A Hum of Hate


Has anyone noticed the Dems and the Mainstream Media (MSM) constantly call President Trump and his Conservative supporters violent racists? But on the contrary it is the Dems and MSM either inciting Leftists to be violent or angering Conservatives to the point of violence. Justin Smith looks at the true origins of hate inspired violence.

 

JRH 8/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

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

A Hum of Hate  

A Steady Erasure of America’s Culture

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent Sun 8/18/2019 12:09 AM

 

Contrary to what anyone might think, including the hardcore Democratic Party communists and their Antifa buddies, there is absolutely nothing socially redeeming, insightful or advanced and “forward thinking” in the “progressive” ideas that advocate “kill whitey” and set forth the fallacy that all conservative Christian whites must also be “white supremacists”, who must be punished for slavery and the crimes of their ancestors. Although their identity politics agenda has always been a grift, a con, and cover for their anti-white agitation, in times when they couldn’t simply be in the open with their hatred for “whitey” as they are now, whether the hate comes from self-loathing Leftist whites or from people of color, the hardcore Democrat socialists and communists and Antifa fascists currently inject hatred of whites into every conversation and keep a quiet low-grade riot, a hum of hate, boiling just under the surface waiting to explode and destroy America’s domestic tranquility.

 

I’m guilty of nothing except loving America, so I won’t be checking my “white privilege” anytime soon, and I suggest any other white people should stop buying into this racist nonsense, that somehow we are guilty for having benefited from our Forefathers’ sins of slavery. I accept none of it.

 

Far from “white supremacy”, the average white male has consistently been denied equality for decades. They have been discriminated against in university admissions and employment, and especially most recently, free speech is denied to them. Google fires white males for stating facts. The ridiculous overused charge of white supremacy is now being used like a club to beat the white people to the back of the bus, in a dangerous machination to propagandize white people out of existence.

 

I’ve always been proud of who I am, a strong willed American patriot — who also just happens to be white. But for me, race has never been something I concerned myself with too much, other than times I have addressed some inconsiderate and insulting bigoted and racist remark or action aimed at any person, regardless of their color, white, red, yellow or black. And I always looked more at the content of one’s character, their race being secondary to everything and of little importance to any interaction I might have with them, unless it was an issue for them.

 

The 1965 Immigration Act was signed on October 3rd, before an entirely white audience on Liberty Island, with Ellis Island in the background, after extensive promises that it wouldn’t alter America’s demographic, political or cultural sectors. However, it proved to be a revolutionary bill that has gutted our immigration quota system, blocking most Europeans’ efforts to immigrate to America, a contrived ploy by “progressive Democrats” such as Senator Ted Kennedy, who claimed our system was “discriminatory”; they understood that most of the Third World would vote Democrat when any of their members reached our shores. And look at America’s diseased multicultural socialist population today, from Black Lives Matter to the New Black Panthers and Antifa to CAIR [SA DTN, National Review, IPT, Anti-CAIR to name a few aware exposés] and the Muslim Brotherhood [SA DTN: ‘THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S “GLOBAL PROJECT FOR PALESTINE”’, DTN: ‘THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S “GENERAL STRATEGIC GOAL” FOR NORTH AMERICA, CEP: ‘THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S TIES TO EXTREMISTS’, Gatestone Institute: ‘History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government’ and CIRC: ‘Barack Obama’s Support for the Muslim Brotherhood’], and even La Raza [La Raza Unida and National Council of La Raza (as of 7/11/17 aka UnidosUS)].

 

For the past fifty-five years, Americans have watched a steady erasure of their culture occur right in front of them, with even their art being deemed “racist” due to its depiction of Historical FACT, in a blatant and arbitrary manner, as Third World hordes of invaders, often socialists and anarchists, swarm the nation and revise our history in their attempts to obliterate our cultural identity, that was once indisputably European and First World in nature. There was absolutely no moral imperative to pursue such a destructive agenda and this purge, but the anti-American, anti-freedom and anti-liberty forces within our own Congress and federal government decided to weaponize immigration, as a means to circumventing and eventually eradicating our U.S, Constitution and the very Founding of America.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” [Blog Editor: In researching this quote, I discovered many quotes attributed to Jefferson used in relation to the 2nd Amendment and rebellion were not ever written or spoken by our 3rd President. That includes Justin’s quote used above. BUT many of those falsely attributed quotes of Jefferson reflect Jeffersonian sentiments. For example here is an excerpt from Jefferson to Madison dated January 30, 1787 reads:

 

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1 Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.”

 

And an excerpt from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright dated June 5, 1824 reads:

 

“the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.” (Underlined emphasis is mine)]

 

It is not justice when our government abdicates its primary responsibility to defend and protects the people and culture that placed it in power, and it chooses to codify into law the forces that will annihilate us, just as is currently also evidenced in unconstitutional “legislation” by sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. We also see this through the Democratic Party’s refusal to secure the border. It is primarily due to this injustice and such egregious “laws” as the 1965 Immigration Act, among others, and the refusal of the current House to hear our grievances, that all Americans must take a new and more forceful stance, to see this destructive madness end.

 

I am not so concerned myself, with being “replaced” by people of color, as many whites are obsessed with the issue; however, I am concerned that an overwhelming number of the people of color who are immigrating to America hold to ideologies that are antithetical to Western Principles and the Founding Principles that made America great, i.e. communism and Islam, and that they now openly speak of erasing the white race from the face of the earth, through violence and murder, just as one should expect from all good Marxists, especially now that their ranks have grown so large in America among the Millennials, and especially once they attain the majority.

 

In July of 2016. Micah Johnson, a black nationalist and the murderer of six Dallas police officers, told the hostage negotiator that he was angry on the behalf of Black Lives Matter and he “wanted to kill white people, especially police officers”. [Johnson liked a] Facebook page [from the Black Nationalist group known as African American Defense League] encouraged followers to “Attack Everything In Blue Except the Mailman”.

 

Over the past decade, King Samir Shabazz, leader of Philadelphia’s New Black Panthers, has stated on numerous occasions, that “You want freedom, you gonna have to kill some crackers [white people] … You gonna have to kill some of they (sic) babies.” The rules of behavior seem to be non-existent and these new radicals have zero respect for the rule of law and anyone’s Constitutional rights, not even one’s right to life, the most sacred of all things.

 

Tom Curry, a black man and an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A & M, in a 2014 interview entitled ‘White People Are the Problem’, essentially denied that people can reason logically despite their race. He even criticized Dr. Martin Luther King, JR. and other black theologians and theorists for suggesting that white people can be reasonable, and revealing his own racism and intolerance, he stated, “[for blacks] to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die.”

 

[Blog Editor: In full disclosure, the Left (e.g. Left-Wing Fact Checkers like Snopes) claim Curry was smeared and taken out of context. Rod Dreher (that I embedded link in the name “Tom Curry,” takes the Conservative position Curry was advocating killing White people. The podcast interview pointed to by Justin Smith (transcript embedded above in the title) actually has Curry saying, “… some white people may have to die” speaks so fast that I am unsure Curry is advocating killing White people or if he is advocating African-Americans have as much right to bare arms as a White person to protect themselves from an angry White person. I’ll let you make the call:

 

VIDEO: Dr. Tommy Curry on killing whites

 

Posted by Rob Redding

Published on Dec 27, 2012] 

 

We can also thank useful idiots like Frank Zappa and songs similar to ‘Trouble Every Day’, for the racial environment we have inherited, that enshrines the Watts Riots in Los Angeles in August of 1965. In part and in self-loathing style, it serenades one with the disturbed words, “… I’m not black, but there’s a whole lot of times I wish I could say I’m not white”.

 

Noel Ignatiev, an academic and a son of Jewish Russian immigrants, has campaigned for whiteness to be abolished, once stating: “The goal of destroying the white race is simply so desirable, it boggles the mind trying to understand how anyone could possibly object to it.” Ignatiev has stated that white people are a cancer and should kill themselves; and I say to him, “You First.” [Blog Editor: The quote Justin is referencing never took place. It derives from a satirical website called Diversity Chronicle which published a fake interview with Ignatiev claiming a Harvard retirement speech to his White students. Part of the problem is at the time in question Ignatiev had not retired. (according to The Blaze 11/26/13)  BUT in my opinion, even the words spoken and the interview never happened, it’s not difficult to extrapolate such an offensive story from Noel Ignatiev based on his anti-White legacy which is entirely accurate.]

 

Heavy Democrat controlled areas of the United States, such as Baltimore, Oakland, Los Angeles and Portland, are now permanent riot zones. There may not be a riot today in any of these Leftist communities and their ghettos, but tomorrow may not say the same, given the Democratic Commies’ tireless efforts to rile blacks and anti-white poor whites to mobilize to action outside of their designated riot zones. It can only be a matter of time, before all hell breaks loose in America, if we stay this course.

 

Americans will not have a nation without a sovereign identity and there can be no sovereign identity without a nation. This is the key insight of multiculturalist Marxists, and their agenda that has always been focused on America’s destruction. To have a multicultural society is to have no culture whatsoever, and once a people’s historical identity — their heritage —  is destroyed, the nation is not far behind. And this is precisely what is currently unfolding in America, as the various ideologies struggle against one another — socialism and tyranny vs capitalism and freedom — and as the bureaucrats attempt to perform basic duties as the turmoil envelopes them.

 

I could give a good damn less if I am replaced at some point, since I expect to die sometime within the next forty years or so, maybe even tomorrow, but I am concerned that those who follow may not — probably won’t from all indications — have the same respect and love for America that I hold for Her deep within my breast. I am concerned that those who follow seek to tear the Founding asunder “by any means necessary”, including violence, and although I have defended all races in my lifetime, at one point or another, whenever a group of any people come to murder me and mine, simply due to the fact that I happen to be white, I will spill their blood ’til I grow tired or am killed myself.

 

Any man of any color who stands for those principles of truth and honor, our nation’s Judeo-Christian and Western principles and the U.S. Constitution is one of my kin, one of my tribe, if tribalism is to be the rule of the day. And anyone seeking to destroy our culture and heritage and usher in something foreign is my enemy. Color never enters the equation, since I subscribe to the belief that all who are here legally are simply Americans, and my primary goal is to leave a nation behind me whose people and leaders ensure freedom and liberty for all, not just for people of color, not just for whites.

 

But just as we witnessed today, August 17th 2019, in Portland, Oregon where Mayor Ted Wheeler and the police seemed to once again give preferential treatment to Antifa over conservatives and Christians, the hardcore socialists and their multicultural race-baiters have largely attempted to de-platform, silence and marginalize conservative speech and any counter to their anti-American agenda, pushing us to resist however we can and however we must [See Townhall.com and Washington Examiner: HERE and HERE]. We have a moral right, a duty and an obligation to future generations to resist what we are currently witnessing and experiencing, a moral right firmly based on the duty to preserve and safeguard the world created by our ancestors and the Founding Fathers, coupled with the sense that we must pass this legacy of freedom and liberty forward to our children and their children’s children and beyond. And however repugnant we might find violence as the solution, past honorable men, moral men, once found it necessary to use violence to secure our freedom and liberty.

 

[Blog Editor: In the process of researching Antifa violence a mere one day ago, I am appalled by the lack of respectable Conservative sources reporting on the Antifa perpetrated violence. I also found it interesting that there was a lack of reporting on groups typically described as White Supremacist (e.g. The Proud Boys) being attacked by Antifa thugs. Sources I consider to Left-Wing biased MSM were all over the place on three different search engines. Unsurprisingly Google did not even have one Conservative site (that’s all that Duck Duck Go and Bing had) in their search engine listings that stopped at 10 levels as of 6:30 PM 8/18/19. Duck Duck Go had Townhall.com and Bing had two similar listings both the Washington Examiner. Does that mean the Conservatives didn’t report? I DON’T BELIEVE IT! I just believe their websites were ostracized.]

 

I hope and pray that civil war really isn’t quite as possible as I know it is. And more than any “race war”, this will be a war between the forces of tyranny and freedom, as old as time itself.

 

The Left doesn’t share this view, and it seems to welcome such a coming death dealing conflagration and the unleashing of the dogs of war, especially since the instigators think they will be unscathed by it, when the violence and killing starts in earnest. But, their names are on lists, and those with their names on lists, when such firestorms ignite usually end up in a garbage dump or hung from a pole, regardless of who wins.

 

This path will not end well, for the nation as a whole, and it especially will not end well for the socialists and racists; but it will end, one way or another, with the good and decent patriotic Americans actively confronting and impeding the machinery of our destruction.

 

Americans must engage this conflict with everything within their being, and with all the love they hold for our country, because this truly is a struggle for the very survival of America, our nation-state and our culture. There is nothing more important this very moment, than this domestic existential threat to country, since this represents the struggle of our century. Nothing will ever be more honorable than fighting for the survival of our people, and the very laws of nature demand it, since only a perverse fool could believe that “being on the right side of history” means capitulating to one’s own extinction.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Dem Candidates Sanders, Castro to Speak at Radical Islamist Convention


I’ve always been mystified on how cordial Leftists are toward Islam, especially openly radicalized Islam that leads so often to Islamic terrorism. NOW I find out this Leftist/Islamist romance is being validated by Dem Party candidates for President and even included a Left-Wing Trump hater at a conference supported by American Muslims connected to the Muslim Brotherhood which is the parent Islamic terrorists such as Hamas. These Left-Wing nuts are oblivious to the fact if Islam ever gained political power in the USA, these Leftists would top the Islamic Jihad extermination list of non-submissive God-hating Leftist kafir.

If a kafir escapes extermination in a Muslim ruled nation (or area), read or watch the oppression of a kafir living as a Dhimmi:

 

 

 

 

 

The Clarion Project has the info.

 

JRH 8/7/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

Dem Candidates Sanders, Castro to Speak at Radical Islamist Convention

 

Democrat candidate for president Bernie Sanders campaigns in Pasadena, California (Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)

 

By Ryan Mauro

August 6, 2019

Clarion Project

 

Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro have agreed to speak at the convention of a radical Islamist group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and hostility towards progressive Muslims and values.

 

Sanders and Castro will participate in a “presidential forum” held by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) during its convention in Houston August 31, 2019.

 

ISNA says it is inviting other Democratic presidential candidates and President Donald Trump to address its audience.

 

The U.S. Justice Department lists ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical and often violent arm of the Islamist global political project. The Brotherhood’s goal is a worldwide caliphate with all of humanity living under sharia law.

 

The Trump administration announced three months ago that it was considering designating the Brotherhood as a domestic terrorist organization.

 

As we reported in June, Trevor Noah, the progressive host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, is also slated to speak at the ISNA convention.

 

He, like Sanders and Castro, is apparently unaware of—or is unconcerned with—ISNA’s radical ideology, including expelling Muslims for Progressive Values, a pro-LGBT group, from its conference in 2017 or the fact one of ISNA’s past presidents endorsed the execution of homosexuals by sharia-based governments.

 

By speaking at the event, Noah, Sanders and Castro are helping ISNA appear as moderate leaders of the Muslim-American community (not to mention helping ISNA raise money through ticket sales).

 

The presidential forum is also being hosted by Emgage Foundation and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group that has an inflammatory and Islamist-friendly history but has taken a stronger public stance against the Islamist ideology in recent years.

 

ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history – that of the Holy Land Foundation, an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood to finance Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing).

 

It was during this trial that the Justice Department explicitly listed ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American network. This determination was supported by large quantities of publicly available evidence and internal Brotherhood documents.

 

The Holy Land Foundation actually operated from within ISNA, with money for Hamas passing from ISNA accounts to the Holy Land Foundation for distribution to the terrorist group.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis upheld the designation of ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in 2009, citing “ample” evidence linking ISNA to the Hamas/Brotherhood operation.

 

The current president of ISNA, Sayyid Syeed, was one of ISNA’s founders when it was established by the Brotherhood. ISNA was listed in a 1991 Brotherhood memo, which described their “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

 

Syeed was filmed in 2006 saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

 

The Fiqh Council of North America, once a part of ISNA but now an official “affiliate” of ISNA, also has radical members and underpinnings.

 

You can read more about the radical makeup of the ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council here.

 

The website for ISNA’s upcoming convention does not currently list its speakers but, if the past is any indication, it will include known extremists who appear moderate for condemning Al-Qaeda, ISIS and “terrorism” but support other terrorists like Hamas and an assortment of extremism, bigotry and anti-Western conspiracy theories.

 

By speaking at ISNA’s event, it is clear that these top leaders in the progressive movement still have a blind spot when it comes to the Islamist ideology. They usually don’t want to name it, exert no effort to identify it and seem uninterested in taking the time for a simple Google search to vet groups like ISNA.

 

The presence of Trevor Noah, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro and possibly more Democratic presidential candidates helps ISNA hide behind a moderate veneer and cleverly use its progressive partners to advance its anti-progressive agenda.

 

If Sanders, Castro and Noah are genuine about the need to detoxify our political environment of extremist rhetoric and ideologies as they say they are, they should cancel their appearances at ISNA’s convention.

 

RELATED STORIES

 

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — Profile

 

Muslim Brotherhood Not Violent? Think Again

 

Extremists Headline ISNA 2018 Convention 

______________________

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow, national security analyst and the director of Clarion Intelligence Network. Mauro is also an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

Copyright 2019 Clarion Project Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

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

 

Introducing Sutliff/Hinners Podcast on Probable Islamic Brainwashing in Nashville Police


Cathy Hinners

 

Intro by John R. Houk

© August 2, 2019

 

Paul Sutliff had Cathy Hinners on his podcast Civilization Jihad Awareness. The topic of discussion was Nashville police officers receiving some sort of training from a Mosque reputed to disseminate Radical Islam to its attendees. In case you have been desensitized, Radical Islam = Islamic Terrorism.

 

I appreciate that Paul began the podcast by giving a bit of history on the Muslim Brotherhood’s document: An Explanatory Memorandum – On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America (5/22/1991). You can read that grand strategy to Islamize America on a PDF on the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) website HERE. The IPT PDF begins with the Muslim Brotherhood’s original Arabic followed by the English translation which you’ll have to scroll down to read.

 

Cathy Hinners posted an article on the podcast subject matter on DailyRollCall.com: Nashville Police Cadets Schooled On Islam At Radical Mosque

 

Central to the subject matter is the Islamic Center of Nashville (ICN). To understand how bad ICN is for America in general and Tennesseans in particular here is an excerpt from the Tennessee Star (which is interesting since the Tennessee press is usually Muslim-friendly) dated 11/20/17:

 

Former board members of the Islamic Center of Nashville (ICN), Awadh Binhazim and Kamel Daouk helped found the ICT; Binhazim served as Secretary of the Board and Daouk as Chairman.

 

Binhazim proselytized Islam in Nashville through his organization Olive Tree Education which served as the dawa program for the ICN (which was recently visited by Metro Nashville students), with lectures and classes at Vanderbilt, Tennessee State University and presentations to local civic groups and law enforcement. Daouk served as the treasurer of Olive Tree.

 

According to a Politico article, the Olive Tree Education website listed several lectures by al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

 

In 2010, a video of Binhazim at a Vanderbilt student program recorded him saying that Islamic law mandates capital punishment for homosexuality and that “as a Muslim he does not have a choice of whether to accept or reject what Islam teaches.”

 

Binhazim’s bio posted on Vanderbilt’s website notes that Binhazim held a variety of roles at the ICN including as Vice-President and Secretary of the ICN Board and as Director of Public Relations for the mosque. The ICN Imam during Binhazim’s tenure was Abdulhakim ali Mohamed who served the mosque from 1999-2007 and partnered in Olive Tree Education. This Imam came to Nashville from the radical Brooklyn Al Farooq mosque which had a documented history of raising money for terrorists and is the same mosque attended by the “blind sheik” who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

 

… The ENTIRE Article May Be of Interest

 

Here is some good-to-know info on Cathy Hinners from her LinkedIn page:

 

Retired Police Officer/Speaker/Author/ Law Enforcement Instructor

 

  • Nashville, Tennessee

 

About

 

Just published and now available in paperback on Amazon.com Muslim Brotherhood: The Threat in our Backyard

See my latest article at
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-myth-of-islamophobia-the-truth-about-those-who-invented-it?f=must_reads

Proud to be one of 12 conservative women named in the SPLC “hit list”:​ https://medium.com/@splcenter/women-against-islam-a9f42563e1c2

For the past 4 years I have been speaking throughout the country and Tennessee on Islamic organizations present in our country. These groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the MSA (Muslim Student Association) have infiltrated every aspect of our society. They are also present in every state.

If you are in Tennessee and want to know more about who and where they are, contact me at **** [Blog Editor: I’m not going to be responsible for handing contact info. Go to LinkedIn if you feel the need to contact her.]

Also:

Be sure to listen every Monday to the Michael Delgiorno Show on Nashville’s Supertalk 99.7 WTN at 1005 (CT) as we talk about everything Islamic.

http://player.listenlive.co/25071
www.iheartradio.com
Also available on podcasts from ITunes, and Stitcher radio.

 

 

Founder

 

Company Name: DailyRollCall.com

 

Dailyrollcall.com was founded by Cathy Hinners, a retired police officer.

Dailyrollcall.com is a source for exposing the Islamists and their organizations throughout the country, with an emphasis on the State of Tennessee. Dailyrollcall has also expanded to include other retired law enforcement and military personnel to actively investigate tips on Islamic infiltration and indoctrination. Thanks to our supporters we will be able to purchase video equipment to be able to expose publicly what we find. All information is thoroughly vetted and all sources are confidential.

 

AND MORE

 

Now, you should really listen to the Sutliff/Hinners podcast posted Youtube on the Paul Sutliff Channel.

 

Cathy Hinners Screen Capture from video

 

JRH 8/2/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO Podcast: CJA with guest Cathy Hinners on Nashville’s PD Cadets training at a Radical Mosque

Posted by Paul Sutliff

Published on Jul 30, 2019

 

(July 26, 2019) Cathy Hinners, a former #lawenforcement officer now Training consultant questions the wisdom of training new police officers at a mosque in Nashville connected to the #MuslimBrotherhood and past #terrorist.

______________________

Introducing Sutliff/Hinners Podcast on Probable Islamic Brainwashing in Nashville Police

 

Intro by John R. Houk

© August 2, 2019

__________________

CJA with guest Cathy Hinners on Nashville’s PD Cadets training at a Radical Mosque

 

Paul Sutliff blog: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Paul Sutliff Podcast: Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff and guest Cathy Hinners

 

Global Patriot Radio which lists On Demand episodes including many Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff

 

Paul Sutliff

 

Paul Sutliff has authored a few books related to Civilization Jihad as such you can find them on Amazon. From the Sutliff Amazon Page is a brief bio:

 

Paul Sutliff has a BA in religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, a MSEd from Nazareth College of Rochester and is completing a post-grad certificate in Intelligence Analysis. Paul is an educator, a research writer and a radio talkshow host. Paul says he is only an awakened Patriot to what is happening around him. Paul first started to look into the Muslim Brotherhood after the college where he earned his MSEd took $500,000 from the international Institute of Islamic Thought. It took only a short bit of research to realize that a former Catholic college had opened its doors to an enemy of the United States.

YouTube Censors Anti-Jihadist News Source – Vlad TepesBlog


If you follow Counterjihad writers or blogs you probably are aware of the Vlad Tepes blog. (As an aside named for Vlad the Impaler who became the model for the Dracula legends but historically brutally resisted the brutality of Muslim Ottomans [Turkey] conquest and Islamization of Europe. What made Vlad notorious is he distributed brutality for Muslim brutality.)

 

Vlad the Impaler – historical portrait

 

The Vlad Tepes blog tends to focus on the actions of Islam (often reported as radical Islam) in Europe, but the blog occasionally takes a look elsewhere. Since the major Social Media platforms have been running Anti-Conservative/Anti-Counterjihad campaigns, the Vlad Tepes blog has become one of their targets by censoring Free Speech.

 

Counterjihadist Paul Sutliff has posted about Youtube censorship of the Vlad Tepes blog with screenshot examples and BitTube links to evaluate for yourself if the Vlad Tepes blog deserves censorship.

 

JRH 3/20/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

YouTube Censors Anti-Jihadist News Source – Vlad TepesBlog

 

By Paul Sutliff

March 19, 2019

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Youtube vs VladTepesBlog

 

In the beginning of February a coordinated reporting campaign against the YouTube channel of Vlad TepesBlog began. Simple examination of the filed complaints reveals the idiocy of the reporting. Vlad TepesBlog shared a few of the hundreds of their videos that were suddenly reported within a week.  The vast majority of what was on Vlad TepesBlog’s YouTube channel were news reports from foreign countries subtitled into English. Below are two examples of YouTube’s response to the reporting sent to Vlad TepesBlog.

 

Youtube to VladTepes

 

View here judge for yourself if this deserves an Adult Rating: https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmSmFBVZ8TkkLxj3EoWm1bF96P1e1tGEojpWstC8kzYpSA&channel=251530

 

Youtube to VladTepes 2

 

View here judge for yourself if this deserves an Adult Rating: https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmSomHDJakfvxdqeuvGoE4CQA9JAcraeydVYNKt9TnosaK&channel=251530

 

Is Google Politicizing viewership and subscriber numbers?

Vlad TepesBlog’s YouTube Channel had over 30,000 subscribers.  Their videos were not monetized as the goal was to get the truth out and not have it be thought that income would sway what was shared. One of Vlad Tepes Blog’s subscribers wrote to them that they were under attack by Google, because his subscription count was not increasing and appeared frozen. It became a talking point for months when the number was approximately 24,xxx for a few weeks. It then shot up to 30,000 within 6 weeks. Having posted several hundred videos Vlad TepesBlog had other concerns that YouTube was adjusting the viewership statistics.

 

Tested

Vlad TepesBlog works with Gates of Vienna sometimes. In this case he embedded his videos on the Gates of Vienna with YouTube videos averaging a daily viewership at YouTube of between 600 to 1600 views per day. Sometimes they might get as high as 3,000 to 4,000. This encouraged further curiosity at statistical manipulation by YouTube/Google. So Vlad TepesBlog did some work with Freezoxee.com a place he had ZERO subscribers, unlike YouTube where he had accumulated 30,000+. So the only people who saw the video were people who saw the social media ties to the site.

 

There were 15,000 to 30,000 views which over a several days. Vlad TepesBlog states that this count far exceeded the amount of viewers YouTube was reporting for the hundreds of videos on his channel over the same period time.

 

The frozen subscription count plus the low viewership counts made Vlad wonder if they are concerned about his actual influence. Influence? Yes! When a channel gets a lot of attention YouTube promotes it in various ways. Even individual videos get promoted due to high viewership. So was the attempt purposeful to limit their influence hence stopping videos from going viral?

 

Congressional leadership prior to the Democratic takeover of the House was pursuing a look into flagrant First amendment violations of these Social Media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for directly limiting the influence of persons who are Conservative and/or Anti-Jihadists.

 

Sadly, the mass reporting of VladTepesBlog and the forced closure of its channel show a huge flaw in the security measures of YouTube, and other Social Media platforms. That being the evident lack of

 

Due Process.

Due Process is what protects a person from false accusations and usually ferrets outs liars in a timely fashion. YouTube accepted complaints that videos with no violence or sexual themes should now be labeled and require age verification to view adult content. This implies that your daily news feed according to YouTube should be labeled Adult Content. This means no comments can be seen or written.

 

The worst problem here is that NO HUMAN CONTACT is possible! You can only appeal a decision with a form response that may or may not be read by a human.

 

Important Questions for YouTube

Are bots all that reviews complaints? Are there security measures in place to address mass reporting?  What is the process of review for an actual complaint before a label of Adult Content is applied? What happens if a reviewer shows bias or incompetence when reviewing content?

 

YouTube Does NOT CONSISTENTLY close Hate Channels

Social Media giants seem set on controlling messages to their platform. YouTube has been caught hosting content that promotes Anti-Semitism under the guise that it is Islamic. The Middle East Media Research Institute has caught several videos on YouTube and noted the names of the persons and the organizations posting Anti-Semitic content under these circumstances. Persons with platforms that have been exposed by MEMRI include Zafar Bangash, who leads the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT). ICIT has a YouTube Channel called the ICIT Digital Library.

 

Youtube ICIT Digital Library screenshot

 

Perhaps YouTube thinks this is acceptable because this channel only has 4,562 subscribers?

 

MEMRI also exposed Sheikh Omar Baloch. His promotion of Islamic Relief should be enough of a concern to remove his YouTube Channel. The Middle East Forum’s extensive expose of Islamic Relief’s connections to known terror entities and persons is more than enough to post a flagged warning of adult content! But as you can see Sheikh Omar Baloch’s channel still exists.

 

Youtube Shiekh Omar Baloch screenshot

 

There are far too many examples of this non-censorship of channels sponsored by persons connected to Anti-Semitism and Jihadi terrorism.

 

You have to ask how Google aka YouTube finds reason to justify keeping content that is connected to Anti-Semitism and terrorism, AND how are news feeds subtitled into English deemed offensive at all!

 

Yet YouTube claims it catches most of the hate and terror videos. It hosted Islamic State videos that the government had to request be taken down! Yet their own content reviewers seem to target persons who have influence and are sharing actual News coverage simply because the content reveals unpopular truths?

 

This past December YouTube made the news after closing 1.67 million channels and all of the 50.2 million videos associated with them. According to Reuters, YouTube claimed, “Nearly 80 percent of the channel takedowns [were] related to spam uploads. About 13 percent concerned nudity, and 4.5 percent child safety.”

 

Final Thoughts

Are we to believe news is now to be counted in the same category as spam, nudity, and child safety issues? But Anti-Semitic speech is protected if it is Muslim?

 

Let’s not forget the monetary value of good will. It doesn’t matter that Vlad TepesBlog was not asking for income. What matters was his influence grew because he was respected. That respect earned him a high subscription rate and a total viewership of all 1600+ videos in the millions. Vlad TepesBlog considers the action of closing their channel a fraud. The work portrayed was not porn, it was not a safety concern, it did not violate community standards, so the shutdown of his channel was an act of fraud.

 

While a formal apology and restoration of all the work of Vlad TepesBlog would be considered a good business strategy for YouTube, versus a lawsuit for alleging that news which was subtitled needed an Adult content rating.

 

Vlad TepesBlog now posts their work at http://Bit.Tube. They ask that you sign up and subscribe to their Channel here. Vlad TepesBlog continues to not ask for any monetary assistance. They only want you to have the truth and subscribing to their work helps them to get the word out!

____________________

Minor Editing by John R. Houk (via spellcheck)

 

© Paul Sutliff

 

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad homepage

 

Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff on Blog Talk Radio/Global Patriot Radio

 

Paul Sutliff: BA Religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, and a Graduate Certificate in Intelligence Analysis from Henley-Putnam School of Strategic Security at North American University.

 

To request me as a speaker go to http://paulsutliff.com

 

Cave to Islamic Culture or Remain American Culture?


John R. Houk

© December 12, 2018

Justin Smith found an article reporting on Muslim employees working at an Amazon plant – wait for it – in Minnesota. The same Minnesota that has been the recipient of huge amounts of counter-American-culture Muslim refugees. Minnesota has apparently imported enough America-hating Muslims to elect a Muslim Attorney General that has schmoozed with Islamic terrorist loving organizations such as CAIR and who also associates with Jew-hating racist Louis Farrakhan. Yup, that would be the former DNC Co-Chair Keith Ellison elected in November to be the next Attorney General of Minnesota.

 

I have no doubt Muslim refugee influenced voters to elect Ilhan Abdullahi Omar into Office who replaced Keith Ellison in Minnesota District 5 as the Dem Representative in November election. Even though Omar campaigned an Israel neutral campaign, after her victory she unsurprisingly displayed an allegiance to the Islamic terrorist paradigm of a Palestinian State replacing Israel which would mean another Jewish Holocaust this time within the Jewish Homeland. Omar received campaign support from CAIR which has a proven association with Islamic terrorist/Jew-Hating Hamas which in turn is the Palestinian subsidiary of the global Caliphate-minded Muslim Brotherhood network.

 

Understanding Minnesota’s two high profile elected Muslims to the crazy part of Islam, you have to wonder where their votes came from. A Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) News article talks about the election demographics in Minnesota District 5:

 

 

… The district, which covers Minneapolis and some surrounding suburbs, is growing. Since 2007, it’s gone from 583,700 residents to roughly 708,000 now, the largest of any in the state.

 

And many of those residents are young — and trending younger. The 5th is Minnesota’s youngest district by far, with a median age of 34 years old, down from 37 years old when Ellison was first elected [Blog Editor: Ellison elected 12 years ago].

 

 

The millennial age group, ranging from 22 to 36 years old, also makes up the greatest share of the voting-age population in the district at 35 percent, or more than 200,000 voters. (Are demographics destiny in the 5th District? By Briana Bierschbach; MPR News; 8/7/18)

 

Keep in mind the dominate political party is a local populist party that has increasingly leaned Left – Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL). The DFL is local but national purposes caucuses with the Democratic National Committee (DNC – aka Democratic Party, I often shorten to “Dems”). High School and College age students have been groomed for decades in Multicultural Marxist-Socialist principles. Hence, the largest voting age group that are non-Muslim are so brainwashed into Multiculturalist principles they have little to no concept voting for Muslims pretending to Left of Center are supportive of Ellison and Omar regardless of their un-American pro-Islamist and Jew-Hating racist associations.

 

Due to the amount of Muslim refugees primarily from Somalia, there was also an affinity from this unnaturally large voting block to vote for all things Islam. Consider this excerpt from SC (as in St. Cloud, MN) Times:

 

ST. CLOUD — Anecdotal evidence, exit polls and overall turnout rates indicate Minnesota Somalis voted in high numbers last week.

 

To leaders and experts, it was a demonstration of political enthusiasm as well as a glimpse of the community’s potential elective power.

 

The Somali community is getting more politically active and more Somalis are running for public office and winning, including Ilhan Omar, who will be one of the first Muslim women to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

 

The community now has representation in the Minneapolis City Council, the Minnesota Legislature and U.S. Congress.

 

 

Somalis as a group tend to be politically oriented, and certainly community oriented, Abdi said. They have a tradition of passing along information to one another by word of mouth. The Somali language was only written down in the 1970s, meaning its oral traditions have continued, she said.

 

Another factor is that for so long, Somalis have been denied the opportunity to participate in government by civil war, a failed state and decades spent in refugee camps.

 

“They are beginning to embrace the opportunity to be able to make a difference with the vote,” Abdi said.

 

Many families also have a vested interest in the outcome. They have families in the refugee resettlement or immigration pipeline, waiting to come to the U.S.

 

 

Motivated by Trump, against hate

 

The negative rhetoric around immigration and refugees by Trump and other politicians has motivated the community, Abdi said.

 

“It’s so shocking and so horrifying. It defies the hope they experienced with the hope of Obama,” Abdi said. “It’s inspiring people to say we have to stand up and we have to defy the network of hate. We have to refuse to be villainized or to be called criminals.”

 

… (How did Minnesota’s Somali community impact election results? By Stephanie Dickrell; SC Times; 11/11/18 8:00 a.m.)

 

You can tell the tone of this local publication is pro-Somali refugee. The people are so brainwashed that they do not comprehend that all things Islam is contradictory to America’s Founding principles and U.S. Constitution. Islamic history demonstrates that once a Muslim majority is established, the original non-Muslim inhabitants will their freedoms and Liberty restricted to be subservient to Islamic principles (SEE ALSO: 1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis).

 

Friends, the American Left has been remarkably successful in transforming America into the portrait THEY want Americans to see as normative. The Leftist transformation began long before Barack Obama was elected removing all doubt of the Leftist agenda to change American-Christian values into the values the Dems defiantly tell their listeners are actual American values. Namely, Multicultural Secular Humanistic values devoid of a Judeo-Christian influence yet deceptively accepting of all other religious faith values, even those religious values such as in Islam which would destroy the Left if became the politically dominant vision.

 

Now to the Justin Smith post on the Facebook Group Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists. Justin discovered that an Amazon plant in Minnesota staffed primarily by Somali Muslims wanted to go on strike due to increased work load. The Somalis apparently are not protesting increased labor as much as being upset the work load allegedly removes the ability to pray five times a day during the work period. The article is quite pro-Islam portraying Muslims as victims even though in American culture, secular oriented businesses are not expected to make special provisions for one’s religious beliefs. The article’s title is “Amazon’s Somalian Employees Planning ‘Massive’ Protest at Minnesota Facility Before Christmas”. As if Muslims care about the Christian significance of Christmas. The Amazon owner – Jeff Bezos – is quite Left-leaning (some describe as a social Liberal/pro-Capitalist Libertarian). I suspect and thus probable bend to the counter-culture demands of the Muslim Somalis.

 

Here are Justin’s thoughts on upset Muslim Somalis and Amazon:

 

This is just one more of the Muslims’ ploys to undermine society. They typically attempt to force host nations, the regions and localities they inhabit, to acquiesce to special treatment of Muslims, especially where Ramadan is concerned.

 

In America, we have equality under the law and the U.S. Constitution, not privilege. But Muslims want validation as Muslims first and privilege above all others, due to the supremacy doctrines within the Koran.

 

Make Muslims assimilate fully or leave the country. If they are not here to be Americans first, or at least to truly live here peacefully and in accordance with the Constitution and laws as applied to everybody, they should be made to leave … exile and deport them all. ~ Justin O Smith (Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists; 12/9/18 8:42 PM)

 

Yup, Justin and I concur.

 

JRH 12/12/18

 

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for a Christmas upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms. Still looking to defray the Christmas costs.   

Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

Learn From Europe, Become Educated on Dangers of Islam


John R. Houk

© September 16, 2018

Jamie Glazov originally wrote this strategy suggestion in 2016 as Obama was exiting the Office of POTUS. FrontPageMag has resurrected the article because of the devastation Muslim immigration has caused Western Culture in Europe not to mention the influence Islamic culture has had on the European Rule of Law.

 

Muslim perpetrated crimes of rape against non-Muslims which includes Muslim rape gangs and pedophile rings that the EU and individual European national governments seem so eager to hide and coverup.

 

Here’s a bit of tongue-n-cheek yet truthful video on the rape-jihad situation in Europe:

 

VIDEO: Grooming gangs in once Great Britain. A rape jihad.

 

Posted by Vincent Veritas

Published on Mar 20, 2018

 

Thousands of young women in Britain have been sexually assaulted by migrants and thousands more are waiting to be. Who is protecting them? Who stands for justice in the British Isles. Why are voices like Lauren Southern and Dankula being silenced? If you ask any of these questions you are labled [sic] an Islamophobe. Why do they want you to stay silent? Keep calm and carry on… takes on a much more ominous connotation under the strict censorship that has recently took hold of Britain.

 

Retweet this if you enjoy the video. I need the exposure!

 

Please subscribe or READ THE REST

 

And here are a few News articles that rape-jihad, Muslim rape gangs and pedophilia rings:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of what European elites in the EU and various national government officials in Europe may tell you, sex crimes have risen and you can correlate this problem with Muslim migrants, refugees and immigrants.

 

If American Multiculturalists have their way with an Open Borders agenda, you can expect the results in America. An example of the beginnings of Rape Jihad in America can be seen in the example of “three immigrant Muslim boys aged 14, 10 and 7 brutally raped a then 5-year old girl in an apartment complex laundry room” in Idaho and the apparent coverup by the Prosecution and Judge in the affair in 2016.

 

The Jamie Glazov resurrected post deals less with a Rape Jihad epidemic and more to with the politically incorrect concept of educating Americans in the dangers radical Political Islam the Muslim American organizations immersed in the anti-American theo-political ideology.

 

JRH 9/16/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

9 STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY COUNTER JIHAD

The crucial strategies that will turn the dire conflict in America’s favor.

 

By Jamie Glazov

September 10, 2018

FrontPageMag.com

 

Muslim Carrying ISIS Flag

 

[Pre-Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring UsHERE.]

 

Editors’ note: In light of the skyrocketing phenomenon of Muslim migrants stabbing unbelievers in random stabbing sprees in Europe, as well as the calculated denial that leaders, authorities and media are enforcing about it, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to the crucial steps America and the West must take to robustly confront the unceasing onslaught by Jihad and its leftist enablers. We are, therefore, reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s July 12, 2016 Breitbart article, “9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad”. Having written the article in the closing chapter of the disastrous Obama administration, the author recognizes and celebrates the life-saving turn-around disposition that the Trump administration has brought in to counter Jihad. Frontpage is most confident that the suggested steps below will continue to be the overall focus of the new administration — which, thankfully, is now taking many of the crucial and constructive steps vis-à-vis our enemy.

We find the article more relevant and urgent than ever due to the 17th anniversary of 9/11 approaching tomorrow:

 

*

 

9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.
By Jamie Glazov

 

While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor.

 

Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism:

 

  1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment.

 

The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law).

 

  1. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.”

 

“Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country.

 

For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security.

 

The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage.

 

  1. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups.

 

The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it.

 

  1. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy.

 

After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them.

 

Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing.

 

  1. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign.

 

The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch.

 

Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam.

 

Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.”

 

The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands.

 

  1. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious.

 

Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious.

 

  1. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools.

 

Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5).

 

Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now.

 

  1. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government.

 

Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam.

 

(P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.)

 

  1. Ridicule the Enemy.

 

Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Sharia and Jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches.

 

Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.

 

We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other.

 

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

_____________________

Learn From Europe, Become Educated on Dangers of Islam

John R. Houk

© September 16, 2018

______________________

9 STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY COUNTER JIHAD

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four  Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks.  It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so far this year and is a key resource for students, scholars and members of the media.

 

Since 2003, the Center has promoted READ THE REST

 

America Must Fight For Her Culture


I am a firm believer in the Counterjihad movement to expose the incompatibility of all things Islam with Judeo-Christian Western culture.  If you are a Multicultural Leftist it gets worse. I’m the kind of Counterjihadist understanding from Islamic revered writings that Islam is specifically Antisemitic and Anti-Christian in its theopolitical doctrine. And dear God in Heaven, if you are an American you have to realize Islam cannot coexist with the precepts of the U.S. Constitution.

 

So yup, I am anti-Islam!

 

JRH 8/5/18

Please Support NCCR

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

America Must Fight For Her Culture

Fight Islam or Pay a Heavy Price

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/4/2018 9:00 PM

 

America and Her Judeo-Christian Western culture is the best in the world, and all Americans must be prepared to defend both, unless they wish to live in a new and alien America, foreign to anything their forefathers could have ever conceived or would have ever allowed to take root. Christians and conservative constitutionalists must awaken to the reality that Islam is radically different from Christianity and Judaism and the beliefs of many other Americans, and they must reject cultural relativism and tolerance of Islam, or else our country will pay a heavier price than it already has at the hands of Muslim unrest, more terrorism and Islam itself, here to destroy us.

 

In America today, whether it is Nashville, TN. or Minneapolis, MN. and all across our country, there exists a second city, a state within the state, and a government within the government, a Muslim city and a city ruled by the Koran; and, while “no go zones” are not quite as prevalent or easily enforced by Muslims here in America, as they are in Europe and Australia, nevertheless, they still exist here, in closed communities like Islamberg, New York, Fargo, North Dakota, Willmar, Minnesota and the Cedar Riverside area of Minneapolis, as well as in Houston, Chicago and elsewhere.

 

Americans see Islamophobia used as a cudgel against them, just as it was last year, in Hamtramck, Michigan, which is home to the first Muslim majority city council in the country, a city with a massive Bangladesh and Yemeni population. Through a nonchalant attitude on sanitation, this population of Muslims has trashed the city, which was noted before the Council by Ian Perrotta, a council member, and this drew an immediate condemnation of his “bigotry and Islamophobia”, from the Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR [SEE ALSO HERE]).

 

More than trash, most Americans worry about the rise of terrorism and honor killings in our nation. Just last month, a Jordanian man in Texas, Ali Irsan, murdered his daughter’s husband, because he converted her to Christianity. Worse than this, our nation has witnessed a five percent increase, in terrorist incidents since May, and a total of 157 total cases of terrorism across 30 states since 2013, as noted by the House Homeland Security Committee last month, with five people arrested or convicted in June of attempted terror attacks on behalf of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

 

One must wonder how CAIR is even allowed to operate in the U.S., since it is a part of the Hamas terrorist organization and listed by the Palestine Committee as the fourth organization’s power structure. Still CAIR functions in America, even in spite of the fact that our own government stated, in December 2007 in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal, that “CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists” [PDF pg. 24 point 13]; and in the March 8th 2004 document, ‘Proposed Muslim Platform’, CAIR calls for “supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates”. [Point 13]

 

Recently, while reporting on “no go zones” in Sydney, Australia, on July 28th, a high-ranking officer, Inspector Rick Agius, attempted to stop Lauren Southern, an independent journalist, from walking past and filming the Lakemba Mosque, for fear that simple act alone would spark Muslim violence, as he stated that Southern would be held responsible for inciting them to violence. Something is seriously wrong in any nation that would criminalize free expression and freedom of the press, in such a manner, blaming the reporter for Muslim’s inability to control themselves. But this just shows how many officials are complicit in the Islamization of their own countries. [*** Blog Editor: Australia’s MSM propagandized Lauren Southern as if she was a Ring-Wing nut stirring up strife. Does this video she made look at all like an agitator:

 

VIDEO: Thrown Out Of Sydney No Go Zone

 

Posted by Lauren Southern

Published on Jul 27, 2018]

 

One must recall that Islam operates through stealth and political jihad when it is weak in a country, just as Mohammed operated. Once it has built its power to a significant strength, it abandons the soft approach and imposes its will on all.

 

Just look across the globe, if you want to see what Islam really has in store for America. We have seen what it has done to the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians in Iraq and Syria, and we see its disdain for Western culture everywhere across Europe, as anti-Semitism and Muslim riots have risen in France, Britain and Germany; also witness the Muslim rape of European women, similar to the rape and murder of 19 year old Maria Ladenburger, the daughter of an EU official, condoned by Islamic imams and the Koran, as it is either ignored or accepted by Islamic appeasers. And almost daily, there is a Christian church attacked by Muslims.

 

Understand, all Islamic doctrine mandates war against non-Muslims until the world is under Islamic rule. There is no book of Islamic law or any text book used in U.S. Islamic schools — or any Islamic school anywhere — that teaches any other “version” of Islam.

 

Americans no longer seem to understand the history of Islamic conquest, if they’ve even read it in the first place. How can they not see the differences in today’s world, between countries dominated by Islam and Western countries founded on the values and principles of Christianity and the Enlightenment? Have they not heard of the Sharia Law courts Muslims have created in England and their continued efforts to do so here in America? Why would we welcome such a destructive ideology and its advocates and adherents into our midst, if we valued our own culture appropriately and strongly enough?

 

All Muslims understand through the Koran, and laid out in the Muslim Brotherhood’s written objectives, that their mission here, as Muslims, is to establish an Islamic State under Sharia. Their goals are really no different than ISIS or Al Qaeda, as they resort to espionage, counterintelligence, subversion and political warfare to undermine and eventually overthrow the U.S. government, a crime under U.S. Federal Code, Title 18, Sections 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) and 2383 (Conspiring to Overthrow the Government).

 

Not every Muslim is a hell-bent terrorist, but each is, in fact a potential terrorist, and whether intentionally or not, directly or indirectly, their payment of one fifth their income to imams, who preach Islamic hatred, most usually funds the terrorists. Every Muslim empowers the fundamentalist jihadi Islamic terrorist, those Sons of Mohammed, who live and die to spread Islam and Allah’s dominion over all.

 

Americans must fight to retain their culture and national identity, in the face of a growing existential threat from Islam, that brings less freedom for all, with it and its Muslim adherents. Stop all Muslim immigration now. Close down all Islamic schools and demolish all mosques, while simultaneously expelling all non-citizen Muslims, and force those who would destroy our freedoms to stay in their own countries; however fine a social virtue, tolerance becomes a vice once extended to oppressive, violent and intolerant Muslims, who take advantage of this noble virtue, to the detriment and often great harm to America.

 

by Justin O Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All text between brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

DeSantis Hearing Establishes the Muslim Brotherhood Must Be…


The Muslim Brotherhood should have been declared terrorist organization decades ago. Thanks to a hearing at the Subcommittee on National Security of the House oversight committee chaired by Ron DeSantis, the terrorist designation seems closer than ever.

 

JRH 7/12/18

Please Support NCCR

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

DeSantis Hearing Establishes the Muslim Brotherhood Must Be Designated as a Terrorist Organization – the Sooner, the Better

 

Press Release Contact: Deborah Hamilton

Sent 7/11/2018 6:25 PM

Sent From: Center for Security Policy

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.— It is no longer a question of whether the United States will designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. It is only a matter of when and how.

 

That’s the principal take-away from a congressional national security panel this morning that addressed “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat” and what the US should do about it.

 

“This hearing is an opportunity to discuss what the United States’ next step should be in combatting the Muslim Brotherhood’s threat,” said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the House oversight committee.

 

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a militant Islamist organization with affiliates in over 70 countries,” DeSantis said. “There’s no question that the Muslim Brotherhood’s affiliates are involved in terrorism.”

 

The historic hearing follows a June 28 Center for Security Policy Decision Brief that called on the Trump Administration to declare the entire Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts and affiliates as terrorist organizations.

 

“Thankfully the Trump Administration has discarded the Obama-era policy of treating the Brotherhood as a potential ally,” DeSantis said. “Now, the questions are focused on how expansive to make the terror designation, and whether it should be done through the State Department or Treasury Department.” 

 

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a longtime associate of the Center for Security Policy, was one of the four witnesses who testified. He was the only Muslim witness, and made the case powerfully for Center-recommended policy of designating the entire Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts as terrorist entities.

 

In the course of his testimony, Dr. Jasser rebutted characterizations by the Brotherhood’s apologists and enablers of its critics as “haters” and “Islamophobes”:

 

Nothing would be more pro-Muslim than the marginalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and its direct affiliates. Making the Muslim Brotherhood radioactive would allow the light to shine upon their most potent antagonists in Muslim communities – those who reject political Islam and believe in liberty and the separation of mosque and state.

 

He also discussed national security risks associated with failing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates as terrorist entities. One of them is censorship of jihadist terminology in U.S. government agencies.  Dr. Jasser correctly observed that such censorship impedes analysts’ ability to protect the nation:

 

To think that these words and concepts, and others are off limits in the freest nation on earth, censored [in] our agencies, is just incredulous considering the growing threat we face today from violent Islamism.  It smacks of a bizarre invocation of blasphemy laws in America. It is groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have benefited from our refusal to discuss these elements of Islam and Islamism.

 

The three other witnesses – Hillel Fradkin of the Hudson Institute, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Daniel Benjamin of the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution – agreed to varying degrees that the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes a threat.  They recommended, however, more narrow terrorist designations of specific Muslim Brotherhood entities.

 

Chairman DeSantis observed: “It is clear that the Brotherhood constitutes a real threat to the national security interests of the United States.  We can debate the best way to counter this threat, but simply ignoring the threat is not an acceptable answer.”

 

The Center for Security Policy has submitted a statement for the hearing record endorsing Rep. DeSantis’ assessment and laying out the factual basis for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

 

Center President Frank J. Gaffney urged legislators, executive branch officials, the media and the public at large to examine particularly compelling evidence of the threat the Brotherhood poses: Its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America– a secret plan for “destroying Western civilization from within” written by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Akram, and introduced by the federal government into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation et.al. v. United States terrorism financing trial.

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

Designate the Entire Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood Now

 

By Frank Gaffney – Secure Freedom Minute

July 12, 2018

Center for Security Policy

 

This is Frank Gaffney with the Secure Freedom Minute.

 

Congratulations to Rep. Ron DeSantis and others who took on the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday in a hearing on Capitol Hill.  They established that it’s a foreign terrorist organization and will be officially designated as such by the U.S. government.  The only question is how soon and how comprehensively.

 

Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser testified that in 2011 then-FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that “elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.” Dr. Jasser added, “Nothing would be more pro-Muslim than the marginalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and its direct affiliates.”

 

That’s because the Brotherhood seeks to impose its seditious Sharia-supremacist doctrine on pro-American Muslims as it works – according to the group’s secret plan – to use stealthy “civilization jihad” to “destroy Western civilization from within.”

 

They must be stopped.  Start by designating the entire Muslim Brotherhood now.

 

This is Frank Gaffney.

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

VIDEO: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat [Feed actually Begins at the 9:30 mark]

 

Posted by oversightandreform

Streamed live on Jul 11, 2018

 

Learn more at https://oversight.house.gov/

________________________

DeSantis Hearing Establishes the Muslim Brotherhood Must Be Designated as a Terrorist Organization – the Sooner, the Better

 

AND

 

Designate the Entire Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood Now

 

About The Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

 

 Copyright © 1988-2018 Center for Security Policy | All Rights Reserved

 

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