrutinizing aliens who seek visas and entry into the United States, especially given the multitude of threats we face today is not a matter of “isolationism” but of commonsense.

Kerry went on to note:

“Now, graduating class, I got to tell you, you really do look spectacular. I want you to – I mean, just look around you. Classmates of every race, religion, gender, shape, size – 85 countries represented and dozens of languages spoken. You are the most diverse class in Northeastern’s history – in other words, you are Donald Trump’s worst nightmare.”

That statement is disturbing for two reasons. First of all, commencement addresses are not supposed to be campaign events. Second- the statement outrageously accuses anyone who believes the United States must secure its borders- especially in a historically perilous era, is demonstrating xenophobia or racism.

Our immigration laws are utterly and totally blind as to race, religion and ethnicity.

It is also disconcerting, but not surprising, to note that Kerry expressed delight that Northeastern University has so many foreign students in attendance. His State Department issued every one of those foreign students their visas. On April 29, 2016 ICE issued a press release, “ICE releases quarterly international student data” that included the following:

Based on data extracted from SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Program) March 7, 2016 international student enrollment at U.S. schools increased 6.2 percent compared to March 2015. In March, there were 8,687 U.S. schools with SEVP certification to enroll international students, a three percent decrease from the previous year.

Forty percent of international students studying in the United States, equaling almost 479,000 individuals, were enrolled in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) coursework. Approximately 417,000 international students from Asia pursued STEM studies, an increase of 17 percent since March 2015.

The ICE press release went on to note:

Other key points from the report include: 77 percent of all international students were from Asia. The top 10 countries of citizenship for international students included: China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil and Mexico.

I have written a number of articles on why educating so many foreign students at our universities undermines national security and also has a negative impact on American workers. Two such articles are: Educating Our Adversaries and Educating ‘Engineers of Jihad’ at US Universities.

Kerry used his address to decry poverty around the world and while celebrating the growth of the middle class in foreign countries, ignored how increasingly, poverty in American cities undermines U.S. national security and public safety and destroys the futures of millions of poverty-stricken American children as America’s middle class faces extinction.

Consider this excerpt from his commencement address:

“Today, extreme poverty worldwide has fallen below 10 percent for the first time in history. The revolution that is taking place on a global basis has brought hundreds of millions of people in India, hundreds of millions of people in China into the middle class. And while that’s welcome news, we’re not satisfied because 700 million people still have to survive on less than what it costs for us to grab a couple of Dunkin Donuts a day, because the gap – the gap that was referred to earlier between rich and poor – remains far too wide.”

The New York Post reported on the economic crisis in the United States in its article, “America’s middle class is headed toward extinction.” This topic is one I wrote about in one of my earlier articles, Immigration ‘Reform’: Engineered Destruction of the Middle Class.

Kerry’s commencement address that touted the growth of the middle class in China and India, while blithely ignoring the economic plight of Americans and America’s middle class, made his speech far more appropriate for the Secretary General of the United Nations than the U.S. Secretary of State to deliver at Northeastern University.

Categories: Globalism, Immigration, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Kerry, Mexican flag in America, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, U.S. borders, Xenophobia
Tags: Globalism, Immigration, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Kerry, Mexican flag in America, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, U.S. borders, Xenophobia

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran Ramps Up Crackdown on Women

May 18, 2016

Iran Ramps Up Crackdown on Women, Front Page Magazine, Ari Lieberman May 18, 2016

women_in_shiraz_2

On Sunday, the Islamic Republic announced the arrest of eight women whose photographs were featured on Instagram. The models reportedly failed to adhere to stifling Islamic style dress codes rigorously enforced by Iran’s oppressive mullahs. More specifically, they posed without wearing religiously sanctioned head scarves designed to cover exposed hair.

Following her arrest, one of the models was forced to appear on Iranian TV in the presence of two prosecutors. Wearing a black head scarf and matching black gloves, she was recorded – almost certainly under duress – sanctioning the government’s Orwellian-like actions, warning other Iranian women that they “can be certain that no man would want to marry a model whose fame has come by losing her honor.” As an aside, when Iranian navy pirates operating off Farsi Island kidnapped 10 U.S. Navy sailors in the Arabian Gulf in January, they forced a female sailor into Sharia compliance, requiring her to don a hijab.

The arrests come in the midst of a yet another government crackdown on social media and dissent. The anti-social media operation, ominously codenamed “Spider II” has thus far netted dozens of models, photographers, makeup artists and other dangerous enemies of the state. Also arrested was Iranian blogger Mahdi Boutorabi who reportedly covered Iran’s rigged 2009 elections. It appears that periodically, the mullahs get bored or insecure and conjure up ways to make the lives of their citizens more miserable.

But the Islamic Republic’s absurdity doesn’t end there. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard bizarrely accused reality star (and not much else) Kim Kardashian-West of being behind the nefarious plot to undermine or otherwise taint the morals of Iran’s young women.

Mostafa Alizadeh, a spokesman for the Revolutionary Guard’s Organized Cyberspace Crimes Unit stated that, “Ms. Kim Kardashian is a popular fashion model so Instagram’s CEO tells her, ‘make this native.’” He added that “There is no doubt that financial support is involved as well. We are taking this very seriously.”

In February, Iranian authorities engaged in a similar crackdown, targeting a benign rock group known as “Confess.” Authorities charged the group’s members with “blasphemy,” writing “satanic” lyrics and meeting with forbidden foreign radio stations. The charge of “blasphemy” carries a punishment of execution. Others in the Islamic Republic have been arrested and sentenced to lashings for merely appearing in a YouTube video while dancing and lip syncing to Pharrell’s hit song “Happy.”

Conspiracy theories and political and religious oppression are the norm in the Islamic Republic. Let us dispel with the notion that there are “moderate” forces within the Iranian government working to change things for the better. Power in that tyrannical regime vests with two entities – Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” the Holocaust-denying Ayatollah Khamenei and his thuggish henchmen of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij militia.

The Obama administration and its “echo chamber” (as Obama shill Ben Rhodes puts it) would like us to think that there are moderate elements and reformers with whom we can deal. That notion is an absolute farce but continues to gain credence in some leftist circles with vested interests in propagating this false narrative. For example, while the New York Times reported the arrest of the Iranian models, it made sure to qualify its reportage by informing its readers that the crackdown was the work of “hard liners.”

In the meantime, while Ben Rhodes is creating his spin and John Kerry is thanking the Iranians for kidnapping and mistreating U.S. Navy sailors, the mullahs of the Islamic republic continue to crack down on dissent and execute human rights activists, continue to advance their ballistic missile program (in defiance of UNSC resolutions) and continue to cut a path of misery and destruction in the Mideast, from Syria to Yemen.

The administration has done its best to convince the American public that Iran can be trusted to keep agreements. This rests on the false and dangerous narrative that there exists a power struggle in Iran between moderate reformers who have the support of the people and an assortment of hard line religious extremists and anti-Western zealots. Narratives running counter to this fantasy-like version of events are dismissed by the administration.

Even worse, it has now come to light that the Obama administration has asked the Iranians not to publicize their illicit ballistic missile activities for fear of unsettling opponents of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Meanwhile John Kerry is quietly attempting to encourage various European banking institutions to do business with the Iranians despite the fact that the IRGC controls vast swaths of Iran’s economy.

No matter how much spin the Obama administration attempts to place on the merits of the JCPOA and no matter how much it attempts to cover its tracks, it cannot hide the fact that the Islamic Republic is a pernicious regime that cannot be trusted and represents a malignancy that sooner or later will have to be confronted. The only question that remains is whether Iran will have nuclear bombs when that time arrives.

Categories: Iran - human rights, Iran and women, Iran lobby, Iran scam, Iran's morality police, Iranian "moderates", Iranian missiles, Obama and Iran, Obama's America, Obama's echo chamber
Tags: Iran - human rights, Iran and women, Iran loby, Iran Scam, Iran's morality police, Iranian "moderates", Iranian missiles, Obama and Iran, Obama's America, Obama's echo chamber

Comments: 1 Comment

The Progressive Lust for Power

May 18, 2016

The Progressive Lust for Power, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, May 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been talking a lot about “fairness” and “equality” during their primary campaigns. Like most progressives, they pass themselves off as the champions of the ordinary people who are suffering beneath the boot of rapacious capitalists and the plutocratic “one percent.” Give us power, they say, and we will create “social justice” for all the victims of “white privilege” and capitalist greed, not to mention redistributing even more money from the selfish “rich” in order to finance such utopian goals.

Promiscuously displaying their hearts bleeding for the oppressed has long been the progressive camouflage that hides their real motive: the lust for power. Whether they want power to advance their failed ideology (Sanders), or to gratify their ambition for status and wealth (Hillary), in the end it doesn’t matter. History has repeatedly proven that the libido dominandi,the ancient lust for dominating others that lies behind the progressives’ political ambitions, in the end always leads to tyranny and misery.

When progressivism began in the late 19^th century, progressives at least were honest about their aim to expand their power over the ignorant, selfish masses. A striking––and prophetic–– example can be found in Woodrow Wilson’s 1890 essay “Leaders of Men.” Wilson rejected the limited executive of the Constitution for a more activist president who has the “insight” to know “the motives which move other men in the mass”:

Besides, it is not a sympathy [with people] that serves, but a sympathy whose power is to command, to command by knowing its instrument . . . The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much-everything for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the lines of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force.There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?

In the progressive view, fellow citizens are an abstract, collective “mass,” “instruments” that must be “moved,” manipulated, and used to reach the ideological goals of the technocratic elite, who knows far better than the people how they should live, what they should believe, and what aims they should strive for. Any resistance must be met by “the application of force.” Wilson means here primarily psychological or social force, but as we have seen after a century of expanding federal power, progressive policies enshrined in federal law are in the end backed by the coercive power of the police to punish non-compliance and enforce compliance.

From this perspective, Barack Obama is not an anomaly or some new political phenomenon birthed in the sixties. He is the predictable result of progressive assumptions over a century old. Thus he shares Wilson’s view of a “leader of men” as someone who knows what’s best for the people, and is willing to use unconstitutional “force” to achieve his aims. Think of the IRS hounding conservative political organizations, or the EPA violating private property rights, or the DOJ usurping the sovereignty of the states, or Obama’s various executive diktats that compromise individual rights, legislated laws, and the power of the states. All of these actions have applied “force” to “move” men in a particular ideological direction.

Also like Wilson, Obama has no “sympathy” with Congress, or the states, or the people who want, for example, the border secured, illegal aliens caught and punished, and felons deported. To progressives, the people holding those beliefs are all just bigots, or backwards, or evil obstructions of “social justice,” and so need to be “commanded” whatever their “interior niceties.” As such, they must be “moved” to accept Obama’s ideological preference: a vague internationalism and cultural relativism that compromise our distinct national character defined by a shared language and culture. If Congress or the states will not comply with Obama’s wishes by passing the laws he wants, then the “line of least resistance” will be Executive Orders, “Dear Colleague” letters, and instructions to federal agencies to “move” people to his point of view whether they like it or not.

Obviously, this philosophy of presidential leadership undermines the Constitution and its limited executive and separation of powers. More importantly, it forgets the primary purpose of the Constitution, which is not to “solve problems” or create utopias. Individuals, families, towns, counties, and states solve problems, not the distant, unaccountable Washington technocrats imposing cookie-cutter regulations and laws on America’s vast variety of needs, beliefs, and interests. Rather, the great goal of the Founding was to protect freedom by limiting the ability of any faction from concentrating power in government and using it to diminish the freedom of others. Such a faction is a tyrant, and as the Declaration of Independence details, it was the serial injustices of George III, whose “direct object [was] the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” that sparked the American Revolution.

More broadly, the progressives’ modus operandi has followed that of tyrants throughout history. The most dangerous enemies of the tyrant are all the associations and communities of people that lie beyond the power of the state, what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons,” and Alexis de Tocqueville recognized as one of the exceptional characteristic of the United States. Families, churches, PTAs, private schools and universities, clubs, think tanks, political parties, sports teams, businesses, charities––any venue in which people voluntarily gather together, interact with one another, and pursue their shared interests and aims, stands as a check on the power of the government. They create a social space in which people exercise their freedom without permission or oversight from government officials, and where their customs, traditions, and habits function as an alternative authority to the power of the state.

We call this civil society, and since ancient Greece, tyrants have known that it is their greatest enemy. Hence totalitarian regimes target these alternative authorities and try to destroy or delegitimize them. Progressives have similarly extended their reach into civil society, replacing private organizations with the bureaus, offices, and agencies of the government. Civil society is minimized, and society more and more comprises the mass of people overseen and regulated by a centralized technocratic power. This suits the tyrant, who knows the masses are easier to control when fragmented into private individual lives, either by violence, as in the past and in parts of the world today, or by redistributing wealth and taking over the management their lives, as our government does.

The latter method, what Tocqueville called “soft despotism,” is now our political reality, as Hillary’s and Bernie’s soothing promises of even more free stuff and more nanny-state tutelage show. More and more of our lives have been colonized by the federal government, which now controls and instructs us on everything from our diets and religious beliefs, to how to raise our children and understand sex identity. And if we disagree, government agencies will enforce their will, backed by the coercive power of the state. As a result, a government designed to check power and defend our freedom has now become one of concentrated power that diminishes our freedom.

If you think I exaggerate, consider what will happen if Hillary ends up nominating two or three Supreme Court justices. She has publicly condemned the Citizens United and Heller decisions, the former of which defended the First Amendment, the latter the Second. A court with a progressive majority could end up reversing these confirmations of our Constitutional rights to exercise free speech and bear arms. We could then end up with hate-speech restrictions like those used in Canada and the E.U. to censor speech offensive to privileged groups, or confiscations of our weapons of the sort Obama has openly suggested.

If that should happen, we will have come closer to the point of no return, and reap the consequences Tocqueville warned about:

It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

Categories: Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lust for power, Obama's America, Progressives
Tags: Bernie Sanders, Lust for power, Obama's America, Progressives

Comments: Be the first to comment

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims

May 17, 2016

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims, PJ Media, Robert Spencer, May 17, 2016

Petrayus

David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of CENTCOM, published a piece in the Washington Post last Friday entitled “Anti-Muslim Bigotry Aids Islamist Terrorists.”

Wrote Petraeus:

[I am] increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

Petraeus’s target isn’t just Donald Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is referring to all speech that some Muslims might find offensive, and this has sweeping and ominous implications.

Petraeus doesn’t just oppose what Trump now characterizes as “just a suggestion“ solely as a policy measure. Petraeus is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made; that just to speak them is damaging:

[T]he ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.

He feels simply speaking such thoughts may:

… compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.

How will these words do that? Well, you see:

[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the United States. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because he says it will enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against America. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.

His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Petraeus has done this before. When he headed up the international coalition in Afghanistan, he said this of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Qur’an:

[It] was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.

He warned that the Qur’an-burning would endanger American troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He issued a statement saying that he hoped:

… the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.

I opposed the Qur’an-burning, but not for the reasons Petraeus did.

I don’t like the burning of books. And I’d rather that the contents of the Qur’an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known.

However, Jones was free to do what he wanted to do. Petraeus would have done better to have told the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker.

He would have done better to tell them that their murderous rage over any burning of the Qur’an was an outrageous overreaction, and that bloodshed over such burnings was a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they thought Jones was committing.

The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy’s worldview and perspective and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts — not just the military one — to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.

Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would likely respond: “Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur’an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation.”

This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression. This also ignores the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an to justify violence and win recruits.

Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should have defended Jones’ freedom of expression, and used the burning as a teaching moment in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have said:

We are going to defend our vision of society no matter what you bring against us. The U.S. will always defend American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional freedoms.

The OIC’s effort to compel the West into censoring itself regarding criticism of Islam is going very well.

In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech. Instead, they opted to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.

The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it so that they won’t join the jihad.

In reality, this argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do, because they now have proof this tactic works. They are in fact already doing this. In the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, Petraeus is saying that the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want. Conform our speech to suit them.

If we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more. More aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving the West a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.

Categories: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus
Tags: Apologists for Islamism, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, freedom of speech, Islamic immigration, Islamic Jihad, Islamic refugees, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama and uncontrolled immigration, Obama's America, Petraeus

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will America Follow Britain further Into, or away from, the Abyss?

May 14, 2016

Will America Follow Britain further Into, or away from, the Abyss? Dan Miller’s Blog, May 14, 2016

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

The Muslim invasion is changing European and British demographics to the degree that some countries will soon have Muslim majorities. Will America follow Europe? What about our Publican and Demorat elites? Will we reject them and the unelected bureaucrats they have spawned and empowered?

America needs to vote for her own version of Brexit this November.

British and European Demographics

Paul Weston is the vile “Islamophobe” who dared to read — aloud and in public — a passage from a book written by another vile “Islamophobe,” Winston Churchill, a couple of years ago. For that, he (Weston, not Winston) was arrested.

So what if Weston spoke accurately? He offended Muslims and that can’t be tolerated. Besides, Britain is terribly “racist” even though Islam is not a race.

Meanwhile, London’s East End is losing its native population and the place looks “less like a British city, more like Baghdad.”

The European Union and Britain

Currently, Mr. Weston of the Liberty GB Party is campaigning for Britain to leave the Europen Union, a force for unrequited love, charity and destruction. So is Nigel Farge of UKIP.

Here’s a long video about the EU and why Britain should leave it. It’s over an hour long but well worth watching. It’s principally about economics, the destructive power the EU has given unaccountable bureaucrats and the stifling of democracy.

As you watch and listen, please consider the similarities and differences between the EU and governance of, by and for the Publican and Demorat Establishment in America. Both have empowered and continue to expand unelected bureaucracies.

I was disappointed that the video does not deal with the immigration problem which will continue to plague Britain if she remains in the EU. Perhaps the topic was seen as likely to displease Britain’s already substantial Muslim population and prompt them to vote to remain in the EU. Remember, London just elected its first Muslim mayor.

Here’s another “Islamophobic” EUophobe:

Democracy and self-governance are seen by far too many as absurdly old fashioned. In Obama’s America, where would we be if governance were taken away from our betters in the Publican and Demorat Establishment and returned to the vulgarian little people? Do we need great Establishment intellects to think for us so that we don’t have to do it ourselves? The vulgarian dummies living in EU member states haven’t had to think for years. Now, with the upcoming referendum, those in Britain l have a chance to do so. We will have a chance this November.

Obama has told the citizens of once-great Britain that membership in the EU is economically and otherwise good for them — perhaps even as good as His presidency has been for citizens of His America. Many disagree with “the smartest person in any room;” those in Obama’s America who do may even elect Vulgarian-in-Chief Donald Trump as President shortly after citizens of Britain who cherish self-governance may vote to exit the EU.

Conclusions

America does not yet have the same Muslim demographic problems as Europe or Britain. Unless we halt or at least reduce Islamic immigration and cease to subsidize it we will eventually. One way to minimize the problem is to get rid of the politically correct “Islamophobia” nonsense and speak of Islam as it is rather than as though it were a benign unicorn.

The elites of the Publican and Demorat establishment are a big part if the problem. Just as Britain seems to be moving toward leaving the EU, we need to diminish the power of our own elected elites by electing “vulgarians” to replace them. We also need to reduce the very substantial power of the masses of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats they have empowered. There is no need to replace them.

Categories: 2016 elections, BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, European Union, Freedom of Expression, Illegal immigration, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, London, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farge, Obama's America, Paul Weston, Political correctness, Political establishments
Tags: BREXIT, Britain, Donald Trump, European Union, freedom of expression, Illegal immigration, Islam in America, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic Jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, London, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farge, Obama's America, Paul Weston, Political correctness, Political establishments

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives