It’s the Ideology Stupid!

Frank Thiboutot sent this as a letter-to-the-editor to the Portland Press Herald in Maine. Needless to say, it went unpublished.

We are publishing it here for all to reflect upon.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY FRANK THIBOUTOT

To: The smartest people in the room who believe that tolerance at the expense of the truth isn’t total stupidity.

What ideology turned beautiful, innocent German newborns into Nazis who were responsible for up to 85 million deaths during WWII?

What ideology turned beautiful, innocent Russian or Chinese newborns into communists which lead to 94 million deaths in the 20th century?

What ideology turned beautiful, innocent Middle Eastern, No. African or Arabian newborns into Islamic jihadists responsible for 270 million deaths for 1400 years? (Hint: It wasn’t Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism or even wiccanism)

*Combating these attacks from a counter-terrorism or counter insurgency position is helping but not working.

*Candlelight vigils, turning out the lights on the Eiffel Tower and teddy bears are not working.

*Telling us that Islam is a religion of peace is not working.

*Qualifying Islam as radical, extremist, hijacked, militant or fundamentalist is not working.

*Appealing to “moderate” Muslims is not working.

*Insisting mosques are places of worship just like churches & synagogues rather than seditious jihadist factories is not working.

*Insisting that “No-Go Zones” or Sharia courts do not exist is not working

*Allowing CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front group access to the highest levels in our institutions is not working.

*Talking tough AFTER a jihadist attack is not working.

*Blaming the only democratic country in the Middle East and legitimizing the Palestinian cause is not working.

*Throwing out the welcome mat by Europe and the U.S. to Muslim refugees is not working.

*Using the excuse that all religions have had violence in their history is not working.

*Claiming that there is a moral equivalence among all the major religions is not working.

*Not wanting to offend the perpetually offended Ummah (Muslim community) is not working.

*Believing the ACLU that FGM is not taking place in the U.S. is not working.

*Continuing to purchase OPEC oil to finance the purchase of weapons is not working.

*Regurgitating the “Lone Wolf” mantra that terrorists are being radicalized on the internet as a deflection is not working.

*Vilifying those who are trying to warn the West from committing cultural suicide is not working.

*Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas, al-Shabab, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and so on will not work in the long term to solve this problem.

So, what is the answer?

It’s simple. Drilling down to the root causes and motivations behind Islamic jihad are what’s necessary. 2500+ years ago, Sun Tzu believed in knowing the enemy which means understanding in detail his political philosophy.

Why aren’t there nationally televised public forums on Sharia law vs. our U.S. Constitution? Why do politicians, academicians and the media continue to apologize and enable Islamic jihad? What are they hiding? Are they being bought off?

We must unravel Islamic doctrine (the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith), expose it and it would implode on itself if our pathetic “leaders” actually had the backbone to do it. If you think that we’re going to accept these attacks as the new normal or that “terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city”, then you’re totally misjudging the American people. Peeling back the onion on this threat is long overdue.

Frank Thiboutot
Portland, ME Chapter Leader
Act for America

President Trump Addresses The Nation 8/21/17 [FULL SPEECH]

Shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, he directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and his national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia. Last night, the President outlined his strategy for the region.

Watch President Donald Trump addresses the nation on U.S. Policy in Afghanistan.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What the US Should Achieve in Afghanistan

6 Takeaways as Trump Recommits US to ‘Defeat the Enemy’ in Afghanistan

President Lays Out a Winning Strategy for Afghanistan

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Trump is an official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead.

FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP SPEECH ON AFGHANISTAN AND SOUTH EAST ASIA POLICY

Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson, members of the Cabinet, General Dunford, Deputy Secretary Shanahan, and Colonel Duggin. Most especially, thank you to the men and women of Fort Myer, and every member of the United States military at home and abroad. We send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who were injured and lost after a tragic collision at sea, as well as to those conducting the search-and-recovery efforts.I am here tonight to lay out our path forward in Afghanistan and South Asia. But before I provide the details of our new strategy, I want to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts, and to all Americans listening at home.Since the founding of our republic, our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selflessness, courage, and resolve is unmatched in human history. American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives, and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation, under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose. They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion.

That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They’re all part of the same family. It’s called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law. They’re bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget: that a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt. And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas—and we will always win—let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name: that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.Thanks to the vigilance and skill of the American military, and of our many allies throughout the world, horrors on the scale of September 11th—nobody can ever forget that—have not been repeated on our shores. But we must acknowledge the reality I’m here to talk about tonight: that nearly 16 years after the September 11th attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history, 17 years. I share the American people’s frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly lives, trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.

That is why shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis, and my national-security team, to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia. My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you’re president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail, and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my Cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and win.Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan, because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, would instantly fill just as happened before September 11th. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for, and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and launch attacks.

We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq. Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan, and the broader region, are immense. Today 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The highest concentration in any region, anywhere in the world. For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. And that could happen. No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan, and South Asia. But we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became president, I was given a bad and very complex hand. But I fully knew what I was getting into: big and intricate problems. But one way or another, these problems will be solved. I’m a problem solver, and in the end, we will win.We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now, the threats we face, and the confronting of all of the problems of today, and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal. We need look no further than last week’s vile, vicious attack in Barcelona to understand that terror groups will stop at nothing to commit the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children. You saw it for yourself, horrible. As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia, three months ago, America and our partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory, cutting off their funding, and exposing the false allure of their evil ideology. Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs and criminals and predators, and that’s right—losers. Working alongside our allies, we will break their will, dry up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our borders, and yes, we will defeat them, and we will defeat them handily. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear. We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America. And we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists, and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter. But to prosecute this war, we will learn from history.

As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways. A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans, or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.

Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power—diplomatic, economic, and military—toward a successful outcome. Some day, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an ever-lasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists.

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe-havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.

Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked to together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices. But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars. At the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace. Another critical part of the South-Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India; the world’s largest democracy, and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States—and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.

We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively, and work quickly.

I’ve already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy. Micromangement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles. They’re won in the field, drawing upon the judgment and expertise of war-time commanders and front-line soldiers acting in real time with real authority and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy. That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorists and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos through Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms. Retribution will be fast and powerful as we lift restrictions and expand authorities.

We’re already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq. Since my inauguration we have achieved record-breaking success in that regard. We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law-enforcement actions against these networks to eliminate their ability to export terror. When America commits its warriors to battle, we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force. Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on victory will have a clear definition: Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terrorist attacks against America before they emerge.

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will. Since taking office I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense. And they have done so. In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us. Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure their country against the same enemies who threaten us. The stronger the Afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do.

Afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. We want them to succeed, but we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image. Those days are now over. Instead we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interest. We are not asking others to change their way of life, but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward. Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country, but strategically applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace. America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden. The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress, and real results. Our patience is not unlimited. We will keep our eyes wide open in abiding by the oath I took on January 20. I will remain steadfast in protecting American lives and American interests. In this effort, we will make common cause with any nation that chooses to stand and fight alongside us against this global threat. Terrorists, take heed: America will never let up until you are dealt a lasting defeat. Under my administration, many billions of dollars more is being spent on our military and this includes vast amounts being spent on our nuclear arsenal and missile defense. In every generation, we have faced down evil and we have always prevailed. We have prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.

Not far from where we are gathered tonight, hundreds of thousands of America’s greatest patriots lay in eternal rest at Arlington National Cemetery. There is more courage, sacrifice, and love in those hallowed grounds than in any other spot on the face of the Earth. Many of those who have fought and died in Afghanistan enlisted in the months after Sept. 11, 2001. They volunteered for a simple reason: They loved America and they were determined to protect her. Now we must secure the cause for which they gave their lives.

We must unite to defend America from its enemies abroad. We must restore the bonds of loyalty among our citizens at home. And we must achieve an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the enormous price that so many have paid. Our actions, and in months to come, all of them will honor the sacrifice of every fallen hero, every family who lost a loved one, and every wounded warrior who shed their blood in defense of our great nation. With our resolve, we will ensure that your service, and that your families, will bring about the defeat of our enemies, and the arrival of peace. We will push onward to victory with power in our hearts, courage in our souls, and everlasting pride in each and every one of you. Thank you. May God bless our military, and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Judicial Watch Sues for Anti-Israel ‘BDS’ Lobbying Records

Washington, D.C. – Judicial Watch today announced that it filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of State for records of communications regarding anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ (BDS) groups’ efforts to lobby the Obama administration to ignore trade laws that protect Israel.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Department of Homeland Security failed to respond to two June 20 FOIA requests, one to the Department itself and one to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bureau (CBP), a component of DHS (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:17-cv-1650)). Judicial Watch is seeking:

  • All emails which mention West Bank country-of-origin marking requirements, and were sent between [DHS or CBP] and any of the following groups: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, Al-Awda, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Friends of Sabeel-North America, If Americans Knew, the International Solidarity Movement, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Society, Students for Justice in Palestine, or the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (the “BDS Groups”).
  • All emails internal to [DHS and/or CBP] discussing the efforts of the BDS Groups to strengthen enforcement of the West Bank country-of-origin marking requirements.

Judicial Watch also filed a FOIA lawsuit against the State Department after it failed to respond to a June 20 request  (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-01651)). Judicial Watch is seeking:

  • All emails which mention protections for Israel in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, and were sent between [State Department] and any of the following groups: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, Al-Awda, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Friends of Sabeel-North America, If Americans Knew, the International Solidarity Movement, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim American Society, Students for Justice in Palestine, or the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (the “BDS Groups”).
  • All internal [State Department] emails discussing the efforts of the BDS Groups to limit protections for Israel in the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.

In February 2016 President Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 into law, which forces U.S. trade partners to cut ties to the BDS movement and protects Israel territories. But Obama announced:

Certain provisions of this Act, by conflating Israel and “Israeli-controlled territories,” are contrary to longstanding bipartisan United States policy, including with regard to the treatment of settlements.  Moreover, consistent with longstanding constitutional practice, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions in the Act that purport to direct the Executive to seek to negotiate and enter into particular international agreements (section 414(a)(1)) or to take certain positions in international negotiations with respect to international agreements with foreign countries not qualifying for trade authorities procedures (sections 108(b), 414(a)(2), 415, and 909(c)) in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy.

Shortly after Obama signed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, the Customs and Border Protection Bureau restated the West Bank Country of Origin Marking Requirement rules requiring labeling of goods from the West Bank. The Jerusalem Post later reported the restated rules were a result of several complaints filed by activists seeking the U.S. follow policy guidelines distinguishing goods produced from Israel and the West Bank.

The West Bank country-of-origin marking requirements is said to stem from “longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy” toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. First put in place in 1995 under the Clinton administration, the rule is to preserve the distinction between the goods produced in State of Israel and the good produced in the territories it controls over the Green Line.

The BDS movement was started by the PLO and other anti-Israel groups to encourage an economic and cultural boycott of Israel.  It has gained the support of radical leftwing groups here in the United States, especially on college campuses.

“President Obama advanced the agenda of anti-Israel radicals in subverting U.S. law that rejects the malicious anti-Israel boycott movement,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And it is no surprise the Deep State ignores our FOIA requests that could expose the Obama-BDS connections.  It is well past time for the Trump administration to stop this obstruction and follow the FOIA law.”

Moroccan Muslim asylum seeker was targeting women, slashing their throats

“Then a person ran towards us shouting ‘He has a knife’, and everybody from the terrace ran inside. Next, a woman came in to the cafe. She was crying hysterically, down on her knees, saying someone’s neck has been slashed open.” – A witness

Surely you know what happened in Finland on the heals of Barcelona, but here from Reuters we get more facts on the killer and the poor innocent women who were sadly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Over the years we have written a few posts on Finland, but it isn’t as easily accessible (or slovenly welcoming) as other Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway.

This Reuters story is surprisingly unrestrained and relatively free of whitewash (or is that because those quoted weren’t pulling punches and speaking in politically correct terms?):

HELSINKI/TURKU, Finland (Reuters) – Finnish police said on Saturday that an 18-year-old Moroccan man, arrested after a knife rampage that killed two people and wounded eight, appeared to have targeted women and that the spree was being treated as the country’s first terrorism-related attack.

Finland’s loss of innocence. Photo: Inquirer.

The suspect arrested following the attack on Friday after being shot in the leg by police in the city of Turku had arrived in Finland last year, police said. They said they later arrested four other Moroccan men over possible links to him and had issued an international arrest warrant for a sixth Moroccan national.

Finnish broadcaster MTV, citing an unnamed source, said the main suspect had been denied asylum in Finland. The police said only that he had been “part of the asylum process”.

The case marks the first suspected terror attack in Finland, where violent crime is relatively rare.

“The suspect’s profile is similar to that of several other recent radical Islamist terror attacks that have taken place in Europe,” Director Antti Pelttari from the Finnish Security Intelligence Service told a news conference.

[….]

Both of those killed in the Turku attack, and six of the eight who were wounded, were women, the police said. The two who died were Finns, and an Italian and two Swedish citizens were among the injured.

Ville Tavio (Finns party): Asylum system is primary means of entry for terrorists.

“It seems that the suspect chose women as his targets, because the men who were wounded were injured when they tried to help, or prevent the attacks,” said Crista Granroth from the National Bureau of Investigation.

“The act was cowardly … we have been afraid of this and we have prepared for this. We are not an island anymore, the whole of Europe is affected,” Prime Minister Juha Sipila said. [Well, maybe not Poland and Hungary that have closed their borders to Muslim migration!—ed]

[….]

Some members of the nationalist Finns party, which was kicked out of the government in June for their new hard-line anti-immigration leadership, blamed the government for what they said was too loose an immigration policy.

“The asylum system is the primary road for illegal immigration, used also by the terrorists. Harmful immigration can be controlled only by reducing Finland’s attractiveness, or by border controls,” said Finns party lawmaker Ville Tavio.

Much, much more here.

What is asylum? (As opposed to refugee resettlement)

In the refugee resettlement process, wannabe refugees must prove they are persecuted, the UN screens them (supposedly!) and a country accepts them and flies them in.

For asylum, the wannabe refugee makes his or her way to a ‘safe’ country and then applies for asylum (or often called political asylum). They are supposed to make a case that they would be persecuted if returned home. Europe is dealing with mostly asylum seekers (many are phony and are really economic migrants) who are basically loose in the country until their cases can be processed.

And, are often loose because they have been rejected and no one has made them leave!

So, it is a misnomer when you hear the Left and political leaders refer to asylum seekers as refugees. They are not legitimate refugees until their cases have been processed and the governmental body responsible has granted them asylum.

See my Finland files here. Invasion of Europe archive is here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Syrians struggling with basic needs in Edmonton, Canada

VIDEO: Man gets 6 months in jail for Facebook post showing Nazi/Muslim collaboration

Yes, it’s a historical fact, but it’s politically inconvenient nowadays. And so it’s six months in jail for Michael Stürzenberger.

Video thanks to Vlad Tepes.

RELATED PHOTOGRAPH:

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini, reviewing the Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS Division Handzar in November, 1943 in Neuhammer, Germany with SS Brigadefuehrer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig, right, the commander of the division.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

SS Commander Heinrich Himmler vowed to ‘stand firmly by the Palestinian people’

Remembering the Nazi Inspired 1941 Baghdad Farhud Slaughter

ProPublica, working with Google to “document hate,” threatens counter-jihad bloggers

UK: Muslim screaming about Allah threatens people with machete, cops say not terror-related

President Trump to ‘cut all military aid to Pakistan’, thinks U.S. is being ‘ripped off’

I had just about given up on Trump, and then he says this. We can only hope that he will follow through, and not be persuaded by McMaster that all Pakistan needs is a few more U.S. billions to turn it into a reliable ally.

“Trump to ‘cut all military aid to Pakistan’, thinks Washington is being ‘ripped off’ by Islamabad: report,” Reuters, August 19, 2017:

US President Donald Trump is mulling cutting off all military aid to Pakistan because ‘Washington is being ripped off by Islamabad’, claims a Foreign Policy report….

The FP report quoted a White House official as saying that “the President thinks we’re being ripped off by Pakistan. The president wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan. That’s part of the strategy”….

During the discussions at Camp David, there were differences of opinion over taking a harder line on Pakistan for failing to close Afghan Taliban sanctuaries and arrest Afghan extremist leaders. US officials say the Afghan Taliban are supported by elements of Pakistan’s military and top intelligence agency, a charge Islamabad denies.

Pentagon has already frozen support to Islamabad under the coalition support fund, which provides Pakistan with payments to finance counter-terrorism operations. Mattis claims he could not find evidence that Pakistan had taken enough action against the Haqqani network.

Amid relentless criticism of Pakistan from the Trump administration, army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa has told a top US military commander that Pakistan doesn’t need aid, all it wants is acknowledgement of its efforts in the fight against terrorism.

“More than financial or material assistance, we seek acknowledgement of our decades-long contributions towards regional peace and stability, understanding of our challenges and most importantly the sacrifices the Pakistani nation and its security forces have rendered in [the] fight against terrorism and militancy,” he told Centcom chief General Joseph L Votel during a meeting at the GHQ on Friday….

RELATED ARTICLES:

BOYCOTT PAYPAL: PayPal bows to Left-fascist pressure, endorses jihad, drops Jihad Watch

ProPublica, working with Google to “document hate,” threatens counter-jihad bloggers

Polish Interior Minister: Barcelona is a ‘Clash of civilizations’

Invasion of Europe news….

From the New York Daily News yesterday:

Poland’s interior minister says “Europe should wake up” after the Barcelona attack and realize it’s dealing with a “clash of civilizations” that proves his government’s point that accepting migrants is a tragedy for Europe.

Mariusz Blaszczak says Friday his country is safe because “we do not have Muslim communities which are enclaves, which are a natural support base for Islamic terrorists.”

The ruling Law and Justice party has taken a strong anti-migrant stance, refusing to accept any refugees in a European Union resettlement plan, creating tensions with Brussels.

Blaszczak insisted late Thursday on state TVP that Warsaw will not succumb to EU pressure because it is putting Poland’s security needs first.

He said: “The refugee resettlement system is a system that is encouraging millions of people to come to Europe.”

The logic of his remarks is inescapable.

For my complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive, go here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

HIAS to hold rally for refugees on the Hill September 14th

More on Kennewick sword-wielding Somali refugee killed by police

Northern Idaho: Don’t bring refugees here!

Starbucks awarding grants to other coffee companies to train refugee baristas

UN: Spain not ready for large influx of migrants from Africa

VIDEO: Dinesh D’Souza on ‘The Big Lie About Charlottesville’

Dinesh D’Souza has a new book out, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, which I’ll be reviewing later. And considering the violence in Charlottesville, the timing was perfect for him to come on the Glazov Gang, the show hosted by our very own Jamie, to discuss the Big Lie About Charlottesville and how his thesis applies to the latest outbreak of outrage.

Jamie has an extended segment taking a deep dive into The Big Lie and discussing how the left’s lies still drive conflict in this country today.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll Shows Lots Of Support For Trump’s Stance On Charlottesville

ProPublica (recipient of Soros $) works with CAIR and SPLC to silence speech

Democrats Launch Website: “I Stand with Maria” After Far Left Lawmaker Calls for Assassination of President Trump

Epidemic? Leftist vandalism of monuments spreads

Calls for Dem State Senator to Resign Surge After Trump Assassination Post; Secret Service Investigates

Division in America: Don’t Blame Donald Trump

The Left and Anti-Americanism

A Choice of One

Chautauqua Institution, originally a cultural center, is now a disseminator of Islamic messaging to reach out to uninformed Christians and Jews programmed to accept multiculturalism. Featured speaker Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic Center for Middle East Policy, is part of the worldwide movement financed by oil money.

On August 9, he spoke of American anxiety, incongruously blaming occasions such as buying jam at the grocer’s, where, alas, so many choices will cause regret that he hasn’t purchased the best option. He sees no beauty in the many fruits, flavors or quality, or why, if one manufacturer makes jams and employs and pays a decent wage to improve life for himself and his neighbors, another cannot do the same in another locality.  Why must ingenuity be stifled?

Blind to possibilities, Hamid is instead guided by Islamic rules, allowing only one jam, or having one of his housebound wives make it.
He prefers that leadership dictate one’s lifestyle by force; create one nation, the Ummah; one law, sharia; and one goal, world domination.

Where democratic nations have excelled in science and technology, medical advances, improvements in agriculture and water technology so that humanity may flourish, the Islamic culture is based on shame and honor, and a high illiteracy rate to impede progress.  Their greatness will come when all vestiges of advanced societies are destroyed.

He described the universal condition as a “struggle,” but he meant “jihad,” as struggle is rarely part of the Western vernacular.  Hamid is a moderate, unweaponed jihadi, hoping to conquer by message, to convince his conditioned audience that his culture is superior, and particularly to reach those who have chosen the altar of liberalism over Judaism and Christianity, from which derived those freedoms, morals and ethics imperative to happiness and peace. Judaism and Christianity do not struggle for meaning; struggle is a proclivity of all forms of fascism, because authoritarianism provides no contentment.

The divisiveness that Hamid sees in America comes not from democracy, but from those who seek its destruction. Our laws provide respect for human rights, religious freedom, worker rights, a secure peace by combating international terrorism, stability, prosperity, open markets and economic development, improvement in the global environment and human health, and the enemy hopes to use our laws to defeat us. Arab-American author Nonie Darwish penned a warning, “America must protect its democracy, culture, and sovereignty from nations with aspirations of conquering us from within.”

We need only look to the Islamic Middle East to see Hamid’s “rich tapestry of traditions and contentment” – the rampant violence that has now created a “lost generation” of Middle East men – 30,000 suicides, 35,000 deaths from interpersonal violence, a ten-fold increase of fatalities from HIV/AIDS in 25 years (a side effect of FGM on women), and 144,000 deaths from wars in 22 Islamic nations.

Other twisted threads of this vintage brocade constitute the sharp increase in non-communicable diseases in the Eastern Mediterranean region – depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia. The death toll from Islamic terrorists since 9/11, at 31,546 (to date), is born of, but also affects, the families from which these terrorists are woven.

The speaker educated his audience that Mohammed, a prophet, was also theologian, politician, head of state, and state builder, but his list was incomplete.  He was also a warmonger, conqueror, murderer, beheader, enslaver, rapist and pedophile. Hamid imperiously denounced the Bible as not being the entire word of G-d, but tells us that the Koran is – of a god who wreaks pain and havoc on his children.

While also insinuating that the Hebrew Scriptures are superseded by the Christian Scriptures (although the former provides the foundational doctrines for the latter), he added that the Koran supersedes the Christian.  In a few words, he has delegitimized the basis for all Western civilization, slighting the most compassionate laws by which humans live in comparative harmony.

Interestingly, Hamid acknowledged that Islam is also a political doctrine.  He cannot distinguish the role of religion from state because Islam is a theocracy, and their deity, Allah, the sole source from which all authority is derived.

The rule of conquest is carried out by both armed terrorists and self-styled moderates working within the framework of the invaded country to insinuate their laws in increments, gradually and differently, according to the workings host culture.

The speaker closed with the usual feigned victimization, a plea for “peaceful disagreement if there must be disagreement.”  This is taqiyyah, holy deception, “a strategy to make Islam dominant; a persistent tactic of the skilled to deceive the non-Muslims and downplay the threat of Islam.”  Yet the reality is that while mosques are being erected throughout the US, Christians and Jews are not demanding churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. While American school cafeterias are accommodating Moslem students with the removal of pork, Jews are not demanding kosher foods anywhere.  While our textbooks have been revised to contain whitewashed Islam, Americans are being robbed of their own history.

Of all the ethnic groups that have come to America, Moslems are the only ones who require accommodation, and create neighborhoods and school areas that exclude others. His is the group that will use our laws to enact theirs for dominion.

Dear reader, his was not an extemporaneous speech by a neophyte. Hamid’s words were judiciously chosen, with a lesson to be derived from his explicit example of achieving contentment from only one jar of jam.  He cares not a whit about quality, flavor, or your preference; he wants only one choice of jam and one choice of religion – Islam.  In 1400 years, Islam was unable to produce the quality and flavor of Western civilization, but if they could succeed in annihilating Western civilization, ah, then Islam would finally be the best.

This is civilizational jihad.  This guest is one of many who comes to indoctrinate the uninformed in Chautauqua, that fewer choices mean fewer worries. Life is not made better, but infinitely simpler when you do as you’re told, eat what you’re given, and dare not complain. It is more than just a “Shadi” deal; it is bondage.

We are witnessing two extremes in America. Both are fascist.

We are witnessing two extremes in America. Both are fascist.

One is called Alt-Right and the other the Alt Left. Neither is conservative or liberal they both represent the growth of Fascism, Socialism and Communism in America. Unfortunately the liberal media and to a great extent the Democrat Party and Democrats have aligned themselves with the so called Alt-Left.

The removal of statues, pictures or other historical items is comparable to the ‘book burning’ in Nazi Germany during that 1930’s. Hitler was intent on erasing German and Western history and culture. In America today we see a similar movement against the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and other slave owners.

Does this mean we should remove pictures and statures of George Washington and many of our other forefathers who wrote the Constitution. Should we erase George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from Mt. Rushmore with jack hammers? Does this mean we should burn the U.S. Constitution which was written by slave owners? Does this mean we should outlaw the Democrat Party which fought to preserve slavery?

Question: Where does this all end?

Please read an interesting article by Melanie Phillips–“How totalitarianism is winning in the West”.

HOW TOTALITARIANISM IS WINNING IN THE WEST

Credit to the left-leaning Atlantic magazine for running a piece by Peter Beinart, who has actually looked at what is happening in American society and reached an uncomfortable conclusion which would be hard to find elsewhere in the media – and which is all-too pertinent in the wake of Charlottesville.

For Beinart warns that the left is lurching into totalitarianism and violence. “Antifa” purport to be anti-fascist. But they define as fascist anyone they disagree with including mainstream conservatives. Hence their violent suppression of commentators and scholars such as the conservative columnist Ann Coulter, the Breitbart controversialist Milo Yiannopoulos and the political scientist Charles Murray.

What Antifa most certainly do not do is defend democracy, freedom and liberal values. As Beinart observes:

“Since antifa is heavily composed of anarchists, its activists place little faith in the state, which they consider complicit in fascism and racism. They prefer direct action: They pressure venues to deny white supremacists space to meet. They pressure employers to fire them and landlords to evict them. And when people they deem racists and fascists manage to assemble, antifa’s partisans try to break up their gatherings, including by force.”

If this was just a bunch of anarchists, the problem wouldn’t be so bad. What takes this onto a different level altogether is the fact that the mainstream left does not disavow Antifa but tolerates, sanitises and condones it. Referring specifically to the assault last January on the white supremacist Richard Spencer, Beinart continues:

“Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. When the masked antifa activist was filmed assaulting Spencer on Inauguration Day, another piece in The Nation described his punch as an act of ‘kinetic beauty.’ Slate ran an approving article about a humorous piano ballad that glorified the assault. Twitter was inundated with viral versions of the video set to different songs, prompting the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau to tweet, ‘I don’t care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I’ll laugh at every one.’

“The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators – at least some of whom were associated with antifa – punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the ‘righteous beatings.’”

As I wrote in The Times (£) yesterday, this has produced an unholy alliance between the left and the far right:

“A white supremacist called Richard Spencer invented the blanket term ‘alt-right’ to associate his ilk with conservatives seeking merely to defend American identity and core values. Through this tactic, Spencer intended to boost the far right and simultaneously smear and thus destroy regular conservatives.

“The left has seized upon this smear with unbridled joy, routinely using the ‘alt-right’ term to try to destroy the national identity agenda by bracketing it with white supremacism. The result is a powerful boost for the far right. From deserved obscurity, they suddenly find the left are transmitting their every utterance to the world. The phrase “useful idiots” comes inescapably to mind.”

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll Shows Lots Of Support For Trump’s Stance On Charlottesville

RELATED VIDEO: Connecting-The-Dots Between Charlottesville, Soros, Hillary Clinton and McCain:

Beware the False Reporting on Trump, Charlottesville, and the Need to Erase History By Destroying Statues

The tag line and mission of Bolduc and Bracci is to “Level a Tilted Playing Field.”  This references the well-known fact that there is an extreme leftist-liberal bias in the media.  Presently, the media complex is working in lockstep to destroy President Trump, and is using Charlottesville as its new front.  Through false reporting, the media is working to paint Trump as a white racist bigot, despite his decades-long career in the public eye showing he is anything but that.

It is difficult to put this issue into words, but writer Dov Fischer, self-described as a Jew from Manhattan, does a good job of stepping back and putting today’s issues into perspective, discussing the truth about what Trump actually said in totality, and providing real history references.   His article at Spectator.org  is titled “And Yet President Trump, In His Classically Inartful Way, Was Absolutely Right.”

That article is linked here: (click)

Fischer on Trump’s statements:

I just did something fascinating. I just watched the President’s entire 14-minute impromptu news conference at Trump Tower on Monday that sparked all the latest barrage of anti-Trump screeds from the left media that will criticize him every day, no matter what he does, augmented by the “Never Trump” Republicans and neo-conservatives who will not rest until they can re-conquer the political party they lost because of three terms of two failed Bush presidencies, followed by the two failed Presidential candidacies of Sen. John McCain and of Gov. Mitt Romney.

Not the reportage about the conference, but the entire 14 minutes unedited, uninterrupted. I found myself agreeing with his every word. I did not find his tone or demeanor “unpresidential” in the least. He sharply and explicitly condemned the Nazis and White Supremacists unequivocally. He also condemned the extreme leftists who premeditatedly came armed with weapons to smash up a demonstration that, rightly or wrongly, had been granted a legal permit. (I personally wish that ACLU liberals were not so proactive in advancing the right of Nazis to get permits to rally at public venues, but the demonstration had a permit. Meanwhile, the Antifa Alt-Left thugs came with flame-throwers, bats, and shields, and they came to fight.) All the while, the police did nothing for much too long. Chaos and violence ensued.”

With all of the misreporting about what Trump has actually said, and who actually participated at the Charlottesville protest, articles such as Fischer’s are needed to level the playing field on an issue that continues to be used politically to further gin up public divide in our country, and to isolate our president by creating a false image painting him as a racist.**

**Note:   This isolation tactic is akin to our local Naples Daily News editors and writers who paint Collier County school board member Kelly Lichter as “boisterous” (click for prior report) because Lichter simply wants the school district to focus on education in the classroom — and to eliminate the Superintendent’s mission drift into the collectivist, “collaborative” projects which our community’s so-called “leaders” and “non-profits” find so endearing.  Threatened by Lichter, our local establishment and the media they control seek to destroy her.

Fischer’s article goes beyond Trump into the issue of destroying statues that have stood for decades if not centuries in our country.  Yes, it is understandable how some may find those statues offensive if they take them only as symbols of a southern culture protecting slavery.  But where does this end, and to what extent might those statues be symbols of other things, such as the principle of Federalism wherein state’s rights are paramount to the federal government?  Cannot those states honor soldiers and military officers who fought not for “slavery,” but to defend state’s rights?  If Florida sought to secede from the U.S. today, and an actual war was occurring, would you or your children fight to defend your family, your home, and your neighbors — or would you join the federal army, and seek to destroy your own family members?  This is not to decide one way or another, but to consider the reality of the choices that those citizens of southern states had to make when civil war erupted.  In that context, might there be some understanding of the citizens of those states honoring their own fallen heroes who fought not to protect “slavery,” but to protect their own family members during a time of war?

Not everything deemed “offensive” needs to be cleansed from society.  That is a very dangerous concept.  Free speech is protected not to ensure the “popular” speech, but to preserve “unpopular” speech.  Many important free speech and land use decisions by our U.S. Supreme Court involve protecting the rights of those who society finds least respectable.  (Think the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 1988 Florida Supreme Court, defending Larry Flynt’s First Amendment free speech rights).  Our U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the rights of these people to speak their minds — not because the Supreme Court agrees with those thoughts, but because it is dangerous to squelch free speech, as to do otherwise will lead to tyranny.

Is the destruction of Civil War statues not the same thing, only in “symbol” or “image” form?

On that point, Fischer states the following:

There is no easy answer for the statue issue. I have seen that issue for years and years, long before it became the Issue du Jour. In my travels for several months through the South and at the great Civil War battlefields, I saw the monuments everywhere: in main thoroughfares along Monument Row in Richmond, at the State Capitol in Nashville, at street corners. At the South Carolina state capitol in Columbia, they have preserved the broken walking stick attached to the monument of George Washington, so as never to forget how Sherman’s men ransacked the state and even desecrated the monument of Washington. Similarly, they have refused to repair Union cannonball damage to the building, preferring instead to cover gaping holes with metal patches that starkly remind visitors of the attack that happened there. I have seen the aesthetic beauty and passion that went into sculpting those monuments, and I have read the inscriptions that breathe not a word about slavery nor the social injustices of the Confederacy but of brave young boys, who never owned a slave — the vast majority of Southerners never owned slaves — but who gave their lives for their communities, for their honor, in some cases even for their women.

As a Jew hailing from the North, whose persecuted East European ancestors did not even arrive in this country from Russia and Poland until a quarter century after the Civil War, I also perceived that those monuments constitute a horrible daily insult and vile dishonor to African Americans and, frankly, an incomprehensible curiosity for a country that had defeated the Confederacy and had reunited. What indeed were all those monuments to the losing side doing all over the place? I came to a sense that perhaps those monuments should be moved to Civil War museums, to the great preserved battlefields at Antietam/Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville, Bull Run/Manassas, Fredericksburg, The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Cold Harbor, Vicksburg, and Petersburg. (Gettysburg already has its full complement.) Perhaps move them to cemeteries where Confederates lie buried.

But I do believe, as President Trump tried to say in his way, that many of those at the demonstrations indeed were decent people motivated solely by wanting peacefully to preserve the heroes of their history, oblivious to the ramifications — that, sadly, their history includes much that is shameful, even if Lee solely was motivated by a soldier’s rules of honor and service, as taught at West Point; even if Jackson was motivated solely by that same code of a soldier’s honor and service, amplified by a religious believer’s sense that he had a duty to country.

President Trump sadly is correct. George Washington owned slaves. So did Thomas Jefferson at Monticello and James Madison at Montpelier. So did many who signed the Declaration of Independence. Shall we take down the Washington Monument? Shall we rename the nation’s capital and the state where the liberal Democrats of Seattle govern? Should we tear down the Jefferson Memorial? Is there now yet another reason to change the name of the Washington Redskins!

And, while at it: How about encouraging some violent street-fighting in Manhattan, tearing down the Peter Stuyvesant statue in Manhattan and renaming that eponymous public school? He was the most vicious anti-Semite of pre-independence America.

As Trump says, where does all this end?  Take, for instance, this report that Vice Magazine now decries “Let’s Blow Up Mr. Rushmore”  (click here):

Vice Magazine’s call to “blow up Mt. Rushmore.”

The racial division presently occurring in this country is indeed worrisome; equally worrisome, however, is the use of that issue to justify the squelching of speech — in oral, written, or symbolic form.  Either of these issues could ultimately lead to the demise of our nation and the symbol of freedom for which it stands.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Women Against Political Islam Series: The Story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Dateline, Paris, 2017: If the mainstream media were protecting the interests of the true Westerners, then a victim of Islam by the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali ought to be described in a headline as “A Heroine of Africa On The Road of Freedom From Islam.”

A Dutch intellectual, Theo van Gogh, a descendant of the famous painter by that name, died because of a project he co-authored with her (he became friends with Ayaan and co-produced a film on Islamic terror against women).

The burden of a “fatwa” (an official statement or order from an Islamic religious authority that carries the weight of a sentence) is no small burden to carry. And she has a fatwa issued against her. This brave Somali woman speaks the truth because her life depends on it. This sets her apart from most other people, East and West, who are comfortable with lies because they bring no risk.

The truth will set you free – but it may also kill you.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: MY LIFE UNDER A FATWA

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was stabbed into the world’s consciousness three years ago. One wet afternoon in November 2004, her friend Theo van Gogh – a film-maker, and descendant of Vincent – left his house and was about to cycle off through Amsterdam. But a young Dutch-born Muslim called Mohammed Bouyeri was waiting for him – with a handgun and two sharpened butcher’s knives.

Wordlessly, he shot Van Gogh twice in the chest. Van Gogh howled: “Can’t we talk about this?” Bouyeri ignored his pleas and fired four more times. Then he pulled out a knife and slit Van Gogh’s throat with such strength that his head was almost severed from his body. He used the other knife to stab a five-page letter on to Van Gogh’s haemorrhaging corpse.

Ayaan explains: “The letter was addressed to me.” It said that Van Gogh had been “executed” for making a film with her that exposed the widespread abuse of Muslim women. Now, she would be “executed” too – for being an apostate.

She says that, even now, “every time I close my eyes, I see the murder, and I hear Theo pleading for his life. ‘Can’t we talk about this?’ he asked his killer. It was so Dutch, so sweet and innocent.” At the trial, Bouyeri spat at Van Gogh’s mother: “I don’t feel your pain. I don’t have any sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you’re a non-believer.”

This is the story of how a 25-year-old bogus asylum-seeker from Africa came to Europe in search of freedom – only to be nearly murdered here by a Dutchman, on the streets of Amsterdam, for speaking out against religion. The story opens in the blood-strewn streets of Somalia, and it closes amid the shiny white marble of Washington, DC – yet it also ends where it began: with Ayaan’s life in danger. This is the story of the refugee who rocked Islam.

****

Her light, slight figure walks into the room so quietly that I would not have noticed her. But then the bodyguards follow: big, with their eyes darting into every corner in search of the long-awaited assassin, and you realise – yes, she is here. The internet is littered with pledges to torture and slay Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yet, just a few weeks before we meet in London, the Dutch government has stripped away her security detail. She is paying for her own bodyguards now – and she could soon run out of cash.

So how did this soft-voiced woman come to be so hated – and to be abandoned by the country that gave her sanctuary?

The life of her mother hangs over Ayaan as a morality tale, a warning of what she might have been. “I was determined to never let what happened to my mother happen to me,” she says, looking away. “I think that has made me the way I am.”

By the time her mother gave birth to Ayaan in a hospital on the outskirts of Mogadishu in 1967, she was a broken woman. Like all Somalian women, she had been pressured all her life to suppress her personality, to sublimate everything to men and to God – to become what Ayaan calls “a devoted, well-trained work-animal”.

In her youth, her mother had moments when she fought back, briefly and bravely. She insisted on leaving her family. They were desert nomads, in effect living in the Iron Age, with no writing, few metal objects, and a belief that Allah’s angels and demons were constantly tinkering with reality. At 15, she walked out of their desert to the city of Aden.

But when her father called her back to be married to a man she had never met, she submitted. There was another flickering moment of freedom: exceptionally for that time and place, she later insisted on a divorce, and got one.

But this was all gone when Ayaan was born. The woman striving for independence had soon remarried, and crashed into the sheer weight of cultural expectation. She had been persuaded that “God is just and all-knowing and will reward you in the hereafter for being subservient”. Her personality became deformed by it.

“She remained completely dependent,” Ayaan says. “She nursed grievances; she was resentful; she was often violent, and she was always depressed.” She would take it out on Ayaan, tying her arms behind her back and lashing her with wire for the slightest misdemeanour.

When Ayaan first menstruated, her mother screamed at her: “Filthy prostitute! May you be barren! May you get cancer!” Ayaan tried to commit suicide not long after. But now she says she knows that “all the abuse wasn’t really directed at me, but at the world, which had taken her rightful life away.”

When her second husband left her, Ayaan’s mother was too infantilised to react. “It never occurred to her to go out and create a new life for herself, even though she can’t have been older than 35 or 40 when my father left,” Ayaan has written.

She remembers waking up every night as a small girl to hear her mother wailing. Once, she went into her mother’s bedroom and placed a hand on her cheek; her mother screamed and beat her. After that, Ayaan would simply crouch at the door, listening to the wails, wishing she knew what to do.

Somali culture began to demand that Ayaan too become a submissive woman who scrubbed away her own personality and sexuality. When she was five years old, she was made “pure” by having her genitals hacked out with a knife. It was a simple process; her grandmother and two of her friends pinned her down, pulled her legs apart, and knifed away her clitoris and labia. She remembers the sound even now – “like a butcher, snipping the fat off a piece of meat”. The bleeding wound was sewn up, leaving a thick tissue of scars to form as her fleshy chastity belt. She could not walk for two weeks.

Ayaan soon realised that, in a culture so patriarchal that it could not tolerate the existence of an unmaimed vagina, “I could never become an adult. I would always be a minor, my decisions made for me. But I wanted to become an individual, with a life of my own.”

By reading novels, she heard whispers of a world where this was possible. For her, even poring over Enid Blyton and Barbara Cartland seemed transgressive, because they depicted a world where boys and girls played together on the basis of equality, and where women chose their husbands rather than having them forced on them by their fathers. Imagine a world so patriarchal that Barbara Cartland seems like a gender revolutionary.

Yet, on the road to this self-determining life, Ayaan turned first to its polar opposite: the very Islamic fundamentalism that now wants to kill her. Ayaan was taught from infancy to revere the Prophet Mohamed and the Koran, and she believed it all. She desperately wanted to please Mohamed, and his path seemed to her the only one.

So, once her family had moved to Kenya, a country where few people wore the headscarf, she chose to don one. She has written: “It had a thrill to it, a sensuous feeling. It made me feel powerful: underneath this screen lay a previously unsuspected, but potentially lethal, femininity. It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim.”

She began to go to a prayer group where the texts of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna – the intellectual inspirations for al-Qa’ida – were pored over.When the Ayatollah Khomeini declared that Salman Rushdie should be murdered for what a maniac says in one of his novels, Ayaan wanted him dead. “I supported it,” she says now, “and the logic of my position is that I would have become a martyr myself, or supported the people [who did become martyrs].”

What would that girl, who took to the streets to call for Rushdie’s death, say if she could see you now? Would she think you should be killed too? For the first time in our interview, Ayaan pauses. A long pause. “What would that girl of 1989 think of this girl?” she repeats. “I think… well… people change.” Another pause. “She would at least approve of it. That’s why I try to explain – there is a reason why so many Muslims are silent when, in the name of Islam, violence is committed. It’s because we believe that jihad is the sixth obligation. Those, then, who are brave enough to commit acts of jihad must deserve our commendation.”

Then, one day, as she slid into jihadism, her absent father reappeared and announced that he had found her a good husband. Ayaan thought the potential life-partner stupid and ugly – but she had no choice. He was from the right clan, he had the right fundamentalist beliefs, and he wanted her. She knew what was expected: “A Muslim girl does not make her own decisions or seek control.”

****

But she could not – would not – do it. She ran. She ran all the way to the Netherlands, on a plane, to claim asylum. She was terrified when she landed in the heartland of The Infidel. She expected to find depravity on every corner. But she was amazed. Here was a peaceful land that seemed like Paradise.

“In the Netherlands, I saw people we called infidels living an amazing life – men and women mixing, gay people being free, you could say whatever you wanted,” she says. “Then I went back to the asylum-seekers’ centre and almost everyone was from a Muslim country begging for the charity of these infidels. And I thought, ‘If we’re so superior, why are we begging from them?’”

She experimented in stepping out on to the streets without her hijab, expecting she would be harassed and raped by the sex-crazed infidel. Nobody looked twice. She began to test other democratic freedoms. She drank alcohol, she found a boyfriend – and she headed for the library to discover the principles that had created this place. She began to pore over the works of Enlightenment philosophy.

“Sometimes, it seemed as if every page I read challenged me as a Muslim. Drinking wine and wearing trousers was nothing compared to reading the history of ideas,” she says. “The Enlightenment cut European culture from its roots in old fixed ideas of magic, kingship, social hierarchy and the domination of priests, and regrafted it on to a great strong trunk that supported the equality of each individual and his right to free opinions and self-rule.” She found that all this was a profound challenge to the severe Islam she had been pickled in since childhood.

She began to study for a political science degree and was slowly rethinking her faith when, one bright morning in September 2001, the island of Manhattan became swathed in smoke. The chief hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was exactly the same age as Ayaan. She feels like she knows him, and that if her life had taken a different turn – if she had stayed in Kenya, with the jihadis – “perhaps I could have done it.” And she says something very revealing: “I realised I could either go mad, join the Bin Ladenists, or step out of the religion.”

This fanatical form of Islam was, she realised, around her in the Netherlands. On the night of September 11, a small group of Muslim men took to the streets to celebrate the massacre. The country’s domestic violence shelters were disproportionately crammed with Muslim women fleeing male terror.Forced marriages and “honour killings” continued at a startling rate in Dutch cities. But she found that many otherwise good people were reluctant to speak out against this abuse of women and gay people within immigrant communities.

The Netherlands had a policy called “emancipation within your own circle”, and Ayaan saw this as a betrayal. Multiculturalism, she believed, was “elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred towards women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life. I wanted Muslim women to be aware of just how bad, and unacceptable, their suffering was. I wanted to help them develop the vocabulary of resistance.”

She took the great English feminist Mary Wollstonecraft as her lodestar, and began to campaign for the state to log the rate of “honour” killings, because nobody was even bothering to count. This led to the centre-right Liberal Party asking her to run to be a member of parliament.

She accepted, and got one of the highest personal votes in the country. This in turn led her into the path of Theo van Gogh – and to his slaughter. After that, Ayaan was placed under full-time surveillance by security guards and was barely permitted to leave her house.

****

At this point, two Ayaans were born, with clashing and contradictory views on Islam. Sitting here now, I can feel their presence; I can hear them alternate in her mind. I call the first “revolutionary Ayaan”, and this Ayaan says about September 11: “This was not just Islam, this was the core of Islam. Mohammed Atta believed he was giving his life for Allah. This is beyond Osama bin Laden, it is based in the basic roots of Islam.”

Without pausing, she continues: “You have to ask – is it a fact that the Prophet Mohamed conquered lands using the sword? Is it a fact that Muslims are commanded to commit jihad? Yes it is.”

She has no time for what she sees as the ignorant, woolly Islam-is-peace message of Western liberals, insisting: “I see no difference between Islam and Islamism. Islam is defined as submission to the will of Allah, as it is described in the Koran. Islamism is just Islam in its most pure form. Sayyid Qutb didn’t invent anything, he just quoted the sayings of Mohamed.”

Revolutionary Ayaan believes that the religion cannot be reformed or changed, only defeated. The millions upon millions of Muslims who are not violent – “the wonderful, decent, law-abiding people” – simply do not really follow Islam. They ignore it, or they live uncomfortably with the explosive “cognitive dissonance” of simultaneously supporting human decency and the demands of Islam.

She lists the awkward truths about the Prophet Mohamed. “All Muslims believe in following his example, but many of the things he did are crimes. When he was in his fifties, he had sex with a nine-year-old girl. By our standards, he was a pervert. He ordered the killing of Jews and homosexuals and apostates, and the beating of women.” That is why she concludes that “the war on terror is a war on Islam”, and “Islam is the new fascism”.

But then there is “reformist Ayaan”. This Ayaan says the opposite: that internal reform within Islam is both possible and necessary. She insists: “It’s wrong to treat Muslims as if they will never find their John Stuart Mill. Christianity and Judaism show that people can be very dogmatic and then open up. There is a minority [within Islam] like [the reformists] Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid who want to remain in the faith and reform it.

“Can you be a Muslim and respect the separation of church and state? I hope a large enough number of Muslims will agree you can, and they will find a way to keep the spiritual elements that comfort them and live in a secular society.”

Ayaan’s life story is strewn with Muslims who rejected Bin Ladenist fanaticism. Her father, for example, was revolted by the Wahabbism he witnessed in Saudi Arabia, and told her: “This is not Islam – this is Saudis perverting Islam.” She hesitates when I ask her about this fracture line in her thinking; I can almost touch the cognitive dissonance.

Then “reformist Ayaan” says: “Well, my father was trying to combine the commandments in the Koran with his conscience. He has reached a level of civilisation because he’s living in the 21st century, but he was also trying to follow a religion founded in the seventh century. So on the one hand he thinks you should accept that the content of the Koran is the true word of God, and on the other hand he is a decent person. He tried to move on by saying that we should only convert non-Muslims by example, not by violence, and [by saying] that only the Prophet Mohamed can call for a jihad.” But then “revolutionary Ayaan” adds: “That’s not what the Koran says. It says you can never change the faith.”

Is there is a danger that the language of “revolutionary Ayaan” is undercutting the very people “reformist Ayaan” wants to encourage? Does she worry that by calling all Islam “fascism” she might encourage the hard right, who want to deny women like her the chance even to come to Europe as refugees?

“I do,” she says. “But the group of Europeans, white Europeans, who want to stop immigration altogether, and who reject Muslims, today in 2007, is not that large. But they could become larger if European governments continue the policy of accommodating and appeasing fascist demands made by radical Muslims. They need to oppose fascist demands by Muslims, and the fascist demands by far-right white groups. I think that if there is equal treatment on both sides, the traditional populations of Europe will say that it’s fair play.”

As we discuss this, I realise there is something odd about this conversation. It is all so disconcertingly normal. Ayaan is speaking in a level voice, at a level volume. If you didn’t speak English and you saw us talking, you could assume that we were discussing bus timetables, or the weather. It’s not that she seems passionless – not at all – but that her personality seems to be coiled up within her, and I am only seeing the carefully considered tip of it. When she describes the people who want to hack her body to pieces, it is in paragraphs that feel prepacked. Perhaps it is all she can bear to show.

And so we continue. She looks at me politely and says that Europe needs to be more confident about standing up to Islamic fundamentalism. “When we come here as immigrants, we know it will be different to where we come from. It’s a choice to come, and we can always choose to leave. If we do not want to adopt European values, we should expect to be criticised.”

For example, she says, the veil she used to wear is “a political statement, it’s not just a religious statement. It says: I’m different from you and I reject what you stand for.” She stresses that she doesn’t want to ban it, just to see it challenged. “I’m opposed to banning of political expression, but I’m very much a proponent of competing political expression.

“The message of liberals is so much better, so much stronger, that you don’t have to resort to banning. You can wear whatever it is that you want, you can give out whatever message that you want to give out – but you have to understand that if that message is rejected, then you can’t call people Islamophobic and expect to be taken seriously. If you choose to wear a veil, people might ridicule and oppose you. That’s their right, too.”

****

She speaks with such eloquent intensity because she is arguing against another, younger version of herself. The Ayaan of 2007 is attacking the Ayaan of 1987 – who is damning her right back. If there is a clash of civilisations, it is happening within her. It’s hard to remember, as we sit here, that there are tens of thousands of people who want to prematurely bring this fizzing debate inside Ayaan’s head to an end – with a bullet.

She fell in love with Holland because of its tradition of unabashed free speech, but it seems the country’s politicians have judged that she took free speech too far for them. Last year, the Dutch government began to reinvestigate the lies in her original asylum claim. Ever since she entered public life she had been totally candid about this: she exaggerated the degree of state persecution she faced because being abused by your family isn’t enough to be granted refugee status. Now the government was twitchy about the rows she was stirring up – so they suddenly decided to strip her of her seat in parliament. Amid efforts to revoke her Dutch citizenship as well, she fled to Washington and a job with a conservative think-tank.

Her alignment with the American right doesn’t seem like an easy fit. She is a militant defender of atheism, feminism and gay rights – all forces they have demonised for decades. She is an illegal immigrant, their ultimate hate figure. But, as our interview goes on, I realise she has depressingly begun to adopt some of their ideas. She wants to abolish the minimum wage. She no longer calls for the closing of all faith schools, but simply Muslim ones, because “they are the only ones that do not respect the division between secular and divine law”.

She has even begun to touch on the American hard right’s preposterous predictions that Muslims are “outbreeding” the continent’s traditional populations and will impose sharia law “within decades”. When I challenge her on this, she says that “experts” say it is true.

Then, this month, the Dutch government went further and stripped away her security protection, saying she should pay for it herself. The US government will not pick up the tab – the only mechanism they have for protecting private citizens full-time is the Witness Protection Program, which isn’t appropriate.

Only 11 members out of the 150 MPs voted to keep my security detail,” she says. “So it’s an overwhelming decision, and when I saw that I did feel betrayed. It’s not only a betrayal of me, it’s a betrayal of the idea of free expression.

“I think they believe that supposedly provoking Muslims will only make them more angry and hostile. The four large cities in Holland have now got very large Muslim populations, and that number is increasing – the estimate is that they’re about 40 per cent. With that kind of electoral power [they think] it’s best not to provoke them.” Even if that means sacrificing basic Dutch values? “Yes.”

She is revolted by the people who claim that it is she, Ayaan, who has “sold out” Muslims. “Tell me, is freedom only for white people?” she has written. “Is it self-love to adhere to my ancestors’ traditions and mutilate my daughters? To agree to be humiliated and powerless? When I came to a new culture, where I saw for the first time that human relations could be different, would it have been self-love to see that as a foreign cult, which Muslims are forbidden to practise?“…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

In Their Own Words: The Radical Political Goals Of ‘Anti-Fascists’ by Peter Hasson

In the days since violent clashes at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville culminated in a neo-Nazi sympathizer driving his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, journalists have mainstreamed the self-described “anti-fascists” (or “antifa”) at the rally — largely ignoring their involvement in the escalating political violence in this country.

Many establishment political figures insisted the far-left actors were just like American soldiers on D-Day. But these “anti-fascists’”  own statements show they’re nothing like American soldiers on D-Day.

They aren’t interested in protecting America’s system of government, according to their own statements — they’re interested in destroying it.

From the very start of the Trump administration, far-left actors declared their intention to use massive demonstrations to disrupt the American political process as much as possible.

A common mantra among far-left groups beginning shortly before the inauguration: make America “ungovernable.”

“We need to make this country ungovernable,” declared a female leader for Refuse Fascism shortly after the inauguration. “We need to do what the German people should have done when Hitler was elected.”

Refuse Fascism was a driving force behind the violent, politically motivated riots in Berkeley. Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos — who at the time was an editor at pro-Trump website Breitbart — was scheduled to speak at the University of California’s Berkeley campus. He was forced to cancel the speech after mobs of protesters started fires, assaulted bystanders and pepper sprayed suspected Trump supporters as part of an organized effort to shut down the speech.

View image on Twitter

Protests against Milo at UC Berkeley. Protesters chanting “This is what community looks like.” Source: Twitter Shane Bauer @shane_bauer

Refuse Fascism was among the left-wing groups advertising the Charlottesville rally and urged confrontation with the white nationalists: “Drive them OUT of Charlottesville and out of power!”

Refuse Fascism was far from the only left-wing fringe group at Charlottesville.

One anarchist group that was at Charlottesville, CrimethInc, holds that anarchism is necessary to destroy white supremacy, which the group says cannot be fully extinguished in a democracy.

“Anarchism is one of the most thoroughgoing forms of opposition to fascism, in that it entails opposition to hierarchy itself. Virtually every framework that countenances hierarchy, be it democracy or ‘national liberation,’ enables old power imbalances like white supremacy and patriarchy to remain in place, hidden within the legitimacy of the prevailing structures,” the group explains.

They similarly want to destroy law enforcement and capitalists.

“We must identify the forces underlying their laws and their order—white supremacy, patriarchy, policing, capitalism, and the state. We have to work together to keep ourselves safe and reimagine the world without them,” the group states in an article, which was reposted on popular antifa website It’s Going Down.

Another far-left group at Charlottesville last weekend: the Workers World Party, a group of Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries who have declared their support for Kim Jong Un’s murderous dictatorship in North Korea. Workers World’s publication has consistently published propaganda-like screeds supporting Venezuela’s murderous regime.

The communist group “sent many of its members to Charlottesville, Va., to beat back the Nazis and Klan who marched there,” according to a post recapping the group’s participation in the weekend’s violence.

The Daily Caller News Foundation confirmed Workers World’s presence at the Charlottesville rally.

The group took credit for organizing the vandals who toppled a city-owned Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina this week.

Workers’ World’s stated goals are classic Marxism, including igniting an international socialist revolution and “the shutdown of the Pentagon and the use of the war budget” — that is, the funding for the Department of Defense — “to improve the lives of the working class and especially the oppressed peoples.”

While Workers World is currently fighting (literally) with white nationalists, the group is opposed to all in the “ruling establishment” who the group explains hide “behind a veil of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’”

“Those in the ruling establishment who see their reputation in tatters are appalled by what happened [at Charlottesville], but not for the right reasons,” read a Workers World post after Charlottesville. “They want to continue to exploit and dominate most of the world, but behind a veil of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’ The people are showing by their actions that only by taking the fight for justice into their own hands, with no confidence in the organs of state power, can they make progress.”

The post concluded: “Long live the independent struggle of this new progressive movement against the fascists, the cops and the capitalist establishment!”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Far-Left ‘Antifa’ Agitators on the Rise in the Age of Trump

Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville? Here’s what witnesses say – Chicago Tribune

Ivy League Professor And DNC Platform Member Tied To Berkeley Rioters

Twelve Memorials that Must Be Removed if Democrats Are Serious About Erasing Racism

CNN’s ‘Hate Groups’ Map Puts Conservative Lives at Risk

Democrat Senator Proposes Removal of All Confederate Statues From U.S. Capitol Building

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Daily Caller. According to Wikipedia CrimethInc., also known as CWC, which stands for either “CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective” or “CrimethInc Ex-Workers Ex-Collective”—is a decentralized anarchist collective of autonomous cells.

VIDEO: The U.S. forces facing down North Korea ‘Ready to fight’

The threat from North Korea isn’t just a war of words for the troops of U.S. Pacific Command.

For “CBS News: On Assignment,” correspondent Vladimir Duthiers goes inside the Air Force, Army and Navy operations where American service members are preparing to respond with “rapid, lethal, and overwhelming force” if called upon to fight.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Korean shipments of chemical weapons to Syria intercepted

Somalis heading for Canadian border

When one sees stories titled like this one: Somalis With Criminal Records Are Heading for Canadian Border

One immediately assumes this story has to do with changing U.S. refugee policy under Donald Trump’s presidency, but check this out, they were already heading to Canada under Obama.

From Alpha News:

The usual route.

Fear of deportation is causing some Somalis with criminal records to head for the Canadian border, according to a new report from Global News.

A Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) intelligence brief from January 2016 obtained by Global News shows an increase in Somali nationals with criminal records crossing the border into Canada.

According to the report, 16 Somalis with “serious” criminal records crossed the border into Canada between 2012 and 2015. Of the 16, 11 had criminal records in Minnesota. Most of the asylum seekers crossed the border near Emerson, Manitoba.

The CBSA believes the asylum seekers are attempting to avoid deportation by U.S. immigration authorities by claiming refugee protection in Canada. Somali deportations began to rise under former President Barack Obama during the same time Canada saw an increase of asylum seekers with criminal records.According to data from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 65 Somalis were deported in 2014, 120 in 2015, and 198 in 2016.

The number of deportations has continued to increase under President Donald Trump. As of early May 2017, about half way through the fiscal year, 259 Somalis had been deported. Of the 259, 80 were deported from the St. Paul ICE office. About one quarter of those deported have criminal records.

Alpha News has a nice graphic showing an uptick in Somali deportations from the U.S.

The CBSA intelligence report does not reveal data for 2017, however, border patrol officers in Emerson, Manitoba have reported a significant increase of asylum seekers with criminal records. Jean-Pierre Fortin, National President of the Customs and Immigration Union in Manitoba, told CBC News border officers in Emerson estimate as many as 50 percent of asylum seekers have a “serious criminality record.”

No official data, but Reuters is happy to produce some for 2017 anyway!

As Alpha News previously reported, Canada is seeing an influx of refugees that once found a home in Minnesota. Reuters reports nearly 3,500 have walked into Canada from the U.S. between January through May of this year.

Yahya Samatar swam in to Canada in 2015 to escape deportation by Obama.

More here.

A case study—Yahya Samatar

As I researched the above news I came across Samatar’s story.  So his impoverished Somali family “scraped together” $12,000 usd to pay his way across the world (Somalia to Ethiopia to Brazil to Central America to Mexico and illegally across our southern border!), and we are expected to believe they found that much money through legal means in Africa.

Who is paying these illegal aliens? pirate money? An NGO? Someone like Soros?

From Hiiraan Online :

(original story from Winnipeg Free Press)

Samatar hopes he’s at the end of what has been a year-long survival odyssey.

He fled Somalia in August of last year when he became a target because he does aid work with a non-governmental organization and had no one to protect him.

“There’s no functioning government,” Samatar said. “As long as your clan has not a lot of power, you’re at risk.” Militia groups and Al Shabaab are active and night-time attacks are common, he said.

Samatar said he and his family scraped together US$12,000 to pay smugglers to get him to Ethiopia, then Brazil, and help him make his way by land through Central America to the U.S. border at Matamoros, Mexico. “I took buses and walked in the jungle for one month,” he said.

Was the Obama Administration, after a court failed to grant him asylum, letting him go with tacit approval to make a run for the border?

In the U.S., he was apprehended as an illegal alien and spent six months in a detention centre in Texas and another 10 weeks in a centre in Louisiana. After his refugee claim was formally rejected, he was released to await deportation back to Somalia. Desperate to set down roots in some place safe, he headed north. A contact in Minneapolis’s huge Somali community rented a car and drove Samatar and his companion close to the border crossing at Pembina, N.D., he said.

Continue reading here.

We have a large and growing archive on Canada, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Washington state Somali shot dead by police was refugee from Dadaab

Australia deal: Homeland Security returns to Manus Island to continue screening wannabe refugees

Trump Admin reining-in Obama plan to get more Central American children to US

Good luck getting data on refugee welfare usage when Congress can’t get it!

IOM: Over 1.2 million Syrians have returned home in last two years