Social Media Exclusion of Conservative Thought


John R. Houk

© April 18, 2018

 

If you are a stalwart American Conservative you are fully aware the largest social media platforms have been operating a stealth war that favors Leftists (aka Liberal, Progressive but maybe better described as Moonbat, Snowflake, etc.). With this understanding of Social Media, I received an email from ACT for America notifying readers that PayPal is now not allowing donations via its online platform evidently citing the erroneous “hate-speech” label on lists from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is as close to a Leftist Communist organization as it can be without admitting so.

 

Left-Wing organizations such as the SPLC are heavily invested in fundamentally transforming American away from American-Christian values into a brainwashed society that believes and acts as the State would have society (i.e. YOU) believe.

 

I am pretty vocal as a mouthpiece to preserve the fundamental Rights that have inalienably been endowed by the Creator of all that exists and intended to be protected by the Founding Fathers’ founding documents that define citizens of the USA as Americans.

 

I am vocal but small potatoes as far as the Leftist multi-conglomerate Social Platforms are concerned. Take heed, once the Leftist controlled Social Media giants deceptively limit and remove the dissemination of Conservative thought, the small potato bloggers will soon follow. Start massively complaining to these giants, because advertisers are interested in targeting potential Conservative customers as much as Liberal customers. Barring that, pray some Conservative geeks develop a social platform that is competitive and simple to use as the geeks that lean Left.

 

Find ways to donate to Conservative organizations being stifled by Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter and PayPal. In the meantime, support the small potato Conservatives who would be the next target if not already so. On a personal level, I’ve been in Facebook jail thrice, Google+ jail once, I’ve had a couple Youtube videos removed with a warning about my channel’s existence, yet I have escaped Twitter and Paypal’s notice to date.

 

I operate three blogs but only one has a PayPal buttonSlantRight 2.0, Paypal has graciously allowed my NCCR blog (WordPress platform) a donation link and if you visit the Overblog platform (European origin) – you could use this “Support SlantRight 2.0” support this small potato Conservative voice.

 

ACT’s email emphasizes how Left Oriented Social Media giants are targeting Conservative and Counterjihad organization using hate lists as those developed by the SPLC as an excuse to target Conservatives and Counterjihadists. Because of what PayPal has done to ACT for America, here is an embedded link to support ACT’s work in educating Americans about threats to their lives and communities: DONATE to ACT for America. This donation link by-passes PayPal.

 

Below is the ACT email. The email included the entire text of a WND.com post about this war on Conservatives. However, I am cross posting from WND rather than the email.

 

JRH 4/18/18

Please Support NCCR

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

ACT for America is Under Attack!

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent 4/18/2018 6:09 AM

 

Dear John,

 

A new study published from our friends at the Media Research Center confirms what we already knew. Conservative organizations are facing an existential threat from tech companies that are founded and run by leftists. You see, companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google are more than just tech companies, they also control how and when we get our news.

 

Further, tech companies partner with leftists including the Southern Poverty Law Center to attack organizations, like ACT for America, who have been wrongly labeled a hate group. Cited in this article below is a specific example of how leftists used the SPLC to pressure Paypal into dropping us as a client. Because of these scare tactics, we can no longer accept donations through Paypal – a leftist run tech company.

 

The left’s mission is to silence any ideas differing from their own and with control of the most influential tech companies in the world – they are off to a great start.

 

For Freedom,

ACT for America

+++++++++++++++++++

CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT FACES EXISTENTIAL THREAT FROM TECH, STUDY SHOWS

‘If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off’

 

By BOB UNRUH

April 16, 2018

WND

 

CENSORED

 

A new study from the Media Research Center says conservatives, and their ideas, right now are facing an existential threat from tech companies founded and run by liberals who have decided that only their voice should be heard on disputed issues.

 

“The conservative movement is facing a threat to its very existence – a new, insidious form of media censorship,” the MRC report, available starting Monday, said.

 

“Media bias has always been an enemy of the right. Liberal journalists relied on talking points and talking heads that agreed with for their stories. Conservatives were typically ignored or even targeted by old-school media monopolies but while conservatives were excluded, their organizations were still allowed to function and even flourish. The internet gave the right new tools to go around traditional media – websites, email, video and social media. Conservatives’ power online continued to grow as groups expanded their base of supporters and were even able to flourish online.

 

“Now, all of that is under threat,” the report states.

 

How?

 

It’s not complicated. If the liberals who run the big companies, like Facebook, Google, Youtube and Twitter, all suppress conservative speech, and the report concludes they are, no messages that contradict leftist propaganda will be heard.

 

“Like it or not, social media is the communication form of the future – not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Just Facebook and Twitter combined reach 1.8 billion people. More than two-thirds of all Americans (68 percent) use Facebook. YouTube is pushing out TV as the most popular place to watch video. Google is the No. 1 search engine in both the U.S. And the world,” the study finds.

 

And those organizations are not about transparency and fairness.

 

“War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing – badly. If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideas and conservative media.

 

“It’s the new battleground of media bias. But it’s worse. That bias is not a war of ideas. It’s a war against ideas. It’s a clear effort to censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation,” the study said.

 

Among the key findings in the study is that Twitter leads in censorship – and Project Veritas even caught staffers boasting on hidden camera they had been censoring conservatives through a technique known as shadow banning.

 

There, users think their content is being seen widely, while Twitter deliberately suppresses it.

 

On Facebook, its trending feed has been caught hiding conservative topics.

 

A 2016 Gizmodo story warned of the bias, with testimonies from former employees they’d been instructed to “hide conservative content.”

 

“On the other hand,” the study said. “the term ‘black lives matter’ had also been placed into the trending section even though it was not actually trending.”

 

Google’s search functions, the study said, simply help Democrats.

 

“Google and Youtube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt is known to have helped Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign,” the study said. “The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats.”

 

And YouTube simply shuts down conservatives’ videos. That deprives them of monetization first, but also the publicity that successful videos generate.

 

“YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels ‘by mistake’ to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. YouTube’s special creators for change section is devoted to people using their ‘voices for social change’ and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther.”

 

Further, tech companies partner with leftists including the Southern Poverty Law Center, and more, to try to further their campaigns.

 

It cites the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League.

 

“Both claim to combat ‘hate,’ but treat standard conservative beliefs in faith and family as examples of that hatred. George Soros-funded Propublica is using information from both radical leftist organizations to attack conservative groups such as Jihad Watch and ACT for America, bullying Paypal and other services to shut down their funding sources.”

 

Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Councli” [sic] has 12 liberals as members. Only one conservative.

 

And the “fact-checkers” that the companies, whose empire encompasses $3 trillion, use? All “anti-conservative,” the report says.

 

A strong commitment to transparency and fairness with a dedication to free speech likely is the only solution, the study notes.

 

The companies “must stop pretending” that disagreeing is the equivalent of “hate speech,” and the bias must be removed.

 

That means groups that routinely label core conservative values as “hate” need to be addressed.

 

“Tech companies can’t expect conservatives to trust a system that is so blatantly one-sided,” it said.

 

Included in the study was a quote from Niall Ferguson, Hoover Institute senior fellow: “Nothing has changed politics not only in the U.S., but worldwide more than the advent of companies like Facebook. Forty-five percent of Americans now get news from Facebook …. Mark Zuckerberg, who runs Facebook, has the power to tweak the algorithm that determines what gets into your news feed and my news feed. And that is an awesome power … because let’s face it Mark Zuckerberg’s politics are liberal politics. He has no desire to see 2016 happen again.”

 

The study, by Ashley Rae Goldenberg and Dan Gainor, documents, “The problem starts deep inside the liberal corporate cultures of the companies. Eric Schmidt recently stepped down as head of both Google and Youtube. While still in that role, he aided the Hillary Clinton campaign. … Zuckerberg has been a strong proponent of the Dream Act and LGBT issues.”

 

Then their employees reflect those biases.

 

Facebook workers donated 99 times more to Hillary Clinton than President Trump. For Google, it was 63 times.

 

A survey showed 89 percent of very conservative, 74 percent of conservative and 69 percent of libertarian workers are “hesitant of being themselves while at work for fear they might lose their jobs.”

 

Sen. Ted Cruz, the study notes, warned just weeks ago that if the companies are a neutral public forum, they cannot allow censorship. If they are not a neutral public forum, “the entire predicate for immunity under CDA (Community Decency A[c]t) is claiming to be a neutral public forum, so you can’t have it both ways.’

_________________________

Social Media Exclusion of Conservative Thought

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2018

________________________

ACT for America is Under Attack!

We could not have accomplished any of this without your support.

 

ACT for America · 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 190, #614, Washington, DC 20004, United States

___________________________

CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT FACES EXISTENTIAL THREAT FROM TECH, STUDY SHOWS

 

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

Support WND with your contribution!

 

Would you like to help WND? With your support, we can continue the vital task of shining a bright journalistic light on today’s lawless and out-of-control government, as well as our increasingly corrupt culture, and on all those who threaten Americans’ happiness, wellbeing and security. In an age when truth is increasingly hard to come by, WND is dedicated to making sense out of the increasingly chaotic and dangerous world we live in. Many important stories never see the light of day … until WND breaks the story.

 

As you know, WND.com is one of the world’s largest and most successful independent, English-language news websites, with an estimated 6 million readers.

 

But what you might not know is that it very difficult for a news website to make money on the Internet. Many content sites – including some large, high-profile ones – have gone out of business. And many others are struggling with establishing reliable revenue streams that can support the expenses necessary to produce a quality, 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week content site.

 

WND relies on revenues from store products and from advertising. But it needs the third leg that traditional causes have always enjoyed – donations. Your contribution is essential to our success. Your contribution will help build a stronger, more effective news service.

 

There is no penalty for readers who do not support us in this way. Many of you support us in other ways – through purchase of products, patronage of advertisers, etc. Frankly, just having you as readers is rewarding for us. But a voluntary donation is one more option for those who want to help and can help.

 

Countless readers have told us they have dropped subscriptions to their local daily newspaper after finding WND. Would you be willing to donate to us what you paid your daily newspaper? Would you be willing to pay half? How about just $3 a month? If every one of our 6 million unique WND readers donated just $3 a month, we would be growing fast enough to dramatically expand our reporting.

 

Please use the READ THE REST

 

Are you Falsely Accused of Inexplicable/Illogical Fear?


John R. Houk

© April 17, 2018

 

It’s time to address phobias – again. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of phobia:

 

an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Apparently, i.e. listening to the Left, Social Conservatives, Conservatives understanding Islamic revered writings and Counterjihadists all over the political spectrum are peopled filled with “inexplicable and illogical fear.”

 

People that believe the Word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible) and condemn the homosexual lifestyle because God calls the practice an abomination in the Old Testament and deserving death unless the homosexual lifestyle is repented by looking up to Jesus the Redeemer in the New Testament are vilified as homophobes. The problem I have with the epithet “homophobe,” is that Biblical Christians DO NOT have an inexplicable and illogical fear of those who practice a homosexual lifestyle.

 

Rather the view of a Biblical Christian is lining up with God in loathing the practice which as an unrepentant action separates one from the Presence of God. Incidentally, a spiritual state restored by believing in the price paid in death of Jesus Christ and enabling eternal life in the Presence of God participating by faith in the Resurrection to glorified Life by the man-God (both natures in one) Jesus Christ.

 

Christians (AND any non-Christian not a Muslim) must understand the revered writings of Islam deal in exacting death to anyone who does not submit to the authority of Islam. This especially the case in a region where Islam is the basis for the rule of law. In non-Muslim dominated areas, the Muslim is entreated to tolerate the inferior infidels until such a time Islam is the dominant theo-political reality.

 

It is at this point that a Leftist and Muslim apologist will scream my assertion is a lie and thus I must be a racist hater Islamophobe (expressing hatred out of an “inexplicable and illogical fear” of all things Islam).

 

Let me be clear! As a Christian I have zero fear of Muslims or of the theo-political ideology of Islam. Rather I loath the doctrine because in its essence the theo-political Islamic revered writings promote all things that separate humanity from God by denying the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. FURTHMORE, Islamic revered writings deny that God Almighty emptied His Divine prerogatives to be born a human to be the perfect sinless man enabling His life to be the price that Redeems humanity from the inherited fallen-sin nature bequeathed by the first man Adam who switched allegiance to Satan by disobeying God.

 

As opposed to the Truth of the Holy Bible I linked to above, Islamic revered writings deny it all claiming Muhammad’s lying words (or if Mo heard from a spiritual being, Muhammad’s gullible allegiance to a devil disguised as an angel of light) are superior to Holy Spirit (3rd Person of the ONE True God) inspired Holy Scripture.

 

Most egregious example – Quran 23: 91 – various translations:

 

Sahih International: Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].

 

Yusuf Ali: No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!

 

Muhammad Sarwar: God has never given birth to a son and there is no other god besides Him. If there were, each god would have taken away his creatures and claimed superiority over the others. God is too exalted to be as they believe Him to be.

 

Mohsin Khan: No son (or offspring or children) did Allah beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! Glorified be Allah above all that they attribute to Him!

 

This Quranic Surah is only a small example of Islam’s specific antipathy of the Christian faith.

 

More treatment of non-Muslims that decide submission is oppression at the hands of Muslims – Quran 9:12-14 (QuranBrowser.org – under Yusuf Ali):

 

9:12

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

9:13

Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

9:14

Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

 

Quran 9: 28-33 (QuranBrowser.org – under Shakir):

 

9:28

O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

9:29

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

9:30

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

9:31

They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

9:32

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.

9:33

He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.

 

The Quran, Hadith and Sira are full of this hatred and oppression at non-Muslims. Although the early suras instructed Muslims to respect the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) the later suras in date (NOT chronologically) reflects Mo’s disappointment in Jews and Christians rejecting Muhammad as a false prophet. Ergo, respect degenerated into oppression followed by destruction if there was any refusal to submit to allah as a convert or a subhuman existence. Sounds more like human emotional directives rather than divine prophecy.

 

The Word’s of Jesus in false prophets:

 

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. – Matthew 7: 13-20 NKJV

 

And this God-Breathed Word found in 1 John:

 

2 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a]Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

 

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. – 1 John 2: 18-19; 4: 1-3 NKJV

 

Do I have an inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam? NOPE!

 

I have a very explicable and logical loathing of Islam. The very tenets of Islam are aggressively antipathetical not only against Christians, but against ALL people who want nothing to do with the Islamic despotic totalitarian theo-political ideology.

 

You may wonder what motivated me to clarify my thoughts on how “phobia” is a sadly misused application to stalwart Biblical Christians. The motivation is derived from an email I received from Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America expressing displeasure with Senator Cory Booker’s grilling of Mike Pompeo during the Senate nomination hearing for becoming Secretary of State. In the course of the grilling Booker equated Brigitte Gabriel and Pompeo as Islamophobes.

 

In response to Booker’s grilling, Gabriel penned a response explaining her contempt for being wrongly called an Islamophobe.

 

Just as a side thought. Gabriel is in the camp that only Radical Muslims need be exposed. That is a fair point as an American supporting the 1st Amendment of Religious Freedom.

 

Unfortunately, Gabriel and others in her camp are failing to see the big picture pertaining to Islam and the theo-political religion’s history of overt conquest and stealth eradication of cultures and faiths that are contrary to Islamic tenets. The more accepted Islamic tenets are become, the greater the potential that Islamic domination occurs ending the very Constitutional Rights guaranteed as inalienable.

 

With that minor divergence of thought between and Brigitte Gabriel, below is here Townhall article written on 4/14/18.

 

Here is the email intro from Brigitte Gabriel dated 4/16/2018 11:30 AM:

 

Dear John, 

 

Last week, during the Secretary of State Nomination Hearings, Senator Cory Booker decided to use his time as a way to advance his own political career. I lived in an 8×10 bomb shelter for almost a decade because of Islamic terrorism. Yet, Cory Booker and the fake news media had the audacity to call me an Islamophobe and a Hate Monger on the Senate floor.

 

These shameful, baseless lies will not slow me down. As someone who has lived through terrorism, and experienced it firsthand – I will not be silenced by these leftist scare tactics. Over the weekend I published an op-ed on Townhall.com to give my perspective on what happened.

Thank you for support. I hope you enjoy my article!

 

Un-apologetically Patriotic,

Brigitte Gabriel

 

 

JRH 4/17/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Pompeo and I Are Not Hate Mongers

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Apr 14, 2018 12:01 AM

Townhall.com

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

 

Cory Booker – sourpuss

 

Senators grilling CIA Director and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo threw out a number of charged words in an attempt to taint his reputation. Senator Cory Booker used words like “anti-Islam,” “Islamaphobe,” and the other absurd and completely unfounded clichés to describe myself, my organization, ACT for America, and anyone else whose beliefs do not conform to their politically correct fantasyland that have worked with patriots like Mr. Pompeo to expose terrorist activities both within the United States and abroad.

 

For the last fifteen years I’ve been traveling the world, exercising freedom of speech, as is my human right, in an effort to educate others about the threat of terrorism and radical Islam. I expose the truth behind a warped ideology that legitimizes decapitation, stonings, rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, and a number of other abhorrent human rights atrocities. All of these appalling acts are frequent in one particular part of the world, the Islamic world. Radical Islamists will openly cry out “Allahu Akhbar,” before committing a terrorist attack, or any of the other human rights violations aforementioned, as if their God would be pleased with their barbaric actions. I’ve got news for these politically correct senators trying to score cheap political points by slandering both myself, and patriotic officials like Mr. Pompeo; this is not a partisan issue, it’s a human issue.

 

But the fact that I’ve dared to call out these terrorists, and spoke the truth about the roots of their radical rage, has placed me, and those who associate with me, in the crosshairs of political smear merchants. Cliché accusations of “Islamophobia” thrown at myself and my organization, still seem to be the only defense for far-left frauds.

 

The term “hate group,” is another term the radical left has used to attempt to delegitimize others. The definition of this term includes “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings?  Yes. Do any of these locations ring a bell? Fort Hood, Texas (Nidal Hasan – NOV, 2009); the Boston Marathon bombing (APR, 2013); Charlie Hebdo massacre, Paris (JAN, 2015); the multiple restaurant and Bataclan concert massacres, Paris (NOV, 2015); the San Bernardino Christmas Party massacre (DEC, 2015); the Brussels simultaneous airport and subway attacks (MAR, 2016); the Pulse Nightclub massacre, Orlando, FL (JUN, 2016) ; Nice, France, Bastille Day truck massacre (JUL, 2016). They are all places where horrendous terrorist atrocities were committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed.

 

Senator, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to human rights atrocities makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I submit that I, and everyone else with any common sense or moral compass, would fall into this category.

 

I am not, however, fearful of moderate, Western loving Muslims, and consequently, I’ve worked with them, and continue to do so.  Most Muslims are as concerned as I am about the radicalized element of Islam, and how terrorists all over the world are perverting their hope of living in peace.  ACT for America has more than a million members from all walks of life. We work with moderate Muslims, members of the LGBTQ+ community, Republicans, Democrats, and anyone willing to stand for what is right in the face of evil, and the enabling of it by the regressive left.

 

We defend the defenseless, those who have been terrorized for being “infidels.”  Our organization works to protect women, children, homosexuals, and anyone else endangered by the radical elements that threaten their very dignity and existence in the name of their religion.

 

As for the moniker, “hate group,” let’s be clear, there is nothing hateful about patriotism. There is nothing hateful about defending the defenseless. There is nothing about opposing hatred, only enabling it the way that an appalling number of senators on Capitol Hill, in conjunction with the media, and anti-American political organizations do so continuously.

 

For years, true hate enablers, like the outrageously biased Southern Poverty Law Center, have recklessly labeled dozens of mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups,” which has led to violent and dangerous attacks on such organizations. In fact, the SPLC has been named in court as the cause of an act of domestic terrorism, when one of their loyal followers, who soaked up their dangerous propaganda like a sponge, shot up the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C. Yet, the mainstream media still uses this disgraced organization as a neutral arbiter of hate?  On what authority do they make these proclamations?

 

Another group which frequently traffics in false accusations such as “hate group” is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is an organization whose spokespersons have been linked to terrorist groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have been designated as a terrorist organization in Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates, which itself abides by Islamic law. Let me guess, the United Arab Emirates is also “Islamophobic?”

 

Apparently, a Muslim brotherhood front-group like CAIR can throw out accusations such as “hate group,” but accurately calling them a terrorist organization, and stating facts about their leadership and members is a bridge too far. Give me a break.

 

This week, in an ironic twist, the American Defamation League sent a letter to senators, yet again making this false claim about myself, and ACT for America. These days, I suppose facts are considered the new hate speech. Should anyone be surprised? The only ammunition these anti-free speech bullies have is to cry bigotry whenever facts contradict their feelings. I’ve been defamed many times over the years, and had my life and that of my family’s threatened, with public figures like the media’s favorite jihadist Linda Sarsour calling for the mutilation of my, and FGM survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s, body.

 

We’re living in a dangerous time more akin to the Twilight Zone than reality. A time when the aggresors are the victims, and opposition to hate is considered hateful.

 

For the record, ACT for America is a grassroots national security grassroots advocacy organization focused on protecting our nation’s security, western democratic values, and basic human rights. ACT for America has never, and will never, tolerate any bias, discrimination, or violence against anyone, based on their religion, gender, race, or political persuasion.

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again-political correctness must die so that freedom and truth can live.

___________________________

Are you Falsely Accused of Inexplicable/Illogical Fear?

John R. Houk

© April 17, 2018

____________________________

Pompeo and I Are Not Hate Mongers

 

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you

 

Dr. Shaw Promotes Valuable D.C. Counterjihad Conference


Dr. Leslie Shaw, PhD

 

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2018

 

I received an unsolicited email from a Dr. Leslie Shaw, an Associate Professor teaching at the Paris campus of ESCP Europe (acronym for: École supérieure de commerce de Paris). This Is a business college located at various metropolitan cities across Europe.

 

I’m not sure how Dr. Shaw discovered me, but I’d like to believe it was one of the three blogs I post at. The nature of the email was to inform the date of a Counterjihad Conference to be held at Washington DC. The Conference stand is “to break the taboo and tackle head-on the campaign being waged by political Islam to make Western business Sharia-compliant.” The Conference is sponsored by the Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management (FIRM).

Dr. Shaw’s email is actually a forward from him to FIRM Europe (and probably other recipients not listed) on 3/28/18. Here is the forwarded portion of the email sent to me by Dr. Shaw:

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

On Thursday 26 April 2018 Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management is hosting a conference at the US Capitol to break the taboo and tackle head-on the campaign being waged by political Islam to make Western business Sharia-compliant.

 

In France corporates are gradually overcoming a reluctance to discuss this issue out of fear of accusations of Islamophobia but in the USA the core value of religious freedom is being used by Islamists as an instrument to stifle debate.

 

The conference will include speakers from France, the UK, Belgium, Hungary and Israel as well as from the USA.

 

Admission is free. Participants may make a donation towards the cost of organizing this event, the goals of which are to raise awareness of and explore ways to combat the encroachment of political Islam in the corporate sector.

 

Details in the attachments and links:

 

https://firmeurope.com/events

 

https://firm.eventsmart.com/events/islamic-radicalism-workplace-2/

 

This event is the second in a biannual series that will alternate between Paris and Washington. The next conference will be held at the National Assembly, Paris on 15 November 2018.

 

Best regards,

Leslie Shaw
Associate Professor
—————–
Paris Campus/République

79 avenue de la République – 75543 Paris Cedex 11 – France

 

Dr. Shaw sent two PDF promo attachments with the email. Thanks to the magic of conversion software, below is the text of those PDFs. After the two PDFs, I’m cross posting a Clarion Project interview with Dr. Shaw the FIRM sponsored conference, Political Islam in the Workplace. 

 

JRH 4/12/18

Please Support NCCR

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

FIRM

London Center for Policy Research

American Center for Democracy

 

PRESENTING A GROUNDBREAKING CONFERENCE

 

Political Islam in the Workplace

Thursday 26th April 2018

 

On Thursday 26 April 2018 at the United States Capitol, Washington DC from 3pm to 9pm FIRM, London Center for Policy Research and American Center for Democracy are hosting the world’s most informed experts on Islamic radicalism and executives from flagship corporates.

 

They’ll be coming together in one room for America’s first Political Islam in the Workplace conference.

 

A wide range of topics will be covered;

 

  • from religious accommodation to detection of radicalization

 

  • from lethal attacks on soft targets to lawfare against employers

 

  • from micro-financing of jihad to security and protection of employees and customers and everything in between!

 

We’re curating an incredible group of people who are working tirelessly to find solutions to the global scourge of Islamic radicalism. Admission to hear them speak and ask them questions is by registration and we’re vetting every prospective attendee to make sure we have the right people in the room.

 

This event is a unique opportunity for lawmakers and professionals from the public and private sectors to learn from leading experts on this crucial topic, share experiences, exchange best practises and better equip themselves to deal with the security, legal and HR challenges posed by the growing threat of Islamic radicalism to free enterprise and democracy.

 

To apply

 

  1. Go to our website – https://firmeurope.com/

 

  1. Submit your email

 

  1. Click registration link on Events page

 

All conference attendees will receive a copy of our report.

 

++++++++++++++++++

London Center for Policy Research

FIRM

American Center for Democracy

 

Political Islam in the Workplace

 

03:00 – 03:30 | Registration

 

03.30 – 04.00 | Welcome and opening address

 

  • Eli Gold

 

  • Leslie Shaw – Islamic Radicalism in the Workplace Survey Results

 

04.00 – 05 :30 | Panel 1 – Political Islam and the Workplace

 

  1. Rachel Ehrenfeld – The Islamist Economic Warfare against the West

 

  1. Pierre Spain – Islamist Infiltration of Labor Unions at Paris CDG Airport

 

  1. Herbert London – Political Correctness and An Inability to Recognize the Threat

 

  1. Philippe Chansay-Wilmotte – Freeing Business from the Shackles of Political Islam

 

 

05:30 – 06:30 | Dinner and networking break

 

06:30 – 08:00 | Panel 2 – Managing the Threat

 

  1. Zoltán Ladányi – A Blueprint for Regulating Religion in the Workplace

 

  1. Joseph Trindal – Addressing Radicalization as another Insider Threat in Sensitive Job Categories

 

  1. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin – The Workplace Jihadi’s Inside-Out World

 

  1. Frank Figliuzzi – Lessons Learned: Case Studies from the Corporate World

 

 

08:00 – 08:15 | Keynote

 

  • To be announced

 

08:15 – 08:30 | Closing remarks

 

  • Eli Gold

 

  • Leslie Shaw

 

Speakers

 

  • Philippe Chansay-Wilmotte – Lawyer at Brussels Bar with extensive experience working for governments, including Islamic governments.

 

  • Rachel Ehrenfeld – Director of American Center for Democracy and Economic Warfare Institute.

 

  • Frank Figliuzzi – Chief Operating Officer, ETS Global Risk Management, Inc; NBC News National Security Analyst; Former Director, Corporate Investigations and Assistant Chief Security Officer, the General Electric Company; Former FBI Assistant Director of Counterintelligence.

 

  • Eli Gold – Senior Vice President, London Center for Policy Research; Senior Fellow, Soran University; Former President and Chairman, The Harbour League.

 

  • Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin – External Expert, Universidad de Granada; Psychoanalyst, Arabist, Counter-Terrorism Expert.

 

  • Zoltan Ladanyi – LPN Global Security Solutions.

 

  • Herbert London – President, London Center for Policy Research; Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Former President, Hudson Institute; Professor Emeritus and former John M. Olin Professor of Humanities, New York University.

 

  • Leslie Shaw – Associate Professor, ESCP Europe Business School.

 

  • Pierre Spain – Corporate Director, Delta Air Lines (rtd).

 

  • Joseph Trindal – Director of Programs, Engility Corporation; Leading Department of Justice ICITAP and OPDAT programs; Former President, InfraGard National Capital Region; Former President and Chief Operating Officer, Akal Security.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

Is Islamism a Problem in America’s Workplaces?

 

By CLARION PROJECT 

March 29, 2018

Clarion Project

DAGENHAM, ENGLAND – JANUARY 13: An employee works on an engine production line at a Ford factory on January 13, 2015 in Dagenham, England. Originally opened in 1931, the Ford factory has unveiled a state of the art GBP475 million production line that will start manufacturing the new low-emission, Ford diesel engines from this November this will generate more than 300 new jobs, Ford currently employs around 3000 at the plant in Dagenham. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Workers at a Ford factory in the UK (Illustrative photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)

 

The first conference in the U.S. on the subject of Political Islam in the Workplace will take place in Washington, D.C. on April 26, 2018  The event is co-sponsored by Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management (FIRM), London Center for Policy Research and American Foundation for Democracy. Clarion Project spoke to event co-ordinator Dr. Leslie Shaw of FIRM:

 

Clarion: Back in 2016, CAIR described this planned conference as Islamophobic. Can you comment on that?

 

Leslie Shaw: CAIR’s opinion is driven by sectarian self-interest and promotion of a socio-political agenda.

 

Clarion: But the conference focuses only on Islamic and not other forms of radicalism.

 

Shaw: We are looking at one segment of a wide phenomenon. Other forms of radicalism exist — Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, left-wing, right-wing, animal rights activists, anti-globalists, eco-warriors, neo-luddites — but Islamic radicalism poses a greater threat than all of the others put together.

 

Clarion: Why political Islam in the workplace specifically?

 

Shaw: There is a plethora of conferences on the subject of radicalism in general and Islamic radicalism in particular, but they are usually restricted to specialists in certain areas. I attended a conference in Brussels on April 22 on the challenge of jihadist radicalization in Europe. There were over 250 people there and over 20 speakers but not one person from the business world. We want to open the subject up to corporations, because they are in the front line.

 

Clarion: Can you explain how?

 

Shaw: Corporations are soft targets for terrorist attacks, but aside from the threat of violence, they are also easy prey for Islamists deploying nonviolent tactics in pursuit of their goals.

 

Islamist employees may not end up committing acts of terrorism, but their behavior is certain to generate significant workplace conflict that undermines productivity and workforce cohesion. A recent survey of over 1,000 French managers revealed that 65% had to handle faith-based problems on an occasional or regular basis, ranging from absenteeism through collective praying to refusal to work with a female colleague.

 

So, in addition, to the security dimension, it is also an issue for human resources. In France, for example, Islamic radicalism is a growing phenomenon among employees in the City of Paris, the Paris Airport Authority, the Paris Transit Authority and the public education sector. It is also a problem in private firms. The French government is currently seeking to partner with the private sector to deal with the threat.

 

You are getting the same thing in the USA with the explosion in lawsuits filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against employers. These are more often than not instigated by CAIR.

 

Clarion: Isn’t that a legitimate Civil Rights Act Title VII issue?

 

Shaw: I think the spirit of Title VII has been perverted to further a political and ideological agenda. When an employer hires a worker, he is buying that person’s time. In a manufacturing plant operating with a lean production schedule, you can’t have a worker walking off the assembly line at times determined by a third party. When you take a job, you follow the employer’s rules.

 

Clarion: But not all demands for religious accommodation are radical.

 

Shaw: Our working definition of a radical is somebody whose determination to adhere to his principles or religion causes disruption in the workplace. A vegetarian should not apply for a job in a slaughterhouse and then file a Title VII complaint because it conflicts with his moral principles. A Muslim should not take a job in a brewery if it conflicts with his religion.

 

Clarion: Aren’t you concerned that such views could be branded as Islamophobic?

 

Shaw: The purpose of the conference is to debate these issues in an open forum. Any point of view can be countered by a rebuttal.

 

Clarion: You held a similar conference in Paris in November 2017. What was the response?

 

Shaw: Extremely positive. It was attended by senior executives from flagship European and U.S. corporations as well as delegates from the gendarmerie, national Police, military, intelligence, counter-terrorism and corporate security. People appreciated the fact that we tackled the subject in a direct manner.

 

Clarion: What differences do you see in the U.S. and European approach to the problem?

 

Shaw: In Europe, corporatations are gradually overcoming a reluctance to discuss these issues out of fear of accusations of Islamophobia, but in the USA the core value of religious freedom is being used by Islamists as an instrument to stifle debate.

 

Clarion: How can people access the survey you are conducting?

 

Shaw: The survey is not accessible to the public. It’s not an opinion poll. We are sending it directly to executives in various companies and sectors. If anybody wants to complete it, they can contact us at firm.europe@gmail.com. We vet them before sending the link to make sure they are bona fide corporate officers.

 

Clarion: How does one register for the conference?

 

Shaw: People can apply to attend by clicking here (our website https://firmeurope.com) All applicants will be vetted and we will send them instructions on how to register. The list of participants will be classified.

 

Clarion: What have you discovered while organizing this conference?

 

Shaw: Apart from analysts and the security community, people are scared of Islamic radicalism.  The academic and media establishment won’t touch it because of political correctness. Corporations are seeking help to mitigate the threat but behind closed doors. They won’t come out and discuss the issues in public. It is an Orwellian fear that plays into the hands of the global Muslim Brotherhood and its satellite organizations.

 

Clarion: Are you planning more conferences?

 

Shaw: Yes. The next one is on November 15, 2018 at the National Assembly, the French parliament. The conference will be a biannual event alternating between Paris and Washington.

 

Clarion: How will corporate attendees benefit from the conference?

 

Shaw: First, they will have the reassurance that they are not alone in facing the threat. Second, the conference will demonstrate that corporations can acquire tools to assess the risks, mitigate the threat, minimize the economic costs, vet personnel and potential hires, and shield themselves from litigation.

 

The business community has a right to openly, fearlessly and objectively discuss the real challenges posed by Islamic radicalism in the workplace and share their best practices and experience in dealing with it.

 

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the subject of Islam, on both sides. We need to cast a real eye on what is going on and take steps to ensure that our socio-economic model and values remain intact.

 

Lawmakers have a key role to play in this process so that businesses are not at the mercy of religious pressure groups eager to hijack our freedoms for their own ends.

_____________________

Dr. Shaw Promotes Valuable D.C. Counterjihad Conference

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2018

_____________________

Is Islamism a Problem in America’s Workplaces?

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

More About Clarion Project on About Page

 

Intro to Kutnicki Post about Muslim Brainwashing West


Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

April 11, 2018

 

Adina Kutnicki is an author and a blogger. She is Jewish & Pro-Israel. Adina’s one-line description of her blog pretty much explains that which you read: “A Zionist & Conservative Blog”.

Adina Kutnicki

 

Her 4/10/18 post could be read as a Western indictment of blind Dhimmitude. Adina begins with U.S. schools actually requiring grade school students to learn Islamic doctrine in the classroom.

 

Can you imagine? Leftists and atheists have been fairly successful in eliminating Christian culture from having any influence due to some secularist SCOTUS Justices claiming a Thomas Jefferson letter to a Baptist Church insuring Church Establishment will not be used as a purpose to persecute their beliefs. The term derived from the Jefferson letter foisted as constitutional among Americans by a ridiculous interpretation of SCOTUS is “Separation of Church and State.” The SCOTUS majority opinion reinterpreted the Constitution based on the Jefferson letter EVEN THOUGH Jefferson was NOT a part of the Constitutional Convention that deliberated a penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights (1st ten Amendments) to be ratified by the Thirteen States. Jefferson was serving on diplomatic issues in France.

 

Dear God, many of the Original 13 States had Established Churches way past the ratification of the 1st Amendment, with Massachusetts being the last to disestablish in 1833.

 

Despite the majority opinion of SCOTUS Justices, the phrase can NO WHERE be found in U.S. Constitution AND that includes any Amendment to the Constitution. The merits of SCOTUS forcing the rule of law on Americans not in the Constitution is another blog post. Suffice it to say the atheist, Leftist and Muslim hypocrisy in using the unconstitutional phrase – Separation of Church and State – prevents the majority faith of Christianity appearing on the taxpayer dime; BUT NOT Islam.

Contrasting Christian song Not Allowed Public School & Muslim Fight Song Forced in Public School

 

Adina switches U.S. schools to Muslim indoctrination in Europe. Read the whole post.

 

JRH 4/11/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Western Capitulation To Allah’s Islamic Terrorists: Bow Down – Or Else!! 

 

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

April 10, 2018

Adina Kutnicki Blog

 

THE whys and wherefores of the west’s capitulation to Allah’s Muslim Terrorists can fill book after book. Nevertheless, several factors are key and core. Resultant, in order to mitigate the fall-out and prostration, they must be understood and internalized.

 

SUFFICE to state:

 

Multiculturalism

 

 

  • In tandem, the leadership’s hatred of Judeo-Christian underpinnings bespeaks a “natural” alliance with Mohammedans, as they too abhor the west and its underlying ethos.

 

  • Atop said pyramid, western leaders (movers and shakers too) are in financial bed with Islamic regimes and their seventh-century thinking followers. In other words, greed is an overriding lure and pull.

 

ALL of which leads to capitulation, as opposed to the preservation of western culture and national security. Consequentially, it is not for nothing that the red-green alliance – totalitarians alike – agitates toward the disarming of the American people at all costs. Indeed, a disarmed populace is a submissive one.

 

American Students Indoctrinated by Islam

 

THAT being established, it is hardly a secret that America’s kiddies are being schooled to bow down to Islam. Of this there is no doubt. In fact, the following excerpts (ala Nov. 21, 2015, in concert with countless others at this site) attest to the same:

 

5 Pillars of Islam U.S. Classroom

 

In order to fully comprehend the pernicious Islamic indoctrination of America’s kiddies, some basic truths must become self-evident. Second skin……

 

Parents at a California middle school are demanding to know why a teacher had students sing an Islamic “fight song.”

 

A seventh-grade teacher at Spring View Middle School in Huntington Beach, California, deviated from the district’s official curriculum and had students sing “This Is My Fight Song.” Parent and grandparent Nichole Negron and Susan Negron told KCAL 9 Los Angeles their seventh grader was told to participate in the activity.

 

“I believe that by singing the song, the children feel comfortable that maybe Allahu is the only god and maybe that they should start following him,” Susan Negron told the network Tuesday. “I’m not OK with that.”

 

Song Controversy Huntington Beach CA

 

The women only found out about the activity by accident when Negron’s son brought a pamphlet with lyrics home. “How can we as parents combat against what we don’t know is going on?” the mother asked.

 

The two women went to the Ocean View school board on Tuesday night looking for answers. The teacher allegedly wanted students to learn about Islam through a “catchy” tune. (Begs the question, why should students be forced to learn about death cult posing as a religion in public school?)

The lyrics to “This Is My Fight Song” go as follows:

 

….continue reading….

 

VIDEO: TV AD ENCOURAGES GERMAN WOMEN TO WEAR HIJABS [Alex Jones makes a buck – last 3 or 4 minutes is an ad]

 

Posted by The Alex Jones Channel

Published on Sep 17, 2016

 

Country gives up on integrating Muslim migrants, chooses to submit to Islam instead.

 

SO with the above in mind, it follows that European leaders (regardless of locale), ignominiously, are succumbing and bowing down to the dictates of Islam’s barbarians!

 

“On Monday, (March 26, 2018) BILD reported on religious bullying in the schoolyard and in the classroom. Berlin mayor Michael Müller (SPD) said in the “Tagesspiegel” [another German newspaper] that it “was hopefully only an isolated case”. Unfortunately, no! (…)

 

“BILD reported to [sic] parents from all over Germany, who reported [sic] full of anger and bewilderment of their own experiences. Out of fear for their children, they did not want to be named.”

 

A parent talked about her daughter, who was bullied by Muslim girls:

 

“The reasons: She has blond hair, no headscarf, has a German-Hebrew name – and we are Christians! My daughter broke down nervously in fifth grade. She had cramps and massive fear of going to school. She was beaten and verbally attacked on the way to school. The Headmaster said only: ‘Your daughter does not have to say that she is German. Besides, you can give her a headscarf! ‘We’ve changed schools now and luckily things are going better now.”

 

A Muslim school would force girls to wear hijabs.

 

And this German-Christian headmaster — well, that’s his solution, too.

 

Bild also reports that:

 

“Schoolgirls were bullied for eating ‘impure’ Gummy Bears. The sweets contain pork gelatin.”

 

There’s more, as I’ll tell you tonight.

 

Why is any of this surprising?

 

This is the culture that has been imported to Germany, en masse. Two million Muslims brought in, with no vetting, no cultural fit.

 

Have you read the Koran? Have you read its views on infidels?

 

Do you think this sort of thing is happening here in Canada?

 

Well, we know it is, because we’ve told you about it already.

 

By the year 2023, do you doubt that there will be schools in Canada where Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Sikh girls are being bullied by Muslim girls — and even liberal Muslim girls are being bullied too — and the principal’s advice will be, well, just put on a hijab, and stop eating pork, and the bullying will stop?

 

I don’t just think it’s a possibility.

 

I think it’s a certainty…

 

NOW, isn’t it obvious why Mohammedans are so self-assured, particularly, in their ability to bow and cow non-Muslims to their dictates, and in whichever western country Islam invades? This is so, regardless of their status – be they so-called refugees, migrants, or native-born. No doubt.

 

Muslim refugees to the British people “we do not accept British laws, you adopt our Sharia Laws”

 

VIDEO: Is Europe in Denial About the Islamist Threat?

 

Posted by Clarion Project

Published on Jan 13, 2015

 

In light of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre, we reflect on how violence and extremism has been gathering momentum in Europe throughout the years. The UK, France, Holland and many other European countries are suffering a tide of Islamic extremism unprecedented in living memory. Is Europe’s culture and way of life in danger? Will the governments wake up and act or continue to bury their heads in the sand, living in denial? Clarions Project’s film, The Third Jihad, predicted this tide of violence and extremism now gathering momentum as seen in France, the UK, Holland and across all of Europe.

 

CONCLUSIVELY, as evidenced (and excerpted) within a recent intel report, “Trends/Adaptations In Jihadi Tactics: Intel Overview“, it is more than clear that Islam is incompatible with western civilization. Full stop.

 

  • Consider: The first Surah (Chapter), Al-Fatimah, is invoked 17! times a day, and its supplication to Allah includes:“The path of those You (Allah) bestowed favors upon, not those who have incurred your wrath and those who deviated.” Now, every devoted Muslim – once they reach the age of understanding – is indoctrinated into the imperative from this repetitious Surah: Jews and Christians have angered Allah, therefore, they must be killed. Even more so, Jews are a “special” target, for Allah turned them into monkeys and pigs! This admonition can be found in Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166. Indeed, know thy Koran well. Besides, it will clear through the smoke and mirrors. By extrapolation, is it any wonder that Muhammedans keep attacking “infidels” – and with no end in sight??

 

MOST significantly, hide nor hair…hue nor cry…is heard from western leaders, each time Allah’s Muslim Terrorists persecute and murder infidels around the world! How can this be?

 

In short, the overwhelming majority of persecution that these 215 million Christians experience around the world — especially the worst forms, such as rape and murder — occurs at the hands of Muslims.

 

If time is on the side of Christians living under Communist regimes, it is not on the side of Christians living under Islam. The center of the great Christian Byzantine Empire is now an increasingly intolerant, rapidly Islamizing Turkey. Carthage, once a bastion of Christianity — where one of Christendom’s greatest theologians, St. Augustine, was born and where the New Testament canon was confirmed in 397 — is today 99% Muslim-majority Tunisia…..read on…if you dare….

 

OMINOUSLY, even in terms of capitulation, the presumption is that Mohammedans will allow so-called infidels to survive. In reality, this is absolutely not the case. Inestimably, it is Islam’s inextricable relationship and nexus to blood that must be understood. To wit, Islam, Sharia Law, must be banned and eliminated from the west – or else!

 

YES, Islam & Blood!

 

INDEED, history will not be kind to those who dared to squander the west’s hard-fought freedoms. Moreover, record after record will abound and define this moment in time as one of abject capitulation. National suicide will become its reviled descriptor and watchword – that is, if an immediate volte face isn’t executed.

 

GUARANTEED!

 

Trendolizer- German school-Christian Girls wear hijab deter Muslim Harassment

[URL embedded Kutnicki blog site photo]

 

{re-blogged at ConservativeFiringLine}

 

{MEMO: FB’s censors are limiting the sharing of Adina Kutnicki: A Zionist & Conservative Blog! Indeed, the following message from FB’s censors is crystal clear:

 

MESSAGE FAILED

 

  • This message contains content that has been blocked by our security systems.

 

  • If you think you’re seeing this by mistake, please let us know.

 

Yes, additional “proof-in-the pudding” as to why “BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad” had to be written!}

___________________________

Intro to Kutnicki Post about Muslim Brainwashing West

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

April 11, 2018

____________________________

Western Capitulation To Allah’s Islamic Terrorists: Bow Down – Or Else!! 

 

[Minor editing with spellcheck by Blog Editor]

 

About Adina Kutnicki

 

In addition to being an investigative journalist, I am a consultant to a privately-held Homeland Security entity – related endeavors alike. My first book, BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad,  is available online and in major bookstores. In under 24 hours at AMAZON (Sept. 2016), it jumped to Number One in HOT New Releases!

 

Banned Bk Jk

 

(https://www.amazon.com/author/adinakutnicki)

 

For the most part, my work-product revolves around militant Islamic jihad, with a particular emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia. My geo-political analysis appears at various Zionist and Conservative media outlets. As an example of my long-standing efforts, I contributed to an in-depth investigative series at FrontPage Magazine with Lee Kaplan from 2003-2007We are still working together.

 

Segue over to his interview at Iran’s Press TV (one of many tv debates/interviews) where he debated a rabid self-hating Israeli, a so-called Jew – who supports every manner of terror against Israelis/Jews, even the kidnapping (subsequent murder) of 3 Israeli Jewish teenagers. It can be found here.  He is a world class expert on the ISM, the International Solidarity Movement. One of  READ THE REST

 

The Gaza Clashes: What’s Really Happening


There is one Constant Conservatives can rely on. Leftists lie and Arab pretenders calling themselves Palestinians lie. The proof in the pudding is every incident involving Israel and the lying pretenders is reported with twisted partial truth to no truth whatsoever.

 

JRH 4/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Gaza Clashes: What’s Really Happening

 

By DANIEL POMERANTZ 

 APRIL 9, 2018

HonestReporting

Palestinian prostestors burn tires during clashes with Israeli security forces on the Gaza Israeli border east of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip on April 6, 2018. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90  

 

Since March 30, there have been intermittent protests, riots, and even armed attacks at the Gaza border.

 

Much of the media coverage has been so poorly informed or even outright misleading, that it can be almost impossible to understand what’s really happening. Israel has, in many cases, been made out to be a violent aggressor intentionally killing peaceful protesters.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

That’s why HonestReporting will be actively monitoring, analyzing and communicating throughout these events.

 

Here, for your use and information, is what we’ve seen so far:

 

Re-cap of events

 

  • On April 1, we posted this explanation and analysis of the events up to that date. It was immediately clear that the “protests” also included molotov cocktails, burning tires, rock throwing, and in one case even live gunfire at the IDF.  There were ongoing attempts by rioters to breach the border fence and enter Israel.

 

  • Of the 30,000 Palestinians present, 16 were reportedly killed by IDF sniper fire. The figure later increased to 19.

 

  • It was well known since April 1 that at least ten of the casualties had clear affiliations to terror groups, including Hamas. An analysis of open-source information from Palestinian media brought that number up to 15, and HonestReporting was the first to publish that new information on April 5.

 

  • Another protest/riot on April 6 brought 20,000 people and new violence: including the burning of what may have been 10,000 tires, and further attempts to both attack IDF soldiers and to  infiltrate Israel under the resulting smokescreen. Meanwhile, and this is not a joke, Hamas is now blaming Israel for what it claims is a “shortage” of tires in Gaza. Seriously. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

 

Palestinian Protesters

 

  • A number of Palestinians criticized Hamas for publicizing the deaths of its members, including holding military funerals and rallies. The main objection can be summarized as follows: by revealing that so many of the deaths were actually terrorists, Hamas undermines the PR illusion that this was a “peaceful protest.”

 

 

International investigations?

 

Fatou Bensauda, CC by Max Koot Studio

 

In the meantime, numerous international parties, including UN Secretary General António Guterres and EU chief Federica Mogherini have begun calling for an international investigation into the actions of the IDF.  Whether Israel adequately investigates itself, and whether the allegations have sufficient gravity are likely to be the key issues in determining whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes a case.

 

If the ICC does prosecute a case, Israel is not the only party under the microscope:  Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda has noted that Hamas or other Palestinian bodies could be subject to investigations related to war crimes for their use of civilians in covering violent activities.

 

The UN and EU, on the other hand, are primarily political bodies and can choose to launch their own investigations merely if their members wish to: without any regard to standards of international law.

 

When the dust settles and the burning-tire-smoke clears, international investigations will likely be the big remaining question.

 

In the meantime, the IDF has already appointed Brig. Gen. Moti Baruch, head of the General Staff’s Doctrine and Training Division to lead the IDF’s own investigation.

 

The latest updates

 

Some of the critical facts and images from Friday’s flare-up have made the mainstream news, yet some of the most informative have remained conspicuously absent.

 

Take, for example, this image round-up by Israellycool’s Aussie Dave: including telling, often dramatic pictures of events, some of which have not been published by any international news source.

 

Another telling scene was captured in this photo of a swastika flying alongside Palestinian flags, with tire-smoke all around:

 

 

 

 

A few nay-sayers on Twitter tried to claim the image was photo-shopped, until they came face to face with this video of the same:

 

Proof Swastika Not Photoshopped video

http://s22592.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WhatsApp-Video-2018-04-06-at-21.41.40.mp4?_=1

And speaking of tire-smoke: in this particularly shameless tweet, the Palestine diplomatic office in the US preposterously claims that Hamas’s own tire-fire is actually an Israeli nerve agent.

 

 

Here is some additional video of tires and fires throughout the area.

 

Next time you hear about Palestinians throwing “stones,” keep in mind that in at least some cases, this is what they are really talking about:

 

 

Just outside Gaza, JPost’s Seth Frantzman caught up with Richard Kemp, former commander, British forces, Afghanistan. Kemp took the media to task pointing out that they don’t necessarily fully understand events even if they’re physically close up. Specifically, Kemp clarified that this is not a “peaceful demonstration” as is often portrayed by the media but rather:

 

…a deliberate and specific intent by a major terrorist organization, recognized around the world as terrorists, to penetrate the border of the State of Israel.

 

Arab world reacts

 

Though reactions are mixed, at least some residents of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and other Arab countries, took to social media to lambaste Hamas for its exploitation of the inhabitants of Gaza. Meanwhile, despite a show of support at the official level, it seems Palestinians in the West Bank were largely apathetic to the events in Gaza. Notably, top Palestinian Authority cleric Mahmoud al-Habbash declared:

 

[Hamas is] sending Gazans to their deaths for good headlines… [is] trading in suffering and blood [and] no longer fools Palestinian people.

 

And though it’s not in the Arab world, as long as we’re talking reactions we should give credit where it’s due: Reuters was one of the few publications to ask Israelis living near Gaza what they think. Here’s one example:

 

“I’m sorry about what is happening there. I know the situation is very, very difficult,” Israeli farmer Daniel Rahamim said about economic hardship in Gaza, the Palestinian enclave ruled by Hamas, an Islamist group that advocates Israel’s destruction.

 

“But I don’t talk about a peace deal anymore. Maybe we can achieve a long-term ceasefire,” Rahimim, 63, said as he irrigated his crops. He said his 24-year-old daughter, still “traumatized by rockets” left the area after the demonstrations started.

 

Finally, if there was any doubt about the real point of these protests and riots, Hamas leader Yehya Al-Sinwar was crystal clear:

 

Yehya al-Sinwar quote on killing Jews (Hamas Leader)

 

As these events unfold, HonestReporting will continue to monitor, analyze and hold the media to account.

 

Watch this space.

 

If you see biased or inaccurate media coverage of these events, take action and demand fair coverage from your media. Let us know by informing us through our Red Alert page.

While you’re here, help us continue producing the analyses, articles, videos and hot news reaching thousands of viewers and holding the media accountable. Support us by DONATING HERE

_____________________________

About HonestReporting

 

HonestReporting monitors the news for bias, inaccuracy, or other breach of journalistic standards in coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It also facilitates accurate reporting for foreign journalists covering the region. HonestReporting is not aligned with any government or political party or movement.

 

HonestReporting believes that a fully informed public is essential to progress and understanding in conflict resolution. It is not enough to correct inaccurate reporting and expose breaches of journalistic ethics. HonestReporting, through its MediaCentral project, provides support services for journalists based in or visiting Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the region to insure the free flow of information.

 

HonestReporting’s work serves the public interest by fighting misinformation. At the same time, it provides agenda-free services to reporters, including translation services and access to news makers to enable them to provide a fuller picture of the situation. Honestreporting has over 140,000 subscribers and its MediaCentral project handles over 1,000 inquiries from journalists each year.

 

Our Guiding Principles

 

  1. We believe Israel is entitled to fair treatment by the world press according to the same standards applied to any other country.

 

  1. We believe that public opinion is significantly shaped by media coverage.

 

  1. We believe that biased coverage of Israel distorts the public’s understanding of Israel and its motives, creating an obstacle to a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

  1. We believe people have as much right to criticize Israel as any other state. However, when criticism turns to demonization or delegitimization, it is no longer legitimate criticism.

 

  1. We believe that the media must be transparent, relevant, accurate, balanced, and ethical. Journalists, editors and publishers must be held accountable for slanted coverage.

 

  1. We support the working definition of anti-Semitism as adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in May 2016. We note the fact that this definition stipulates that “Manifestations [of anti-Semitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”

 

To learn about how we objectively define media bias, see The Eight Categories of Media Bias.

 

Our Strategy

 

Monitoring the Media: HonestReporting combats the false depiction of Israel in READ THE REST

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber


Act for America emailed an excerpt of an article from The Federalist with the email subject line “The Muslim Brotherhood is Rattled”. The Federalist article by Ben Weingarten highlights that John Bolton’s appointment as National Security Advisor has rattled the transnational Islamic terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood (aka Ikhwan to many Arab speaking people) because Bolton has had the correct assessment that the terrorist network indeed should be on the State Department’s designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

 

Here is the Act for America email intro:

 

The left has made it their mission to smear anyone who opposes violent jihad, and cast them as “Islamophobic.” Recently, former ambassador John Bolton has been the target of such attacks because of his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) to the President. This is not only an attempt to discredit John Bolton, it is an attempt to protect the Muslim Brotherhood from finally being designated a terrorist organization.

 

As patriotic American’s we must stand up and not only support the appointment of Ambassador John Bolton, but also tell Congress it is time, once and for all, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Click here to tell your local Members of Congress enough is enough.

 

JRH 4/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

John Bolton

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality.

 

By Ben Weingarten

APRIL 5, 2018

The Federalist

 

The attacks on former ambassador John Bolton following his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.

 

First there were the hysterical cries of “neocon warmonger!” This would come as news to the NSA-designate, who was never a “liberal mugged by reality” but a self-identified “Goldwater conservative” from the start; explicitly rejects the belief in democracy-building as imperative to achieving America’s national interest under democratic peace theory; and suggests, exaggerating for effect, that following the removal of Saddam Hussein, as soon as practicable he would have told the Iraqis, “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”

 

Although the “neocon warmonger” moniker is inapt, to say the least, maybe it is not such a bad thing if our enemies buy this line. In fact, this may be part of President Trump’s strategic rationale as a dealmaker for elevating a “peace-through-strength” realist portrayed as a cantankerous cowboy to the top of the National Security Council.

 

Then followed another narrative: Bolton is not only a real-life Dr. Strangelove, but worse. He is actually an adroit bureaucrat—“crazy and dangerous.” Then-senator Joe Biden, a man prone to malapropism, actually put it best when, in Bolton’s retelling, Biden said of him in 2005: “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent. I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”

 

But the truly revelatory attacks concern Bolton’s positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful partly because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.

 

Opposing Jihadis Isn’t the Same as Opposing Islam

 

Bolton has been cast as an “Islamophobe” for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists. The charge of “Islamophobe” is a baseless, intellectually dishonest, and lazy slur. Although it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, it goes without saying that there is nothing to indicate Bolton harbors an irrational fear of Islam, and everything to indicate he holds the very rational belief that we must defeat Islamic supremacists who wish to subject us to their tyrannical rule or destroy us.

 

“Islamophobe” is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The “tell” is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.

 

As the representative par excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.

 

Either We Work With Terrorists or We Don’t

 

Recall that the national security and foreign policy establishment has long held that as a “political Islamist” group, the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic partner. The theory is that we have to choose between violent and seemingly peaceful Islamic supremacists, ignoring the fact that their differences are tactical and strategic, not ideological. They are all still Islamic supremacists.

 

Most infamously, the Obama administration supported the ascension of Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to president during the Arab spring, with predictably horrific consequences in particular for the nation’s Christians that persist even in the era of the much-maligned counterjihadist Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

 

Such disastrously naïve policy pushes ignore that the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. It’s the ideological fountainhead from which violent jihadist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda and ISIS spring. The “political” element of the Muslim Brotherhood is, if anything, more pernicious precisely because its adherents do not goose-step, guns in hand, in the public square.

 

No, the political arm engages in political and ideological warfare, tactfully seeking to impose its will through policy and subterfuge. “Social welfare” activities provide a convenient cover for the group’s ultimate aims. As the Brotherhood put it in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America:

 

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

 

On account of the Brotherhood’s nature and activities, it has been designated as a terrorist organization from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A bill first introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015, calling for the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on designating the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization in America, lays out several other reasons the group merits this, including:

 

The [group’s] explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts

 

The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves

 

The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the…Holy Land Foundation case [the largest terror financing case in U.S. history] …

 

Do What We Like or Get Smeared as a Bigot

 

On the campaign trail and in its early days the Trump administration indicated an interest in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But within months it shelved these plans. What happened? The Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber deployed.

 

The Brotherhood undertook an extensive lobbying and information operation designed to dissuade the administration’s plans, reportedly backed by millions of dollars. The U.S. foreign policy establishment quickly proliferated articles and comments in prominent mainstream publications defending the Muslim Brotherhood against charges of being a jihadist group, adding that designated it as such would be impractical and impracticable. Notably, The New York Times went so far as to print an op-ed in the Brotherhood’s defense written by Clinton Foundation-linked Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad.

 

In the midst of this flurry of articles, it leaked to the media that the CIA and State Department both produced memos against Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation.

 

Concurrently, counterjihadists throughout the Trump administration were subjected to a barrage of attacks. Many would ultimately be sidelined, though some like Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo survived. He, like Bolton, is being attacked as an Islamophobic bigot as well.

 

Bolton recognized at the time that these events were not random. During a July 2017 interview he noted:

 

There’s been an amazing campaign. It’s always amazing to me how these stories and op-eds and lines of chatter appear simultaneously, all very well-coordinated…The argument being the Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated organization, not every part of it is devoted to the support of terrorism. Some of them do humanitarian work and so on; a declaration that the entire Brotherhood is a foreign terrorist organization would actually buttress the cause of the jihadis; so, therefore, don’t do anything.

 

Bolton’s riposte?

 

Let’s take the notion inherent in that argument as having some validity, that there are pieces of the Muslim Brotherhood that don’t qualify under the statutory definition we have of a foreign terrorist organization…My response to that is, ‘Okay, we need some careful drafting based on the evidence we have now that excludes some affiliates, some components of the Muslim Brotherhood from the designation.’ I’m prepared to live with that, of course, until we get more complete information.

 

This position is what really draws the ire of the Brotherhood echo chamber. CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the previously mentioned largest terror financing case in U.S. history, published a press release condemning the appointment of “Islamophobe John Bolton” as NSA, citing corroborating articles from such non-biased sources as Think Progress, The Nation, Islamophobia.com, Vox, and Huffington Post.

 

As I have written previously, CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi ties are numerous and longstanding, involving not only its founders and present leaders to Hamas, but its harboring of apologists for Islamic terrorism, and alleged impeding of counterterrorism efforts.

 

Bolton’s endorsement of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization illustrates a keen understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the Islamic supremacist threat that the national security and foreign policy establishment lacks. It is a proxy for a worldview that if followed to its logical conclusion would turn our largely futile efforts to beat back jihadists over the last 17 years on their head. This view takes Islamic supremacists at their word in their desire to impose upon us the Sharia-based, totalitarian theopolitical ideology to which they adhere. Hence the pushback.

 

Applying this worldview would lead to decisions antithetical to the progressive Wilsonian internationalists and political Islamists on myriad issues in the Middle East, including:

 

  • Treatment of Israel versus the Arabs

 

  • The Iran deal

 

  • Iran policy more broadly, including appropriate measures against its proxies in Syria and Lebanon

 

  • Qatar’s bellicosity

 

  • Turkey’s behavior under Islamic supremacist Erdogan

 

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who self-evidently wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality. This specious and slanderous smear campaign reflects all the better on the appointment of Bolton as NSA.

 

Photo Gage Skidmore / Flickr

________________________

Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey


By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

Counterjihad writer Paul Sutliff sent a link of a book review of three Counterjihad books. The last review is of Sutliff’s book “Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam”. Paul posts on a blog with a similar name: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad. Paul also has a podcast at Blog Talk Radio: Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff. (Podcasts are linked by date. The link here is from 3/28/18. To listen to other podcasts, you can figure that out by going to Global Patriot Radio.)

 

The link is to a website entitled, “COLLECTED WRITINGS OF DWIGHT D. MURPHEY”. I like to know a bit of the person or website I have been referred to. In that spirit of curiosity, here is a paragraph from the Information about Dwight D. Murphey page:

 

 

Murphey was born in Tucson, Arizona, on June 14, 1934. He lived in Miami, Florida, before the three years in Mexico, and then lived in Denver, Colorado, for the rest of his childhood. He took his pre-law in political science at the University of Colorado between 1951 and 1954, served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve for two years between 1954 and 1956, then was a special student under Ludwig von Mises in the Graduate School of Business at New York University during the 1956-7 school year before attending the University of Denver College of Law. After he graduated from law school in 1959, he practiced with a large firm in Denver for six years and then went to work for a small firm in Colorado Springs for two years to run for District Judge.  He lost the 1966 race for the judgeship in Colorado Springs and joined the faculty at Wichita State University in 1967, teaching business law.  He retired from the faculty after 36 years at the end of June, 2003.  By the turn of the century, he had written classical liberal (or, as he prefers, “neo-classical liberal”) philosophy and historical analysis for more than fifty years. That work predominates in what is reproduced here.

 

… There is MUCH MORE TO READ

 

The Murphey book review is extracted from a subscription only website: The Journal for Social, Political, and Economic Studies. Here is an excerpt from the Journal’s about page:

 

The quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, which has been published regularly since 1976, is a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to scholarly papers which present in depth information on contemporary issues of primarily international interest. The emphasis is on factual information rather than purely theoretical or historical papers, although it welcomes an historical approach to contemporary situations where this serves to clarify the causal background to present day problems.

The Journal is published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies, P.O. Box 34143, Washington DC 20043, USA, and is financed primarily by paid subscriptions from university and other libraries. Each Volume corresponds to the Calendar Year, and contains upwards of 500 pages.

The General Editor, Professor Roger Pearson, and the Associate Editor, Professor Dwight D. Murphey, are assisted by READ THE REST

 

The point of all this pedigree information leading up to the book review of three books illuminating readers about Islam, is that the review is an academic and legitimate source as opposed to – me – a disseminator of opinion based on what I have personally read.

 

Here is the brief Sutliff email alerting me to the book review:

 

Thought you may find this interesting. The book review article was published in the Summer 2017 issue of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, pp. 251-272: http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/JSPES-DDM-BkRevArt-Jihadism.htm.

 

And below is the well thought out book review from Dwight D. Murphey.

 

JRH 3/29/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Book Review Article by Dwight D. Murphey

Wichita State University, Retired

Summer 2017; pp. 251-272

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies

DwightMurphey-CollectiveWritings.info

 

There is little in today’s world that is more contentious than the debate over the nature of Islam and the role of Muslim immigration into the United States and Europe.  Major figures take the position that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslim immigration is to be welcomed.  An opposing view points to much in Islamic teaching that is not peaceful, to the widespread jihadist presence that is bringing violence both to Islamic societies and those of the West, and to the inability effectually to know what is going on inside Muslim communities and to “vet” newcomers.  Still another perspective, thus far latent because it is presently outside what is “politically correct,” is that it is mostly irrelevant how peaceful Islam is, because in any event it is existentially unwise for the West to invite an influx of a major new population element whose religion and culture diverges so greatly from Western society’s.  Those who grapple with these issues find that the subject is vast in its extent and complexity.  The article here reviews three books.  The first is by an author we presume to be Muslim, and tells much about the jihadist hatreds that produce not just attacks upon the West but a great deal of internecine violence among the world’s many Muslim factions. The others are by American authors, each a Christian, pointing to the dangers and social costs of large-scale Muslim immigration.  These reviews are put forward not as a final word, but for the benefit of the information they contain and as an invitation to further study.

Key Words:  Islam, Muslim immigration, jihadism, sharia, Islamic rivalries, Islamic divisions, Islamic terminology, Muslim Brotherhood, “civilization jihad,” U.S. immigration system, political correctness

 

The West’s ideological divisions have in recent years taken on a new face.  There was a time when the nature of Islam and its role in the modern world was of interest almost exclusively to academic specialists, and when mass immigration of Muslims into the West was on no one’s radar.  By now, however, questions about Islam and Muslim immigration are critically important.  The questions and their answers tell as much about the fault lines, ideological and otherwise, within the West as they do about the Muslims themselves and their religion.

 

Speaking before Congress in late 2001 shortly after the 9/11 attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists, U.S. President George W. Bush laid down the premise that has actuated American policy until, at least, early 2017.  He distinguished between Islam and the “radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.”  The terrorists, he said, are “traitors to their own faith,” seeking “to hijack Islam itself.” He spoke of “our many Muslim friends” and “our many Arab friends,” and saw nothing inherent in their ways of life or belief systems that would make the terrorists representative of them.  Thirteen years later, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said much the same thing when speaking about the beheading of an American by the Islamic State.  “The face of Islam is not the butchers who killed Steven Sotloff.”  Those who did the beheading were “mass cowards whose actions are an ugly insult to the peaceful religion that they violate… The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion, based on the dignity of all human beings.”[1]

 

The defense of Islam and the Muslim population at large has been fundamental to the policies that have welcomed and facilitated the immigration of many hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the United States and Europe.  It is the conceptual complement to the other factors that have caused the influx.  The others include, but are hardly limited to: American interventions that have destabilized much of the Middle East, tearing up existing structures and exacerbating the social chaos that the many contending factions of Islamic society lend themselves to; the seemingly ever-present economic demand for cheap labor;[2] the Western ideology of “multiculturalism” that by seeking profound demographic change reflects the Left’s centuries-old alienation against the mainstream of American life, the population of which has been of European stock; and the generous desire to do good that dates back through American religious history, such as to the Social Gospel.

 

The welcoming perception and open-door policies based on it are strongly opposed by others who, although acknowledging that there “are millions of peaceful Muslims throughout the world,”[3] stress that much Islamic doctrine, going back to the Quran and found in the writings of  many Islamic scholars over the centuries, is far from peaceful. To them, the metastasized jihadist movements represent a major aspect of Islam, one that places the many thousands of Muslim immigrants under a cloud.  They see it as impracticable – as, in effect, a self-deceiving fiction – to “vet” the immigrants sufficiently to remove the danger of terrorist violence.   And they are conscious of the inability of non-Muslims to know what is taking place or being taught within the Islamic communities and their mosques.[4]  The three books reviewed here voice this opposition.

 

In these introductory comments, it is worth noting a third position, which must be taken seriously despite lying beneath the surface of today’s discussion.  Even in Donald Trump’s campaign for the American presidency, he did not suggest the need for a long-term ban on mass immigration of Muslims into the United States (and Europe).  The most he felt it possible to propose was a short-term ban “until we can figure out what is going on.”  After becoming president, he caught intense criticism for, and even judicial opposition to, a temporary ban on immigrants from seven (later six) countries that the Obama administration had designated as sources of terrorism.  The end result was that although Trump often repudiated “political correctness,” his position was severely circumscribed by it.  He was no doubt correct in sensing that the climate of opinion laid down by the mainstream media and America’s “opinion elite” made it taboo to suggest that a major Islamic presence in American life should be avoided.

 

The result is that a question of existential importance – of whether the West is to continue to exist as such – is repressed.   If mass immigration into the United States and Europe, and the non-replacement birthrates of the historic European population, continue, the erstwhile populations will be supplanted.  The physical locations will remain, but the people will be different.  They will represent cultures and belief systems to which many will most likely be tenaciously loyal, so there is reason to expect that the culture and institutions of the present will no longer continue.  The implications are examined in a number of books that have warned of “the death of the West.”[5]

 

This third option would call for a deliberate policy of the West’s staying the West, while leaving the Muslim populations within the Islamic swath.  It would mean the end of mass migration of Muslims to the West, and a concomitant part of it would be for the United States to defer from intervention into the Islamic countries, forsaking the post-Cold War aspiration of making each of the societies over in the American image.  (We recall that Osama bin Laden’s primary complaint was that Americans were present within “the land of Islam.”)

 

The books reviewed in this article were selected out of our desire to know more about jihadism and sharia. The authors give much information and make important points, some vital.  But they do not represent all of the existing viewpoints, and we hope readers will join us in thinking there is potentially much more to learn.

 

 

Jihadism, Terror and Rivalries in the Middle East: Isis, Hezbollahis and Taliban

Hoshang Noraiee

Hoshang Noraiee, 2016

 

What is often overlooked by those of us who are so rightly preoccupied with jihadi violence in the West is that the many branches within radical Islam mostly hate (and are anxious to kill) each other.  Within the broad Islamic swath, there are moderates, and – just as in the traditional population in Europe and the United States – there is, according to Noraiee, presumably a “silent majority” that is hardly heard over the articulate voices of the radicals, but within the precincts of the radicals themselves there is a chaos of blood-thirsty sectarian animosity.  As one reads this short book by Hoshang Noraiee, the impression of a mound of fire ants is reinforced by a great many details about sects, rivalries and personalities.

 

It would help if Noraiee told us more about himself.  He is described as an independent researcher who has taught at the University of Westminster and London Metropolitan University.  Presumably, by inference from his name and subject, he is himself a Muslim, but we don’t know that, or where he is from.  It is to the book itself that we look for an appreciation of his credentials and the extent of his knowledge.  While it makes no pretension of being “the definitive book” on radical Islam, readers will find it quite a good introduction.

 

One reason the book isn’t “definitive” is that Noraiee has limited its scope to the Middle East.  He has nothing to say about the Islamic penetration of Europe and its many ramifications, which include a challenge to the continued existence of Europe as Europe.  Nor does he delve more than slightly into the vastly important subject of who the “moderates” are, what they believe, and to what extent their influence may (or may not) eventually bring Islam into the modern age and dampen the fires, so reminiscent of the internecine conflicts within medieval Christianity, that now burn so fiercely.  Rather, the book’s value lies in the extensive information it gives about the radical jihadist movements where they are most centered, which is the Middle East.  Nevertheless, a caution: the subject is vastly more variegated than we are able to convey.  Almost certainly Noraiee himself, in this 235 page book, hasn’t covered all aspects, even though readers will find considerably more information than we are able to mention here.

 

As we have said, what strikes us most about his account is the extent to which the Middle East is a cauldron of boiling hatreds, partly toward the West but most especially of its many factions toward one another.  Before we can review their rivalries, however, it is necessary to see who the factions are, and what Noraiee tells us about them.

 

The Many Faces of Islam

 

The primary division: Sunni and Shia. Although there are differences between Sunni and Shia (and within each itself) on many levels, the two branches of Islam disagree most fundamentally about who the legitimate successors to the Prophet Mohammad have been.  Sunnis look to four caliphs (Abubakr, Omar, Osman, and Ali), who were the Prophet’s senior deputies.  The Shia accept only the last of these, Ali.  They hold that he “and his 11 descendants were the only legitimate Imams.”  A 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi, who disappeared, will come back as a messiah “to rule and bring real justice.”

 

The Sunni

 

Although all Sunnis agree that the four caliphs are Mohammad’s legitimate successors, they are divided into four types of “jurisprudence,” each with its own branches, such as Wahhabism and Deobandism.  (“Jurisprudence” pertains to the interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith.  Noraiee explains that “Hadith” is the body of traditions coming from Mohammad’s words and actions.)

 

Salafism.  In a way similar to Protestants within Christianity, Salafists call upon Muslims to consult the Quran and Hadith directly in their search for Islamic purity rather than to rely on intermediaries.  They look only to Islam’s first three generations, and consider the four traditional Sunni schools of jurisprudence polluted by non-Islamic rituals.   The Salafists have a large network of Madrassas (religious schools) in Pakistan, second only to the Deobandi.  They are themselves divided into three branches.  Not all Salafists accept the teachings of Sayyid Qutb, but he is a source of inspiration for many.  Noraiee describes Qutb as “a radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue” who called for “eternal jihad” (struggle).  Through the ideological leadership of Abu Bakar Naji, who wrote The Management of Savagery, ISIS is Salafist.

 

Wahhabism.  The followers of Mohammad ibn al-Wahhab (who lived in the 18th century) are dominant in Saudi Arabia, which accordingly is considered Sunni-Wahhabist.  Noraiee says their views are similar to the Salafists, including being hard-line and adamantly anti-Shia.  He says they have been “successful in spreading their radical ideas among many other Muslims all over the world,” doing so with generous financial support from Saudi Arabia.

 

Deobandism.  We are told that this started in India in the 1860s, seeking through education to purify Islam, moving away from Hanafism’s mysticism and Hinduism.  [“Purify” is a recurrent theme in much Islamic thinking.[6]]  It was restrictive toward music, singing and dancing, and toward “women’s visibility in public and women’s dress code.”  There are Deobandi jihadist factions, but Noraiee says many of the Deobandi religious leaders are “traditional or quietist.”  Radicalism has increased as Deobandis supported the Taliban.  For almost the past two centuries, the Deobandis have run a “vast network” of madrassas (religious schools), especially in India and Pakistan.

 

Al-Qaeda.  As the reputed perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks on the United States,[7] al-Qaeda is often thought of as the more aggressive of the Sunni jihadist groups, but that reputation has been eclipsed by internal rivalries and by ISIS, a movement that grew out of “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”  Nevertheless, al-Qaeda continues to have networks throughout the world, several identified by area, such as “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”  Its present commander is the Egyptian Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, the successor to Osama bin Laden.  It is interesting that although al-Zawahiri is a forceful promoter of violence toward the West, he differs from Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, the founder of “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” in taking a milder approach to Shias and other Sunnis.  Noraiee says of al-Zawahiri that “while he rejected Shias, he considered them ignorant and thus in need of further guidance.”  Al-Zarqawi (1966-2006), on the other hand, “killed ordinary Shiites” (i.e., Shias) and “promoted harsh engagement” even with Sunnis of a somewhat different persuasion.

 

ISIS.  A Salafist jihadist movement, ISIS[8] inherited “the most hard-line of al-Qaeda traditions.”  Noraiee spells out in detail the guiding ideas of Abu Bakar Naji, which call for a jihad that passes through successive stages of extreme violence in a “total war to destroy others’ identities and existence.”  The goal, according to Naji, is a caliphate involving both “societal purification and territorial expansion.”  The leaders of ISIS are mainly Salafist-educated Arabs who have little connection with madrassas, and include many Muslims who have received their education in the West.  Consistently with that, many of its combatants are “foreign fighters” who come to it from outside Syria or Iraq.  A spokesman has invited Muslims to join “if you disbelieve in democracy, secularism, nationalism, as well as all the other garbage and ideas from the West.”  ISIS claims that its caliphate is the only legitimate one, and combines this exclusionary attitude with a desire for world expansion.  To that end, it makes abundant use of social media, and has an English-language magazine.

 

Taliban.  Once led by Mullah Omar, the Taliban became divided over his successor after his death in 2013.  The Taliban name is derived from “school boys,” coming from the word “talibs,” the students who attended Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan. The Taliban have their roots in the Pashtun tribe, although not all Pashtuns are Taliban.  The movement originated in a struggle against the mujahidin warlords who took over in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was defeated there.  Noraiee says the Taliban haven’t formulated a literature crystalizing their ideology.  Rather, they are locally rooted, mixing their Islamic religious views with local customs.  The movement spread to Pakistan, but otherwise seems to have no expansionist or international aspirations.  This is not to say that the Taliban are not brutal or militant: “It was mainly given publicity for its strict policies against women’s education [and] demolition of historical heritage sites.”  They provided al-Qaeda shelter early on, but are not affiliated with it.

 

Boko Haram.  This Wahhabist/Salafist group is infamous for its brutality, which arguably exceeds that of any of the others.  It is centered in northeast Nigeria, but extends also to Cameroon, Chad and Niger.  In early 2015, it declared its allegiance to ISIS.

 

“Awakening Movement” (Iraq).  During the U.S. involvement in Iraq, one hundred thousand Sunni tribesmen from Anbar Province were mobilized to fight al-Qaeda.  A key development (marking for the opponents of ISIS a disastrous loss of a major U.S. ally) occurred later when many of the tribal militias joined ISIS, feeling deeply alienated from the Maliki government in Baghdad.

 

Al-Nosrah Front (also called the Nusra Front).  This is one of the radical jihadist groups seeking to overthrow President Assad in Syria.  In common with ISIS, it grew out of “al-Qaeda in Iraq,” and it remains affiliated with al-Qaeda.  Although sometimes working with ISIS, it has also clashed violently with ISIS over territorial control.  Its relationship with ISIS is said to have deteriorated after ISIS tried to absorb it in 2013.

 

The Shia

 

Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).  Noraiee discusses at length the thinking of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who led the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979.   Khomeini, in common with so many others, sought a “purification” of Islam, “brutally suppressing… his opponents’ interpretation of Islam” and advancing “a specific Shia interpretation.”  Noraiee points out that this did not prevent Khomeini from using much the same rhetoric and ideas as the radical Salafists such as Sayyid Qutb (despite Qutb’s advocating killing Shia).   The IRI actively supports the Assad government in Syria, the Maliki government in Iraq, and Hezbollah in Lebanon

Noraiee doesn’t give much attention to other Shia factions, but mentions Hezbollah in Lebanon as being associated with “hard-line elements in Iran” and backing Assad in Syria.  He also writes briefly of the Shia militias in Iraq, which are “organized and supported by Iran” and are, in the opinion of Kurdish leader Masrour Barzani, “even worse than ISIS in Iraq.”

 

We submitted this article to a friend from Bangladesh raised as a Muslim, and he commented that it would be well “to include smaller Shi’ite groups like the Alawites of Syria, the Druze of Lebanon and Israel, and the dispersed but cosmopolitan Ismailis who, despite their small numbers, play an outsized role in the evolution of political Islam’s internal conflicts and external impact.”

 

Others

 

Sufism.  Noraiee mentions Sufism several times without telling much about it.  It is not considered a sect, but rather a “dimension” of Islam that for over a millennium has sought a mystical inner experience of Islamic Truth.  All Muslims, including Shias, can be Sufists, although Sunnis predominate in the leadership.   There are a number of Sufi orders, and a variety of devotional practices.  Adherents meet in congregations under the leadership of Sufi masters.

 

The moderates.  In several places, Noraiee speaks of “ordinary, moderate Muslims,” distinguishing them from radical jihadists.  His references include: “more moderate Wahhabis and Salafists” … “conservative and even quietist Sunni authorities” … “moderate Islamists, particularly Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as…” and “large sections of Deobandis are still traditional, quietist, and conservative.”  He tells how “in a 2015 fatwa, over 1,000 Indian Islamic scholars – including muftis and imams – have called ISIS’s actions ‘absolutely inhuman,’” and in an Appendix he spells out the Executive Summary of an Open Letter that 175 Islamic scholars sent to the head of ISIS.  The letter asserted the right of Muslims to differ on anything other than fundamentals of the Islamic faith, and declared that Islam forbids killing innocents, diplomats, journalists, and aid workers.  It said Islam forbids mistreating Christians or any “People of the Scripture”; the reintroduction of slavery; the forcing of people to convert; the denial of “their rights” to women [although this causes us to ask what the signers’ views are about the rights women have]; the use of torture; and the declaration of a caliphate “without consensus from all Muslims.”  Noraiee’s readers will find it worthwhile the read the entire Executive Summary, which covers still more.  As with anything of its sort, it suggests many questions, both about what it says (such who the signers count among the “innocents”) and what it doesn’t say.  In its allusions to moderation, Noraiee’s book leaves much unexplored about an aspect of Islam that is of especial importance to those, in the West and among Muslims themselves, who are looking for allies against radical jihadism.  It whets our appetite to know more.  It would be well, for example, to be informed about Saudi Arabia’s seeming contradictions.  We know the country is Wahhabist/Salafist, but Noreiee tells us its top official clerics have condemned ISIS and have said that “terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.”  The Saudi grand mufti has said “that under sharia law, terrorists merit the punishment of execution….”

 

The Rivalries 

 

The larger picture of blood-thirsty animus among the jihadists themselves is commented upon by Noraiee when he refers to “conflicts we now find erupting between radical jihadists, not only in Syria and Iraq but also in all other parts of the world.”  Our reference to this as “rivalry” is perhaps too limited, since that word suggests primarily a struggle for position.  Most assuredly the conflicts reflect such a struggle, but they also go to deep-seated differences among people who see things in black and white, regard each difference as an existential chasm, and have little if any regard for the lives of the “others.”  A shorthand way of saying this is that the conflicts are among fanatics.  It is a fanaticism that wears various faces, along a spectrum from hooded beheaders to soft-spoken, clean-cut young Iranian business administration professors in a mid-western American university who comment casually that it is all right to kill a Baha’i on the street.

 

The mutual hatreds run together into a tangled web, complicating any effort to do more than point to a few of them specifically.  Noraiee mentions the effort by Arab countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to “weaken Iran.”  Turkey is, in addition, active against ISIS and “has continued to attack Kurdish forces.”  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are both “threats against Saudi Arabia,” and we recall that in 1987 “about 400 pilgrims, mostly from Iran, were killed” by Saudi police in Mecca as the “pilgrims” marched in a political demonstration.  In Iraq, even years after the withdrawal of American troops, explosions occur so often that the world virtually takes for granted an amount of mutual slaughter that would seem inconceivable elsewhere.  In Afghanistan, the Taliban are seen as “unbelievers” by “radical Salafists,” have long conducted their warfare against the mujahidin warlords and the established government of the country, have fought against the Iranian Shia on Iran’s eastern border, and have clashed among themselves over the succession after the death of Mullah Omar.

 

ISIS, of course, fights both “the far and the near enemies,” and these include almost everybody.  ISIS claims exclusive dominion over the Islamic world and, beyond that, wants the eventual “global rule of ‘real’ Muslims.”  Noraiee cites al-Zarqawi’s “ideological blueprint” as calling for opposition to “Shias and the Iranian regime.”  Accordingly, “ISIS has attacked Shia mosques in Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even Bangladesh,” and has sought to have the Sunni population in Iran revolt there.  The violence, however, has not just been against Shias; an Islamic scholar reports that “ISIS has not hesitated to kill many Sunni clerics who oppose them in different countries.”   As ISIS has expanded into Afghanistan, it has had “many bloody clashes” with the Taliban.  In June 2015 “ISIS supporters… beheaded 10 members of the Taliban.”  In Syria, ISIS has executed “some senior members of al-Nosrah Front.”   Jaish-al Islam is a coalition of fifty rebel factions fighting the Assad government in Syria, and the brutality of its clash with ISIS is illustrated by ISIS’s having beheaded eleven of its members, prompting a revenge beheading of eighteen ISIS members.  Each group has taken a macabre pleasure in videoing the beheadings.[9]

 

Although its treatment seems out of proportion to that given his other topics, Noraiee has devoted an entire section to a jihadist and ethnic nationalist movement among Sunnis in southeastern Iran.  At its origin this movement was known as Jondollah – the Army of God.  As with other Sunni/Salafist groups, it sought to “purify” Islam and hated Shias as well as moderate Sunnis, starting its armed struggle in 2004 with beheadings, suicide bombings, and “deliberately indiscriminate massacre of civilians in Shia places of worship.”  It has not, however, had international objectives (i.e., sought to fight “the far enemy”).  One of its leaders has called for the killing of all Israelis as collaborators with the Israeli government.   Jondollah split into several small factions, by no means homogeneous, after Iran executed its first leader in 2010.  Its main successor organization, Jaish-e Adl (JAD), has moved away from Islamic jihadism and toward Baluch[10] nationalism, becoming more accepting of both Shia and moderate Sunnis.  As an indication that radical jihadists are often a loud and violent minority, Noraiee says Jondollah has not enjoyed general public support within the Sunni population of perhaps 1.5 to 2 million people in the Baluchistan area.

 

So we see from this partial summary that Noraiee’s readable short book, though by no means exhaustive or definitive, is an excellent introduction.

 

Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad

Leo Hohmann

WND Books, 2017

 

Leo Hohmann is a long-time journalist who is news editor for World Net Daily, a major conservative internet news outlet.  Stealth Invasion is a rich source of information about Muslim immigration, with primary emphasis upon the United States.  He is conservative, deeply critical of the increasing Muslim presence, and orients his discussion, especially near the end of the book, to Christian readers.  Whether these qualities decrease – or rather increase – the weight to be given to his judgments is for each of our readers to decide.  What we are doing with these reviews is to lay out three contributions that we consider significant to the subject, and which provide information most of us lack.

 

Hohmann cites a report by the Pew Research Center in January 2016 that estimates that at that time three and a third million Muslims lived in the United States, vested either with citizenship or permanent legal status.  An additional 240,000 come in each year, he says, in various capacities: as refugees, green-card holders, students, or workers on temporary work visas.  After the civil war began in Syria in March 2011, more than 13,000 refugees from that country were resettled in American communities by October 1, 2016.

 

The mechanism for this influx is elaborate.  Nine nonprofit agencies bring in refugees under contract with the U. S. government, and engage more than 350 subcontractors.  The VOLAGs (volunteer agencies) include the International Rescue Committee, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the Ethiopian Community Development Council, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and five major Christian denominations or councils.  An annual “abstract” is submitted by each resettlement contractor for each of the communities receiving refugees.  These abstracts contain information about the number of refugees, their origins, and the services they will receive.  The public is in the main not informed about all this, given the silence that prevails among the local media.

 

Hohmann describes in detail how much of the resettlement is done in secret, is imposed on local communities without their consent, gives rise to local resistance, and divides communities.  Of the 132,000 Somali refugees brought in since 1983, he says “they have been secretly planted in dozens of communities.”  He adds that “the people in these communities are never told that the changes being foisted upon them are being centrally planned by bureaucrats in Washington and the resettlement agencies….”  Secretary of State John Kerry overrode the request by over two dozen state governors not to resettle Syrian refugees in their states because of concerns that vetting is inadequate to screen out terrorists.   As residents find their communities changing for the worse, resistance movements spring up, but Hohmann says they wither as people find the local governments and media unresponsive.  He devotes a chapter to the impact on Amarillo, Texas, a city of 240,000, where seventy-five different languages and dialects are spoken within its school system and “small ghettos” have fragmented the city.

 

The initial resettlements are only part of the story.  Of the 240,000 mentioned above, approximately half are issued “green cards.”  This puts them on “a fast track toward full U.S. citizenship, including voting rights.”  There is a multiplier: those with green cards are “given the opportunity to bring their families into the United States.”  There are H1-B and H2-B visas for skilled and unskilled workers, respectively; and an “entrepreneur visa” to do such things as “run hotels and convenience stores.”   In addition, a yearly “Diversity Visa Lottery” is held to admit about 50,000 people from countries that don’t “otherwise send many immigrants to the United States.”

 

As mentioned above, the United States has resettled 132,000 Sunni Muslims from Somalia in American communities since 1983, and Hohmann says an immigration lawyer told him that most Somali asylum-seekers “never show up for their asylum hearings,” but are not deported.  We are told that “refugees are different from asylum seekers, who show up uninvited at the border,” whereas refugees come in through the provisions of the Refugee Act of 1980.  (Illegal immigrants, euphemistically known as “undocumented,” who have come in by the millions are another category altogether.)  Those arriving as refugees, Hohmann says, “immediately qualify for a full slate of government goodies that aren’t offered to most other immigrants.”  These include “everything from subsidized housing to food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, cash stipends, and Medicaid.” They can apply for citizenship after they’ve been in the country five years.

 

Except for the illegal immigration, all of this is done under the color of law.  As chairman of the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Edward Kennedy shepherded the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 through Congress.  Family reunification, not the earlier per-country quota system, became the guiding principle.  It has become commonplace to quote Kennedy as having assured the Senate that “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”  This assurance has certainly not proved true.     During the intervening years, Hohmann says, “Congress, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, has done nothing to stem the tide.”  As with so much else in American social thinking, the philosophy has morphed from a bare beginning to something quite expansive.  In a commencement address at Boston’s Northeastern University in May 2016, then-Secretary of State John Kerry “told students to prepare for a ‘borderless world.’”

 

Hohmann discusses the nature of the Muslim population in the United States.  Although he acknowledges that “there are many good Muslims,” he is one of those who see reason for concern.  The fact that “only certain Muslims take the principles of jihad seriously enough to attack us” doesn’t fully reassure him.  Hohmann says that “due to the nature of Islam, it’s very difficult, often impossible, to sniff out a radicalized Muslim before he strikes.”  Moreover, the situation is not static: “Terrorism experts tell us the process of radicalization can happen within a matter of weeks.”

 

He notes the refugees’ “poor record of assimilation.”[11]  “Muslim women sue their employers to be able to wear the hijab.  Schools, hospitals, and prisons must provide halal meat… Muslims push for separate sharia tribunals to settle their family disputes.”   Some two dozen Somalis in Minnesota have sued their employer for “having been denied a place to pray at the manufacturing plant.” It is possible, of course, that none of this is representative of the Muslim population in general (although we don’t know that), but “a 2015 study commissioned by the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred to live under sharia law.”  For those under thirty, it was 60 percent.  The same poll showed that “nearly a quarter believe the use of violent jihad is justified in establishing sharia.”  Hohmann points out how “more than forty” Somalis have either tried to join terrorist groups overseas or been “tried and convicted of providing material support to overseas terrorist organizations.”

 

The Muslim Brotherhood , founded in 1928 and with Sayyid Qutd [sic] as a “doctrinal godfather,” is present in eighty countries, but as “an extreme Islamist organization[12] whose overarching goal is to create a global caliphate governed by sharia,” it has a long history of conflict within the Islamic swath.  This has led to bans in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Russia.  Hohmann gives considerable attention to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, where, according to “former FBI counterterrorism specialist John Guandolo… almost all the major U.S. Muslim organizations are dominated” by it.  “Front groups” of the Muslim Brotherhood are said to include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim-American Society (MAS), the Muslim Student Association (MSA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which “holds the deed to roughly 25 percent of the mosques in North America.”

 

We are admonished to pay more attention to what Islamists say to each other than they do to the American public.  Hohmann tells of a speech given at the annual convention of the Muslim-American Society in late 2015 “openly calling for an Islamic-inspired revolution in America.”  He refers to a “notoriously radical mosque” in Boston, and another in Phoenix.  Part of the evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2007 was “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” written in 1991 and “seized in 2004 by FBI agents during a raid on a Muslim Brotherhood safe house in northern Virginia.”  The Memorandum urged the adoption of an “absorption mentality,” spoke of a “civilization jihad process,” and explained that “the brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  The result, Hohmann says, is that “unlike the violent jihad we see in daily acts of terror around the world, civilization jihad is stealthy and less obvious.  It uses migration, high birthrates, and lack of assimilation to build a parallel society.” The 2004 FBI raid also discovered, according to Guandolo, a recording of a speech by a Muslim Brotherhood leader about Muslim training camps and firearms training in America.

 

It is part of the mindset of many Americans to reject all of this as fabrication and paranoia.  There are a good many indicia, however, that make it less than reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.  A simple dismissal turns a blind eye to the many manifestations of Islamic radicalism across the world.  The indicia are enough to make the existence of a threat (both of physical violence and of attempted cultural displacement) an open question.  It is arguable that the question need not be resolved.  Readers will recall an option we mentioned earlier: that a threat, if there is one, need not exist.  A threat from Islam is important to the United States (and Europe) only because large-scale Muslim immigration has been welcomed.  If Islam stays within its historic swath (together, perhaps, with the United States’ staying out of their affairs), it is not an existential issue for the West.

 

The demographic transformation of Europe receives rather little attention from Hohmann, but is an essential part of the bigger picture.  The world teems with people eager to come into the West.  Patrick Buchanan writes that “Africa has a billion people, a number that will double by 2050, and double again to 4 billion by 2100.”  He asks, “Are those billions of Africans going to endure lives of poverty under ruthless, incompetent, corrupt and tyrannical regimes, if Europe’s door remains wide open?”  We have the impression that the horrors in Syria have been the reason for the flood into Europe, but Hohmann points out that “while the media mostly blamed the influx on the Syrian civil war, only 20 percent of the 381,412 refugees and migrants who arrived in Europe by sea in the first eight months of 2015 were from Syria [our emphasis].  The rest were from all over the Middle East, central Asia, and North Africa.”  The Schengen Agreement, signed by five European countries in 1985 but now grown to encompass 26 countries, did away with internal border checks within the “Schengen Area,” with the result that once the migrants have gotten inside Europe they have been able to move freely from one place to another.  A recent exception: the “European migrant crisis” in 2016 caused Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden to enact temporary border controls.

 

Although Stealth Invasion deals with only with the specific issue of Muslim immigration, it is worthwhile to consider its many revelations about the governmental, academic and media enthusiasm for that immigration as, in effect, a case study of the mechanisms of governance by America’s (and Europe’s) dominant opinion elite.  Hohmann gives many examples of how the “establishment media,” national and local, hammers home what can only be characterized as pro-immigration propaganda.  Flowery feature stories and compassionate anecdotes are combined with a failure to cover unfavorable information, amounting to a vast blackout.  Violent crimes aren’t reported; and, when they are, the perpetrators often aren’t identified as Muslim immigrants (just as the public usually is not told that a crime was committed by an illegal Hispanic immigrant).  Those who dissent are denounced as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.”  Little is more taboo in American life than a violation of “political correctness.”  The book is replete with many specifics.

 

The media are just a part of it.  The web of institutions that occupy most of the spaces in American life play an active role.  These range from schools whose students are taken on field trips to mosques, to universities that bring in “thousands of young people from the Middle Eastern countries,” to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center, to church groups acting out of a sense of caring but that also profit from serving as resettlement agencies, to the “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce immigration laws, to the non-governmental agencies involved in humanitarian enterprises – and to many more, besides.  (Such a list is inadequate even to suggest how ubiquitous the institutional presence is, but readers are told a lot about it in Stealth Invasion.)

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam

Paul Sutliff

Tate Publishing and Enterprises, LLC, 2016

 

Paul Sutliff, like Leo Hohmann, sounds the alarm against the Muslim penetration of the West, centering on the “civilization jihad” that he sees occurring in society, government, on college campuses and in the public schools.  In an Afterword that concludes his book, he says “the most important action that has to be accomplished is to declare the Muslim Brotherhood an enemy of the United States.”

 

His credentials are not nearly as extensive as Hohmann’s, nor his knowledge of Islam as intimate as Noraiee’s, but his message is much the same as Hohmann’s and is to be taken seriously.  His education includes a bachelor’s degree in Religion and Philosophy, and a Master’s in Education, each from a Christian college.  He is a teacher of social studies at the high school level.  Placed in the context of the other books we are examining here, Sutliff’s contribution is largely to supply information that adds to the very considerable detail we have already seen.

 

We have commented on the inability of non-Muslims to know fully and accurately “what is going on” in Muslim thinking and activity in America and Europe.  There is a profound epistemological problem in understanding what doctrines are extant, what their children are taught, how much “radical jihadism” there is and what influences (such as the Internet) provoke it, what they are saying to each other in their social media, to what extent their way of life corresponds with or stands in conflict to that of a Western society – and so much more.  The American public, for example, would be hard pressed to say whether female genital mutilation is occurring among them, whether fatwas are entered against those who convert to Christianity or otherwise leave the Islamic faith, whether honor killing (as occurs elsewhere, say) is condemned or looked upon favorably, and whether the Muslim population in general or in families will report any pending terrorist activity or will cooperate with authorities after one is carried out.

 

A mask is placed over Muslim reality if the Islamic immigrants adhere to a tactic discussed by Sutliff.  “My extensive research into Islam revealed that it is part of their belief structure to lie about what they believe to protect their faith.  This is called taqiyyah.  There are five additional terms under Islam that speak of lying to non-Muslims…. Yes, this does mean I do not trust Muslims to tell me the truth about their religion.”  Whether such a mask is worn by American and European Muslims is yet another thing most of us can’t know.  For his part, however, Sutliff cites a number of reasons for thinking it is.

 

Among the reasons, he says, is that American students are taught about only five of what are really six “pillars of Islam.”   The five pillars are shahada (creed), the salat (five daily prayers), sawm (fasting), hajj (pilgrimage), and zakat (almsgiving).  “But,” Sutliff tells us, “there is a sixth pillar.”  It “was revealed by Al-Sarakhsi – an eleventh-century Hanafi iman, mujtahid, and judge – who outlined the eight rights of Allah… Within [the] first right are encompassed the six pillars… The sixth is jihad (holy war).”

 

The mask is compounded, according to Sutliff, when disinformation about Islam is passed along to American students in their textbooks.  As he dissects a popular textbook’s treatment of Islam, to which it devotes 44 pages in contrast to 14 for Christianity and 22 for Judaism, he points to much that is superficial gloss, passing over unattractive realities.

 

When our friend from Bangladesh, in whom we have great confidence for an honest and informed opinion, commented on the concern about taqiyyah as a doctrine of deception among American Muslims, he downplayed it, not sensing “some conspiracy” among them to hide their true feelings.  He said the small Shi’ite groups like the Alawites, the Druze and the Ismailis do indeed “make the discretion of taqiyyah central to their theology as persecuted minorities among their more orthodox Muslim neighbors,” but this is to protect themselves from persecution by other Muslims.  An article to which he referred us explained that Muslims on various occasions historically have had to dissimulate about their beliefs in situations where they would otherwise be killed.  It observed that this is not unlike those who have professed other faiths.  Thus, the friend’s comments to us have highlighted what we have said here: that there is much that is indeterminate about the subject, requiring an open mind and further study.

 

As with the Noraiee and Hohmann books, Sutliff’s contains much more than we have been able to mention here.  All three are worth reading, for their own sakes or as part of the larger study we just mentioned, as each of us seeks to penetrate further into a subject that is of vital importance to the West.

 

ENDNOTES

  1. The quotes from President Bush and Secretary of State John Kerry are given in the Paul Sutliff book (at pages 41 and 42) that will be reviewed here.

 

  1. The demand for cheap labor is not a recent development, though globalization has given it new shape.  “Guest workers” from Turkey have for several decades been invited into Germany in large numbers.  In the United States, less-paid immigration, both legal and illegal, has been welcomed by major businesses and agricultural groups.  Historically, most (perhaps all) societies incorporated slavery, peonage or serfdom into their basic economies.  Although “involuntary servitude” in those forms has in the main been done away with, “cheap labor” is still available through immigration and/or out-sourcing.

 

  1. This is the view expressed by Leo Hohmann on page 236 of one of the books we will be reviewing.

 

  1. It is little commented upon, but the combination of a large Muslim presence and an inability to know what is transpiring among them has serious implications for “civil liberties.”  This is so because if jihadist violence grows as a threat and is to be prevented, the society may come to feel it imperative to resort to a broad and long-continuing surveillance, even though that is incompatible with the liberties fundamental to a free society.  It would necessarily be surveillance without the prior showing of “probable cause” as to each individual surveilled, would destroy personal autonomy and privacy, and would entail secretive and extensive police powers at odds with “limited government” and “the rule of law.”  The prospect of an otherwise unacceptable surveillance – with possible long-term consequences changing the historic nature of American society – is one of the things that should be at the forefront of any consideration of mass Islamic immigration.  (Those who call themselves “libertarians” are inclined to support open borders.  They would do well to think about whether, as a de factomatter, that is consistent with their support for limited government.)

 

If such a “police state” comes into being, the Left, articulating its view from its many outlets, will predictably blame it on the main society.  That will be misplaced blame, since the cause will more reasonably be found in the creation of the threatening conditions in the first place.  Such a misplacing of blame can for many decades warp the understanding of our historical epoch.

 

  1. See especially Patrick J. Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization(New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), which we reviewed in this Journal in our Spring 2002 issue, pp. 126-130.  The review can be accessed free of charge at www.dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info as Book Review 68 (i.e., BR68).

 

  1. The desire for “purity” that seems ubiquitous among the Islamic groups is reflected in there being two different forms of “jihad” (struggle).  Noreiee explains that “jihad asghar” (small struggle) has to do with physical combat, whereas “jihad akbar” (great struggle) “relates to the comparatively greater challenge of self-improvement and spiritual warfare.”

 

  1. The author of this article is one of those who finds many reasons to doubt the conventional account of the 9/11 atrocities.  It that account is false, the implications are, of course, endless so far as our understanding of the contemporary world is concerned, including our understanding of such that is discussed in this article.

 

  1. Noreiee explains that although he uses the name ISIS (Islamic State in Syria), because it is the most commonly used designation, the group is also called Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), in addition to “Daesh,” a pejorative name that ISIS detests.

 

  1. We may wonder why beheading plays so prominent a role.  It may have something to do with the verse in the Quran that says “when you face those who are blasphemous, behead them to shed their blood.”

 

  1. Baluch is also spelled Baloch, and refers to a people spread across southeastern Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even the Arabian Peninsula.

 

  1. “Assimilation” was in general the American ideal under the “melting pot” aspiration, but pronouncedly separate identity has been a way of life for, say, the Amish in Kansas, orthodox Jews on the lower east side of Manhattan, and the Chinese in various Chinatowns.  Even when it remains the aspiration, assimilation is difficult, sometimes taking generations.  Now, though, within America’s dominant opinion culture, “multiculturalism” has replaced the hope for a “melting pot.”  What is now the norm is an accommodation of differences by many who are even eager to subordinate the mainstream to Muslim practices.

 

  1. By contrast, it is worthwhile to remember Noreiee’s mention of “moderate Islamists, particularly Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as….”

_________________________

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey

By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

_______________________

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Murphey info in the Intro