HUNTER_05

How a pro-Palestinian American reporter changed his views on Israel

Hunter Stuart is a rare breed: a Leftist who, when he saw the truth about the “Palestinians” and Israel, was willing to change his views and admit he was wrong. This story is a stunning indictment of pro-Palestinian reporters who have seen the conflict up close and continue to oppose Israel.

Hunter Stuart

“How a pro-Palestinian American reporter changed his views on Israel and the conflict”, by Hunter Stuart, Jerusalem Post, February 15, 2017:

IN THE summer of 2015, just three days after I moved to Israel for a year-and-a-half stint freelance reporting in the region, I wrote down my feelings about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A friend of mine in New York had mentioned that it would be interesting to see if living in Israel would change the way I felt. My friend probably suspected that things would look differently from the front-row seat, so to speak.

Boy was he right.

Before I moved to Jerusalem, I was very pro-Palestinian. Almost everyone I knew was. I grew up Protestant in a quaint, politically correct New England town; almost everyone around me was liberal. And being liberal in America comes with a pantheon of beliefs: You support pluralism, tolerance and diversity. You support gay rights, access to abortion and gun control.

The belief that Israel is unjustly bullying the Palestinians is an inextricable part of this pantheon. Most progressives in the US view Israel as an aggressor, oppressing the poor noble Arabs who are being so brutally denied their freedom.

“I believe Israel should relinquish control of all of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank,” I wrote on July 11, 2015, from a park near my new apartment in Jerusalem’s Baka neighborhood. “The occupation is an act of colonialism that only creates suffering, frustration and despair for millions of Palestinians.”

Perhaps predictably, this view didn’t play well among the people I met during my first few weeks in Jerusalem, which, even by Israeli standards, is a conservative city. My wife and I had moved to the Jewish side of town, more or less by chance ‒ the first Airbnb host who accepted our request to rent a room happened to be in the Nachlaot neighborhood where even the hipsters are religious. As a result, almost everyone we interacted with was Jewish Israeli and very supportive of Israel. I didn’t announce my pro-Palestinian views to them ‒ I was too afraid. But they must have sensed my antipathy (I later learned this is a sixth sense Israelis have).

During my first few weeks in Jerusalem, I found myself constantly getting into arguments about the conflict with my roommates and in social settings. Unlike waspy New England, Israel does not afford the privilege of politely avoiding unpleasant political conversations. Outside of the Tel Aviv bubble, the conflict is omnipresent; it affects almost every aspect of life. Avoiding it simply isn’t an option.

During one such argument, one of my roommates ‒ an easygoing American-Jewish guy in his mid-30s ‒ seemed to be suggesting that all Palestinians were terrorists. I became annoyed and told him it was wrong to call all Palestinians terrorists, that only a small minority supported terrorist attacks. My roommate promptly pulled out his laptop, called up a 2013 Pew Research poll and showed me the screen. I saw that Pew’s researchers had done a survey of thousands of people across the Muslim world, asking them if they supported suicide bombings against civilians in order to “defend Islam from its enemies.” The survey found that 62 percent of Palestinians believed such terrorist acts against civilians were justified in these circumstances. And not only that, the Palestinian territories were the only place in the Muslim world where a majority of citizens supported terrorism; everywhere else it was a minority ‒ from Lebanon and Egypt to Pakistan and Malaysia.

I didn’t let my roommate win the argument early morning hours. But the statistic stuck with me.

Less than a month later, in October 2015, a wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Jewish-Israelis began. Nearly every day, an angry, young Muslim Palestinian was stabbing or trying to run over someone with his car. A lot of the violence was happening in Jerusalem, some of it just steps from where my wife and I had moved into an apartment of our own, and lived and worked and went grocery shopping.

At first, I’ll admit, I didn’t feel a lot of sympathy for Israelis. Actually, I felt hostility. I felt that they were the cause of the violence. I wanted to shake them and say, “Stop occupying the West Bank, stop blockading Gaza, and Palestinians will stop killing you!” It seemed so obvious to me; how could they not realize that all this violence was a natural, if unpleasant, reaction to their government’s actions?

IT WASN’T until the violence became personal that I began to see the Israeli side with greater clarity. As the “Stabbing Intifada” (as it later became known) kicked into full gear, I traveled to the impoverished East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan for a story I was writing.

As soon as I arrived, a Palestinian kid who was perhaps 13 years old pointed at me and shouted “Yehud!” which means “Jew” in Arabic. Immediately, a large group of his friends who’d been hanging out nearby were running toward me with a terrifying sparkle in their eyes. “Yehud! Yehud!” they shouted. I felt my heart start to pound. I shouted at them in Arabic “Ana mish yehud! Ana mish yehud!” (“I’m not Jewish, I’m not Jewish!”) over and over. I told them, also in Arabic, that I was an American journalist who “loved Palestine.” They calmed down after that, but the look in their eyes when they first saw me is something I’ll never forget. Later, at a house party in Amman, I met a Palestinian guy who’d grown up in Silwan. “If you were Jewish, they probably would have killed you,” he said.

I made it back from Silwan that day in one piece; others weren’t so lucky. In Jerusalem, and across Israel, the attacks against Jewish Israelis continued. My attitude began to shift, probably because the violence was, for the first time, affecting me directly.

I found myself worrying that my wife might be stabbed while she was on her way home from work. Every time my phone lit up with news of another attack, if I wasn’t in the same room with her, I immediately sent her a text to see if she was OK.

Then a friend of mine ‒ an older Jewish Israeli guy who’d hosted my wife and I for dinner at his apartment in the capital’s Talpiot neighborhood ‒ told us that his friend had been murdered by two Palestinians the month before on a city bus not far from his apartment. I knew the story well ‒ not just from the news, but because I’d interviewed the family of one of the Palestinian guys who’d carried out the attack. In the interview, his family told me how he was a promising young entrepreneur who was pushed over the edge by the daily humiliations wrought by the occupation. I ended up writing a very sympathetic story about the killer for a Jordanian news site called Al Bawaba News.

Writing about the attack with the detached analytical eye of a journalist, I was able to take the perspective that (I was fast learning) most news outlets wanted – that Israel was to blame for Palestinian violence. But when I learned that my friend’s friend was one of the victims, it changed my way of thinking. I felt horrible for having publicly glorified one of the murderers. The man who’d been murdered, Richard Lakin, was originally from New England, like me, and had taught English to Israeli and Palestinian children at a school in Jerusalem. He believed in making peace with the Palestinians and “never missed a peace rally,” according to his son.

By contrast, his killers ‒ who came from a middle-class neighborhood in East Jerusalem and were actually quite well-off relative to most Palestinians ‒ had been paid 20,000 shekels to storm the bus that morning with their cowardly guns. More than a year later, you can still see their faces plastered around East Jerusalem on posters hailing them as martyrs. (One of the attackers, Baha Aliyan, 22, was killed at the scene; the second, Bilal Ranem, 23, was captured alive.)

Being personally affected by the conflict caused me to question how forgiving I’d been of Palestinian violence previously. Liberals, human-rights groups and most of the media, though, continued to blame Israel for being attacked. Ban Ki-moon, for example, who at the time was the head of the United Nations, said in January 2016 ‒ as the streets of my neighborhood were stained with the blood of innocent Israeli civilians ‒ that it was “human nature to react to occupation.” In fact, there is no justification for killing someone, no matter what the political situation may or may not be, and Ban’s statement rankled me.

SIMILARLY, THE way that international NGOs, European leaders and others criticized Israel for its “shoot to kill” policy during this wave of terrorist attacks began to annoy me more and more.

In almost any nation, when the police confront a terrorist in the act of killing people, they shoot him dead and human-rights groups don’t make a peep. This happens in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh; it happens in Germany and England and France and Spain, and it sure as hell happens in the US (see San Bernardino and the Orlando nightclub massacre, the Boston Marathon bombings and others). Did Amnesty International condemn Barack Obama or Abdel Fattah al-Sisi or Angela Merkel or François Hollande when their police forces killed a terrorist? Nope. But they made a point of condemning Israel.

What’s more, I started to notice that the media were unusually fixated on highlighting the moral shortcomings of Israel, even as other countries acted in infinitely more abominable ways. If Israel threatened to relocate a collection of Palestinian agricultural tents, as they did in the West Bank village of Sussiya in the summer of 2015, for example, the story made international headlines for weeks. The liberal outrage was endless. Yet, when Egypt’s president used bulldozers and dynamite to demolish an entire neighborhood in the Sinai Peninsula in the name of national security, people scarcely noticed.

Where do these double standards come from?

I’ve come to believe it’s because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appeals to the appetites of progressive people in Europe, the US and elsewhere. They see it as a white, first world people beating on a poor, third world one. It’s easier for them to become outraged watching two radically different civilizations collide than it is watching Alawite Muslims kill Sunni Muslims in Syria, for example, because to a Western observer the difference between Alawite and Sunni is too subtle to fit into a compelling narrative that can be easily summarized on Facebook.

Unfortunately for Israel, videos on social media that show US-funded Jewish soldiers shooting tear gas at rioting Arab Muslims is Hollywood-level entertainment and fits perfectly with the liberal narrative that Muslims are oppressed and Jewish Israel is a bully.

I admire the liberal desire to support the underdog. They want to be on the right side of history, and their intentions are good. The problem is that their beliefs often don’t square with reality.

In reality, things are much, much more complex than a five-minute spot on the evening news or a two paragraph-long Facebook status will ever be able to portray. As a friend told me recently, “The reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so intractable is that both sides have a really, really good point.”

Unfortunately, not enough people see it that way. I recently bumped into an old friend from college who told me that a guy we’d both known when we were freshmen had been active in Palestinian protests for a time after graduating. The fact that a smart, well-educated kid from Vermont, who went to one of the best liberal arts schools in the US, traveled thousands of miles to throw bricks at Israeli soldiers is very, very telling.

THERE’S AN old saying that goes, “If you want to change someone’s mind, first make them your friend.” The friends I made in Israel forever changed my mind about the country and about the Jewish need for a homeland. But I also spent a lot of time traveling in the Palestinian territories getting to know Palestinians. I spent close to six weeks visiting Nablus and Ramallah and Hebron, and even the Gaza Strip. I met some incredible people in these places; I saw generosity and hospitality unlike anywhere else I’ve ever traveled to. I’ll be friends with some of them for the rest of my life. But almost without fail, their views of the conflict and of Israel and of Jewish people in general was extremely disappointing.

First of all, even the kindest, most educated, upper-class Palestinians reject 100 percent of Israel ‒ not just the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They simply will not be content with a two-state solution ‒ what they want is to return to their ancestral homes in Ramle and Jaffa and Haifa and other places in 1948 Israel, within the Green Line. And they want the Israelis who live there now to leave. They almost never speak of coexistence; they speak of expulsion, of taking back “their” land.

To me, however morally complicated the creation of Israel may have been, however many innocent Palestinians were killed and displaced from their homes in 1948 and again in 1967, Israel is now a fact, accepted by almost every government in the world (including many in the Middle East). But the ongoing desire of Palestinians to wipe Israel off the map is unproductive and backward- looking and the West must be very careful not to encourage it.

The other thing is that a large percentage of Palestinians, even among the educated upper class, believe that most Islamic terrorism is actually engineered by Western governments to make Muslims look bad. I know this sounds absurd. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s comical until you hear it repeated again and again as I did. I can hardly count how many Palestinians told me the stabbing attacks in Israel in 2015 and 2016 were fake or that the CIA had created ISIS.

For example, after the November 2015 ISIS shootings in Paris that killed 150 people, a colleague of mine ‒ an educated 27-year-old Lebanese-Palestinian journalist ‒ casually remarked that those massacres were “probably” perpetrated by the Mossad. Though she was a journalist like me and ought to have been committed to searching out the truth no matter how unpleasant, this woman was unwilling to admit that Muslims would commit such a horrific attack, and all too willing ‒ in defiance of all the facts ‒ to blame it on Israeli spies.

USUALLY WHEN I travel, I try to listen to people without imposing my own opinion. To me that’s what traveling is all about ‒ keeping your mouth shut and learning other perspectives. But after 3-4 weeks of traveling in Palestine, I grew tired of these conspiracy theories.

“Arabs need to take responsibility for certain things,” I finally shouted at a friend I’d made in Nablus the third or fourth time he tried to deflect blame from Muslims for Islamic terrorism. “Not everything is America’s fault.” My friend seemed surprised by my vehemence and let the subject drop ‒ obviously I’d reached my saturation point with this nonsense.

I know a lot of Jewish-Israelis who are willing to share the land with Muslim Palestinians, but for some reason finding a Palestinian who feels the same way was near impossible. Countless Palestinians told me they didn’t have a problem with Jewish people, only with Zionists. They seemed to forget that Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years, along with Muslims, Christians, Druse, atheists, agnostics and others, more often than not, in harmony. Instead, the vast majority believe that Jews only arrived in Israel in the 20th century and, therefore, don’t belong here.

Of course, I don’t blame Palestinians for wanting autonomy or for wanting to return to their ancestral homes. It’s a completely natural desire; I know I would feel the same way if something similar happened to my own family. But as long as Western powers and NGOs and progressive people in the US and Europe fail to condemn Palestinian attacks against Israel, the deeper the conflict will grow and the more blood will be shed on both sides.

I’m back in the US now, living on the north side of Chicago in a liberal enclave where most people ‒ including Jews ‒ tend to support the Palestinians’ bid for statehood, which is gaining steam every year in international forums such as the UN.

Personally, I’m no longer convinced it’s such a good idea. If the Palestinians are given their own state in the West Bank, who’s to say they wouldn’t elect Hamas, an Islamist group committed to Israel’s destruction? That’s exactly what happened in Gaza in democratic elections in 2006. Fortunately, Gaza is somewhat isolated, and its geographic isolation ‒ plus the Israeli and Egyptian-imposed blockade ‒ limit the damage the group can do. But having them in control of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem is something Israel obviously doesn’t want. It would be suicide. And no country can be expected to consent to its own destruction……

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

cbc news protest

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Anti-Free Speech, Pro-Radical Islam Reporting

Attention Canadian Broadcasting News Agency (CBC),

My name is Shabnam Assadollahi. I am a Canadian of Iranian origin, an award winning human rights advocate and freelance writer.

Reference your February 18th article “Protesters outside Masjid Toronto call for ban on Islam as Muslims pray inside.

As an Iranian, a former refugee and former child prisoner of Evin for 18 months by the Islamic Republic of Iran who has been advocating for democracy and woman’s rights, I am strongly against the Political and Radical Islam and openly have shared my views about Motion-103. I am also appalled by a small group of people protesting in front of the mosque on Friday, some held hateful banners while ordinary Muslims were in and out and praying. IMHO, what that minority small group did yesterday was NOT activism but another form of hate.

I read your bias coverage of the demonstration at the mosque in Downtown Toronto and the connection you made between the demonstration and the controversy over Motion-103 which reminded me of what Muslim Brotherhood’s frequent cover up in Egypt and Iran’s Qods Forces propaganda in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.

Religious freedom is part of our Canadian values and such small group’s hateful rally will only harm our Free speech but we already have laws to protect Every member of our nation. Shouldn’t your remind ALL Canadians to take pride to know that in 1982 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms made all Canadians equal? Don’t you think that this is the most important value that has been holding us together as Canadians?

As a former radio producer working for over twelve years knowing the ethics in journalism, I have observed that you frequently give a disservice to all Canadians by not sharing the complete information which can have an effect on one’s response to an issue. The last thing any of us should do is promote divisiveness because of lack of information especially coming from taxpayers funded media outlet.

This well documented article by CIJNews-Canada shows the supplications at Masjid Toronto Mosque located in downtown Toronto which is affiliated with the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). According to this investigative journal, the mosque operates in two locations in downtown Toronto: Masjid Toronto at Dundas (168 Dundas St. West) and Masjid Toronto at Adelaide (84 Adelaide St. East).

Dr. Wael Shihab was appointed in April 2014 to a full-time resident Imam of the mosque Masjid Toronto. Shihab has a PhD in Islamic Studies from Al-Azhar University and he was the head of the Fatwa (Islamic opinion) Unit of IslamOnline.net (English website) and the Shari’ah (Islamic Law) consultant of the Shari’ah department of OnIslam.net. Shihab is also a member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) headed by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who played a major role in launching both aforementioned websites.

Shihab’s views as presented in articles and Islamic rulings posted on Onislam.net:

“Slay them one by one and spare not one of them; The solution to the global violence, extremism and oppression is Islam; Qaradawi’s book “Jurisprudence of Jihad” should serves as a guidance to Muslims; Thieves’ hands should be chopped off no matter their social status; Person who underwent gender reassignment surgery should return to his original gender; Muslims should avoid gays as homosexuality is evil and succumbing to the temptations of the Satan; Wife should not reject her husband’s call for having sex”

The above preaching is also against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which ONLY creates hate and spreads radicalism among the worshipers, especially the youth. At the same time, a group of protesters rallying in front of this mosque and shouting for banning a religion in Canada is no difference from what the Islamic Republic of Iran is doing to atheists, Sunnis, Bahais Christians, and Jews, to name a few. Islamic republic of Iran also does not recognize Bahai as a religion/ faith. What is the difference between this small group of protesters, the radical Imams as such and what Iran regime is doing to Bahais? IMO: No difference.

Going in front of a place of worship calling to ban the worshipers’ faith on a “FRIDAY” especially a few weeks after a mass shooting happening in a mosque is NOT Canadian and it is not defending Free speech; but IMO is Hate Speech. The acts of radicalism by the small group of people is absolutely unacceptable. What they do will only assist the MSM and the Muslim Brotherhood to take advantage and to attack Freedom loving Canadians and to silence Freedom of Speech.

It is very sad that some Canadians from Islamic faith express that they don’t feel safe under Canada’s Charter of Rights and equality laws. When government and the media choose one group over another in a country that is diverse, they attack the very fabric that holds all of us together by saying that we are failing at diversity. If we do not treat all groups equally and say no to hatred to all; not singling out one group over another, then would only degrade our Charter.

It is appalling that when NCCM calls Canada to pass M-103, Canadian MSM such as yours cries for their call and yet QC imam Sayed AlGhitawi calls for the annihilation of the Jews and CBC and the rest of Canadian MSM won’t give any coverage on his hate speech.

It is the responsibility of our officials, educators and the media to remind all people living in this country that we are all equally protected-that no one needs an extra motion or extra protection-for that would make some “more equal” than others.

I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam” which I sent to MPs, and Senators Thank you.

Kind wishes,

Shabnam Assadollahi

RELATED ARTICLE: Quebec legislature adopts sharia blasphemy motion condemning ‘Islamophobia’

EDITORS NOTE: According to Wikipedia CBC News.

In 2009, CBC President Hubert Lacroix commissioned a study to determine whether its news was biased, and if so, to what extent. He said: “Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do”. The study, the methodology of which was not specified, was due to report results in the fall of 2010.

In April 2010, the Conservatives accused pollster Frank Graves of giving partisan advice to the Liberal Party of Canada, noting his donations to the party since 2003. Graves directed a number of public opinion research projects on behalf of the CBC as well as other media organizations, and also appeared on a number of CBC television programs relating to politics. An investigation conducted by the CBC ombudsman found no evidence to support these allegations, stating that personal donor history is not relevant to one’s objectivity as a pollster.

In March 2011, the Toronto Sun accused Vote Compass, an online voter engagement application developed by political scientists and launched by CBC during the 2011 federal election campaign, of a liberal bias. The accusation centred on the observation that one could provide identical responses to each proposition in Vote Compass (i.e., answer “strongly agree” to all propositions or “strongly disagree” to all propositions) and would in each case be positioned closest to the Liberal Party in the results. This claim was directly addressed by Vote Compass representatives, who noted that the propositions in the application are specifically constructed in such a way as to avoid acquiescence bias and that the result described by the Toronto Sun was arrived at by gaming the system.[11] Vote Compass also released analyses of the data it gathered from the federal election, which have further negated efforts to discredit it. It is widely speculated that suspicions of bias were fuelled by Sun Media in an effort to promote its anti-CBC agenda and the concurrent launch of its cable news channel. The criticism appears to have been isolated to the 2011 Canadian federal election edition of Vote Compass and has not re-emerged in any subsequent editions of Vote Compass, either in Canada or internationally.

In February 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made comments relating to the allegations. Speaking to Radio-Canada, the outlet’s on-air Quebec division, Harper commented saying he understood that many at Radio-Canada “hated conservative values”. Radio-Canada did not deny the allegations.

During the 2015 federal election, CBC was again accused of bias by some viewers and outlets. The majority of these claims spawned from a promise by the Liberals and New Democratic Party of Canada after the two groups promised to increase funding for CBC. The pledges came after the then Conservative government had cut $115 million from the CBC in the 2012 budget. Shortly before the pledges were made, CBC president Hubert Lacroix complained of the Conservative cuts, saying “the cuts make us weaker and affect morale, critics, key stakeholders and even some of the citizens we serve.”

Hisb Ut Tahrir logo

VIDEO: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you

Hizb-ut-Tahrir are an extreme radical Islamic political group.

Discover the Networks reports:

Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Arabic for “The Party of Liberation”) has its roots in the political party al-Hay’at al-Tahrir al-Islami (“The Islamic Society of Liberation”), which in 1951 was established in Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem by Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen Al-Nabahani (an associate and contemporary of the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Haji Amin Al-Housseini).

Hizb-ut-Tahrir defines itself as “a political group and not a priestly one,” a “political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology.” It “works within the Ummah [community of believers] … so that she adopts Islam as her cause and is led to restore the Khilafah [Caliphate, or Islamic kingdom] and the ruling by what Allah revealed.”

Rejecting Western notions of both democracy and capitalism as tools that allegedly have led to the colonization and subjugation of Islamic nations, Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s long-term objective is to replace existing governments with theocratic Muslim rule and to bring about a worldwide Islamic government under a single ruler (caliph). In such an ideal Islamic state, says Hizb-ut-Tahrir, “all of life’s affairs in society are administered according to the Shari’ah rules,” or strict Islamic law.

[ … ]
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is outlawed in Russia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and numerous Muslim countries (including Egypt, Pakisan, and Saudi Arabia) that regard it as a radical, subversive, terrorist organization that spreads “hate and violence” and seeks to overthrow their governments.

Read more…

It would do well for all Aussies to actually look up their web page in Australia. It fairly well declares war on Australian culture, laws, and freedoms.

They are in many other countries as way too radical, and in teaching and promoting civil unrest and violence as a means to their goal of ultimate rule of the globe as an Islamic run caliphate, with all the attendant persecution that goes with this evil cult.

RELATED ARTICLE: Australian Islamists Hizb ut-Tahrir respond to the Charlie Hebdo “incidents” – “people are killed everyday”.

University of Texas, Arlington logo

Rampant Antisemitism found among students at University of Texas, Arlington

Arlington, TX – “Stuff Jews in the oven” and “Kill some Jews” are among scores of offensive comments flooding the social media pages of current and former students at the University of Texas, Arlington (UTA), a dossier recently released by a national campus watchdog group revealed.

The report first published in the Algemeiner and compiled by Canary Mission – which anonymously monitors anti-American, anti-Israel and antisemitic activity on US college campuses — reveals 24 UTA students and graduates who have repeatedly cursed Jews, called for violence against Jews and both denied and championed the Holocaust in multiple Facebook and Twitter posts. Some post examples include:

  • UTA student and pre-school teacher, Nancy Salem told her friend to go “kill some Jews!”
  • UTA student and PANDORA Jewelry employee, Mariam Ghanem wrote “let’s stuff some Jews in the oven.”
  • UTA student Tareq Abdallah tweeted: “I swear if 1 Jew gets within 5 feet from me at the protest and says a word, straight murder.”

19 of the 24 UTA students investigated were found to be members of the UTA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a pro-Palestinian campus organization. An October 2016 study released at Brandeis — called  “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses” — showed that the presence of an active SJP group on campus is, “one of the strongest predictors of perceiving a hostile climate towards Israel and Jews.”

The UTA report follows on the heels of a dossier on the University of Houston (UH) published in the Algemeiner on January 26th, which drew the attention of the university administration, Houston police, legal agencies and numerous Jewish community groups.

president trump feb 16 press conference

President Trump: ‘I will not back down from defending our country’

Trump said that the appeals court’s ruling blocking the travel ban was “incorrect and unsafe”:

We are saving American lives every single day. The court system has not made it easy for us. And we’ve even created a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, of which there are many. We’ve taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country. Though parts of our necessary and constitutional actions were blocked by a judge’s — in my opinion — incorrect and unsafe ruling, our administration is working night and day to keep you safe, including reporters safe.

And is vigorously defending this lawful order. I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country. I keep my campaign promises, and our citizens will be very happy when they see the results. They already are; I can tell you that. Extreme vetting will be put in place, and it already is in place in many places. In fact, we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number. I’ve heard 80%. I find that hard to believe. That’s just a number I’ve heard, that they’re overturned 80% of the time.

I think that circuit is… That circuit is in chaos, and that circuit is, frankly, in turmoil. But we are appealing that, and we are going further. We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country. So we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that. At the same time, we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people, and that will be done sometime next week toward the beginning or middle, at the latest part.

He also said: “The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people.” Bravo!

And:

I have directed our defense community headed by our great general, now Secretary Mattis. He’s over there now working very hard to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world. It used to be a small group, now it’s in large sections of the world.

They’ve spread like cancer. ISIS has spread like cancer – another mess I inherited. And we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran, whose totally taken advantage of our previous administration, and they’re the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, and we’re not going to stop until that problem is properly solved. And it’s not properly solved now, it’s one of the worst agreements I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody. I’ve ordered plan to begin building for the massive rebuilding of the United States military.

Astonishing to hear an American President speaking this way. And it’s astonishing that it’s astonishing.

Full video of President Trumps February 16th press conference.

RELATED ARTICLES:

It Has Begun, Tillerson Fires Most of the 7th Floor

Pakistan: Islamic State jihad suicide bomber murders 100 at Sufi mosque

Canadians from Iran and Pakistan rally against the “Islamophobia” law

iran-flag-blood

Gold Star Widow, Iraq War Veteran, denounce Iranian Regime Crimes against the American People

IRAN NOOSEThe Islamic State of Iran Crime Research Center (ISICRC) notes, “38 years after the revolution in Iran, the killing continues. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the IRGC, has killed an estimated 1500 U.S. soldiers in Iraq using Explosively Formed Projectiles, EFPs.”

Readers may hear from two of violence against victims of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The ISICRC posted the video “The Islamic State of Iran: 38 Years of Crime” on its website:

ABOUT ISICRC

ISICRC’s mission is to compile the most comprehensive searchable database of news, publications and documentary evidence of human rights violations by the Islamist regime of Iran. We strive to spread awareness and seek justice for the victims by exposing the profile of abusers, torturers, agents of human rights violations and operatives of the Islamist’s reign of terror.

USSR ISLAM RIP

Relegating Radical Islam to the ‘Ash Heap of History’

On June 8th, 1982 in a speech before the British Parliament President Ronald Reagan blazed forth with his belief that ”[T]he march of freedom and democracy . . . will leave Marxist Leninism on the ash heap of history.” Nine years later, on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet flag flew over the Kremlin in Moscow for the last time.

Fast forward to February 15th, 2017 and the meeting between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, D.C.

During a press conference Prime Minister Netanyahu said to President Trump,

“Under your leadership, I believe we can reverse the rising tide of radical Islam, and in this great task, as in so many others, Israel stands with you and I stand with you. Mr. President, in rolling back militant Islam, we can seize an historic opportunity because for the first time in my lifetime and for the first time in the life of my country, Arab countries in the region do not see Israel as an enemy, but increasingly as an ally.”

Breitbart’s Edwin Mora reports:

President Donald Trump’s deputies intend to overhaul President Barack Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program to focus only on Islamist extremism, says Reuters.

The shift is not finalized, but is expected to reduce federal focus on non-Islamic extremism, reports Reuters, citing five unnamed people briefed on the matter. The shift may also cut off pending federal funding for Islamic groups.

The pending reorganization comes after widespread reports that Obama’s program has already failed, largely because of opposition by resident Muslim activists and groups, say some Republican lawmakers and news outlets.

Reuters notes:

The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

The news outlet cites Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), who said she learned of the push to refocus the CVE program “from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism” from unnamed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials last week.

MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and has previously advocated for the removal of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U.S. State Department list of designated terrorist groups.

Read more…

President Trump has now named the evil empire bent on stopping the march of freedom and democracy in the world. That neo-evil empire is lead by radical Islamic supremacists. It is called “the Caliphate.” The restoring of the caliphate has been and remains the ultimate goal of radical Islamists.

Marxism, Leninism and radical Islam share a common ideal, the replacement of freedom with subjugation and replacing democracy with a totalitarian ideology based upon a fanatical world view.

President Trump understands this, others do not. The others are the followers of Marx, Lenin and Mohammed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

New Hamas Leader, a Vicious Killer, Portends New Rounds of Violence by Yaakov Lappin

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

darfur genocide

The Secret Radical Islamic Document found in Darfur, Sudan

Background

President Bashir April 2016 AP

Sudan President Omar al-Bashir in Power since 1989.

In a January 18, 2017 FrontPage Magazine article, “Obama Lifts Sudan Sanctions”, we reported on the lifting of 20 years of sanctions against the regime of President Omar al-Bashir for making progress against counterterrorism in the Sudan. All while he was preparing to launch a Jihad army of 150,000 recruited from across the Sahel region and the Middle East, including the Islamic State.  Many of those jihadists were recruited from Islamic terrorist groups from Libya, neighboring Chad, the Central African Republic, Mali and Niger. They were undergoing training in 16 camps around Khartoum. These cadres were composed of formations of Janjaweed/Rapid Support forces now renamed ‘Peace Forces’.  By early February 2017, the Bashir regime completed training of 34,000 ‘Peace Force’ militia at the Kerere and Fatasha camps near Khartoum.  2,500 of these Peace force militia, equipped with heavily armed militarized Hi-Lux Toyota pickup trucks, are already at the Jadeed al Sail training camp in the North Darfur capital of Fashir.  Bashir’s jihad army is already on the attack in Darfur.

To understand the Jihad doctrine behind Bashir’s strategy we are presenting the underlying doctrinal strategy found in a captured secret document, the Arab Coalition Guresh 1 and 2. Guresh is the name for the Prophet Mohammed’s tribe in Arabia, used by the people for themselves.

The Arabic Language version of a Sudan Arab Coalition document of 11 pages was captured during the fighting between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) (Reorganized Janjaweed Militias) and Darfur rebels in October 2014 in Donky Hush, North Darfur. The document was found in an abandoned military truck belonging to the RSF. It was translated by Lt. General Abakar N. Abdallah, Chairman of the Sudan United Movement in April 2015 to document the genocidal Jihad doctrine underlying the ethnic cleansing of Darfur, the Nuba Mountains Blue Nile Region and South Kordofan.

The document, containing different Guresh statements of the Sudan Arab Coalition project, was created in 1987 by former Sudan Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi who founded the Janjaweed militias.  Al Mahdi and the late Islamic reformer Hassan al-Turabi had drafted in the 1960’s the Islamic manifesto to rule Sudan under Sharia Islamic law creating the Arabization and Islamization policies. Those policies are currently being implemented by his usurper, indicted war criminal President Omar al-Bashir. They form the core of the Jihad doctrine found in the Arab Coalition document.

Al-Mahdi is the great grandson of Muhammad Ahmad, who declared himself the Mahdi, “the guided one” in Arabic, who would rule until the Day of Judgment under Islamic doctrine.  The Mahdi established a Sharia ruled Caliphate in the Sudan in 1881 directed at invading Egypt seeking to overturn the infidels; the Khedive Egyptian ruler and his British allies. The Mahdi’s army conducted a siege at Khartoum resulting in its capture and the death of valiant British Major General Sir Charles Gordon in 1885.  The Mahdi’s Caliphate ended with the reconquest of the Sudan by a combined British – Egyptian force under General Sir Herbert Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898 that defeated an army led by the Mahdi’s successor Abdullah al-Taashi.  The Sudan campaign was chronicled in Sir Winston Churchill‘s The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan. The British subsequently reached a settlement with the Al-Mahdi family in 1910 bestowing on them a fortune of 110,000 pounds Sterling.

The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan established in 1902 ended with the declaration of the Republic of Sudan in 1956. Almost immediately a more than half century civil war broke out between the Arab north versus the indigenous African tribes in the South resulting in the creation of South Sudan as a new nation in 2011.  Notwithstanding, the genocidal campaign, articulated in the Arab Coalition document, Jihad continued with open warfare against resistance forces in the Darfur, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile region in South Kordofan.

Sadiq Al-Mahdi, an Oxford graduate, was overthrown in 1989 by then General now President Omar al-Bashir.  Al-Mahdi went into exile for several purposes: 1) to gain credibility of opposition groups and militias; 2) to obtain popular support both in Sudan and externally; 3) to obtain support from Arab countries; 4) to eradicate armed rebellions to defend Arab supremacy in Sudan; and, 5) to rally opposition forces to weaken the regime. He returned in 2017 at the age of 80 to exploit current weaknesses of the Bashir regime seeking to replace it as the main Arab regime in Khartoum.

Objectives of the Arab Coalition Document

The Arab Coalition document carries forward the basic Jihad doctrine through the latest available edition in 2014. The central objective of the Arab Coalition document is to eradicate the people of Darfur and occupy the land by 2020. The most important part of this document is the evaluation of 2014 in which they distributed the entire Darfur region to different Arab tribes with the intention of completing their project by 2020.  If the Arab Coalition plan is left unchecked by resistance forces, then Janjaweed militias will commit more genocidal atrocities in Darfur to complete their task.

The essential document declaring the creation of the Arab Assembly against Darfur was issued in March 1987. It was renewed following the evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages as well as the objectives that had been achieved in 1992. After 11 years, the implementation of the document was renewed in 2003. However, the objective of ethnic cleansing Darfur and other parts of Sudan was hampered by internal problems occurring between the Arab tribes: lack of adequate resources, the starting of rebellion in the Darfur region from non-Arab tribes, and the support of the international community to the Darfur cause. Sudan had been placed on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.  An indictment was prepared by the International Criminal Court at The Hague directed against Sudan government officials accusing them of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur. Among those indicated were President Omar al- Bashir, Musa Hilal, Ahmed Haroun, and Ali Kosheeb.

Other problems emerged to prevent achievement of the Arab Coalition objectives.  Some members diverted the funds collected for the purpose of executing this plan for personal benefits. Some tribes who initially agreed to support the project withdrew when they perceived that this project was not in their interest in the long term. They were effectively executing plans that at the end would destroy them.

Note these objectives listed in the Arab coalition document:

  • Seize all livestock and resources from indigenous tribes;
  • Kill their representatives, educated leaders and confine the rest of indigenous tribes in big cities, prisons, or kill them whenever there is an opportunity;
  • Keep all government resources that can assist people on making complaints, or can be used in emergence cases, transportation, or communication so that they could not communicate between one another;
  • Place camps of Arab fighters (Janjaweed) on high mountains so that the attackers cannot approach them; and
  • Attack areas that have strong resistance with large forces.

According to the Arab Coalition document The Higher Committee of the Arab Assembly carried out the following tactical program to achieve jihad objectives:

  • Create difficulties in the way of the regional governments and use all resources available so as not to be able to execute their policies and programs of development; ?
  • Do everything possible to disrupt government services in the areas occupied by non-Arab tribes in order to make them feel the government weakness and its failure to provide necessary means for life; ?
  • Increase the volunteers in areas occupied by non-Arab tribes to create insecurity problems, stop production and kill their leaders; ?
  • Create disputes between non-Arab tribes to prevent unification. ?

The members of the Assembly occupying senior positions are obliged to do the following:

  • Concentrate on providing services to the areas of the Arab Assembly;
  • Do not employ non-Arabs in important positions;
  • Create obstacles for those non-Arabs who occupy positions and work in administration;
  • Try by all means to create instability in schools in non-Arab populated areas; and
  • Whenever there is an opportunity kill them.

The projected timetable to achieve the Jihad war objectives in Darfur was six years from 2014 by which time the Arab Assembly was to finish the ‘ jihad project’ in 2020.  As the Arab Assembly had not been able by 2014 to execute the project, the Executive Committee divided the rest of the areas of the Darfur region.  That would allow new comers to settle in and work fast to complete the project; meaning replacement of indigenous African tribes with Arab settlers.

You may read the translated Arab Coalition document here.

ABOUT LIEUTENANT GENERAL ABAKAR N. ABDALLAH

Lt. Gen. Abakar N. Abdallah is Chairman of the Sudan United Movement. He is a native of North Darfur who joined the Sudan Liberation People’s Army (SPLA) in 1984 and became active in the Nuba Hills and Darfurian resistance. In 1989 he joined the Patriotic Salvation Movement in neighboring Chad based in Darfur. He served as an officer in the Chadian army for 23 years. He held senior intelligence and counterterrorism posts including as Coordinator of the Multi-National Joint Task Force of Nigeria, Chad and Niger. He is a December 2002 graduate of the Intelligence Officers’ Advanced and Combating Terrorism Courses, US Army Intelligence Center and Schools, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He was a Graduate Terrorism Fellow and is a Graduate of the College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 2005. He was an International Fellow and Graduate of the US Army War College, Class of 2008.

ABOUT DEBORAH MARTIN

Deborah Martin is a long-term American Sudan human rights advocate having lived in both North and South Sudan conducting development projects as a professional engineer and linguist in a team with her late husband. She has worked on research linguistics of Jieeng, Nuer, Bari, Jumjum, Masalit, Nubian, Luwo, Reel, Madi and Moro. She has been working in North and South Sudan for 35 years as a linguist and cultural consultant following the situation as it developed. Her interview skills have brought the story even when media reporting has been limited.

devos assualted by muslim

Muslim Refugee charged with Assault at DeVos ‘protest’

Just like Europe, they are bringing the war here. And the left is only to happy to join any cause that seeks to destroy America. Just how incestuous is the leftist/Islamic axis? This violent Afghan wrote a piece last month for NPR. I kid you not.

Bilal Ahmed Askaryar was the man charged with assault, according to Politico, in the effort to block Betsy DeVos from entering a public school.

Refugee Charged With Assault After Blocking DeVos From Entering School

Sec. of Education Betsy DeVos, left, escorted away from protesters / Twitter video screenshot

Sec. of Education Betsy DeVos, left, escorted away from protesters / Twitter video screenshot.

A refugee from Afghanistan has been charged with assault after blocking Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos from entering a Washington, D.C. public school on Friday.

Bilal Ahmed Askaryar came to the United States with his family when he was five years old and became a citizen in 2000, the Washington Examinerreports.

The charges against Askaryar are misdemeanors. Politico obtained the police report which states that Askaryar pushed an individual and was given several orders to move out of the way of a vehicle.

Askaryar’s biographical information can be found in a piece he wrote for NPR in January where he tells his family’s story of leaving Afghanistan and the Taliban. The piece was a response to President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The issue of allowing refugees into the United States has become a dominating issue in politics. Trump’s ban on travel from seven Muslim countries in the Middle East was struck down by federal courts, leading to speculation over what Trump would do next.

Correction: This piece incorrectly stated Afghanistan was one of the seven nations included in the travel ban.

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

omar-jamal-mpr

Omar Jamal: The ‘Jesse Jackson’ of the Somali Ummah [community] in America

This is so funny.

If you have followed RRW for the last almost ten years, you will recognize the name Omar JamalI call him the ‘Jesse Jackson’ of the Somali ‘community’ in America.

When Somalis are in ‘crisis’ (when aren’t they in crisis!), here comes Jamal to direct lazy and gullible reporters so that they spin their stories to involve him and his view of the ‘community.’

I wish I had the time to go over the many many posts we have on Jamal who was originally found guilty of immigration fraud (he snuck in here from Canada!) but was never deported.  He apparently speaks English well, so reporters glom on to him and he helps them get their story straight—the way he sees it! He is good!

Just to give you an idea before you read about his take on the supposed flood of desperate Somalis heading to Canada across the Minnesota border (remember readers those Somalis headed to Canada are in the U.S. ILLEGALLY), here is one post I wrote in 2008.

In 2009, even Minnesota Public Radio had him pegged as a Somali “talking head.”

Denver dead Canadian Somali story!

Here in 2008, Jamal helped spin the media about something you have long forgotten or maybe never knew.

A Canadian Somali was found dead in a Denver hotel just before the 2008 Democratic Convention there.  He had enough cyanide to kill hundreds.  Jamal jumped in to the story (from Minneapolis) to say the guy was just a nut, nothing to see, move along, and the media did!

Here is our complete archive on Omar Jamal, the Somali spin-meister!

So here he is again, in his element, fielding media questions about the poor Somalis headed to Canada and the possibility that they could freeze to death (sniffling! dabbing eyes!).

From a CBC News at a Somali website:

Omar Jamal is dealing with a crisis. [ROFLMAO—ed]

Jamal is the executive director of the Somali Community of Minnesota, and for months now, he has seen people whose U.S. asylum claims have been rejected end up in Minneapolis, home to one of the largest Somali communities in the country. [Rejected asylum claim means they are NOT refugees—ed]

From there, they make arrangements to sneak into Canada, where they can file refugee claims.

Jamal has become used to this, but today he is fielding non-stop calls about a car full of refuge seekers and their driver who appear to have gone missing after leaving Minneapolis.

The plan was to drive the seven hours north to the Canadian border and cross the border on foot.

But they’re nowhere to be found.

“I’m getting calls from family members and I’m meeting relatives and as we speak right now, we are trying to figure out what happened to them and where are they? Are they still alive?” says Jamal.

You can read for yourself the long discussion about the missing Somalis (found o.k.) and the driver who took them to the border.

They’re making their way back to Minneapolis.

As a result of their attempted crossing, they’ve been flagged as a flight risk by U.S. immigration authorities. [Heck, Trudeau loves diversity, let Canada have them!—ed]

“They’re really worried, they’re scared,” says Jamal.

“The thing is, when they came [to the U.S.], they psychologically believed that they left everything behind, the bad things. But actually the place they’ve got here now doesn’t look much different than the place they came from.

“It’s a continuation of crisis and suffering and not being settled… That saga is still ongoing,” he says. “They left their country and they’re still on the run.”

Before too long, Jamal has moved on to the next phone call, the next request for help.

He knows this flood of asylum seekers won’t stop any time soon, and he has a message for his neighbours to the north.

Of course, then he sends his message telling Canada to welcome these illegal alien Somalis.

Read it all! Filed in my ‘Laugh of the day’ category!

spirit of israel

PODCAST: ISRAEL — A Leading Power in the World

Israel a leading power in the World? Listen to Rod Bryant and frequent contributor Jerry Gordon to find out the reasons behind this development – high tech brain power, attracting global investments in innovative technology from the strong horse militarily in the troubled Middle East facing a nuclear Iran, proxy Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. Also listen to a report from the Emunah World Tour on the road in Colombia with co-host Ira Michaelson and Rabbi Dror Casuto.

RELATED ARTICLE: J Street’s Dead End

Canadian flad isis

Dear Conservative Members of Parliament: Is Canada Planning to make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

Honorable Conservative MPs:

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada already has laws to protect ALL Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. It is shocking that The Parliament of Canada is endorsing a petition to “condemn all forms of Islamophobia” (Petition e-411) and will hold a vote on a motion (Motion M-103) by portraying “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination” based on that petition.

Isn’t “Phobia” a type of mental disorder? Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion which was ‘unanimously’ passed by the Canadian Government which calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I have a Rational Fear of Radical Islam.

Is Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

What exactly has the Parliament of Canada petitioned against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muhammad? Criticism and condemning the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who Condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered an “Islamophobe” by Canada?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams continue to spew openly radical Ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The petition the Parliament of Canada recently passed a motion was initiated on June 8, 2016 by Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum condemning Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details in the petition which was sponsored by the Liberal MP are extremely sketchy to say the least- e-411 for the parliamentary petition:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Again I say, please keep in mind Islamophobia’s definition.

canadian flag islamIs Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

It seems that many Western politicians, the “Mainstream Media”, and our political elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot to be rationally  “phobic”, or simply fearful, about.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe”.

It is far more probable that they are none of those things; rather that it is the accusers who are racist (Quran: 2;65; 2.89 (Allah transforms Jews into apes); 3:110-112; 4;160, and on and on); Xenophobic really does not apply to Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Hindus, Kurds, Baha’is , Zoroastrians, and a few different sects of Islam; it is truly the other way around.

These people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Sharia law and radical Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islamic Sharia law. I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian Regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies. They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard every day in that dark place.

The memories of that season still haunt me today. And, their threats still follow me today, to this great land of Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the same present danger living close to me once again. I am on their hit list. It was reported that the highest commander of the IRGC very recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad.

People who are jittery about radical Islam and Sharia law are this way for many a reason: They look at how Sharia law is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by The Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and are concerned quite justifiably.

As a professional and Women’s Rights Advocate working for over twenty five years in the settlement sector in Canada, I have told many stories by Muslims who have been victimized and harassed by their Muslim neighbors and peers in schools for not wearing the hijab, for not fasting during the fasting month, for not eating halal, for owning a dog, or simply for wearing a pendant of Muslim Shiite Imam Ali while going to the restroom. I also met a Syrian refugee who was physically attacked for buying vegetables and fruits from a Shiite vendor in Ottawa; moderate Muslims being harassed for not forcing their daughters to wear the hijab, or even for writing with their left hand, to name a few, as I mentioned above. Also of concern is the hatred rising between mosques demonstrated in the recent mosque shooting in Quebec City.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are predicated on Islamic Sharia Law. Therefore, according to this view, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations, and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights. Is that what we want for Canada, or in Canada? Or, in and for any country?

All that these purported critics are doing is pointing out what is in Islam’s Sharia law if anyone cared to look. And, when it comes to concern with quality of life, people should care to look. What is it that these extremists are so eager to cover up?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

Interesting to note, there are no such terms as Christianophobia, or Judeophobia, that define a dislike or prejudice against a Judeo Christian worldview and Jews and Christians, especially as a political force. And, when Googling anti Zionism, a photo appears of Islamist Muslims condemning Jews and a State of Israel. What if Christians and Jews petitioned for anti Christianophobia and anti Judeophobia motions condemning “all” forms of these? Would we all put duct tape on our mouths? And, it is true that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to petition for this in any Middle Eastern country on the face of the planet.

Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada , the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones. That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology. Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

It is also important to know who sponsors such articles in the media and why politicians lack information to make accurate assessments and informed conclusions.

For more information, please read about Politics of ‘Islamophobia’ – source of, and purpose of the term.

In Islam, politics and religion are inseparably intertwined. For this reason, apostasy in Islam is equivalent to treason. A notable expression in Islam says it all, “Islam is a religion and a state.” The Penal Code of The Islamic Republic of Iran Mandates Death for Converts. Article 225-1 of this code reads, “Any Muslim who clearly announces that he/she has left Islam and declares blasphemy is an Apostate.” In the Qur’an, Bukhari (52:260) repeats this view clearly: “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’” According to Ayatollah Khorasani, a prominent Shiite leader in Iran, “The promotion of Christianity in Iran must be stopped and stated that The Bible (The Gospel) is distorted and the Bible is not the Word of God.” (Farsi)

The Ayatollah’s views are directly of a mind with statements found in the Quran. Verses supporting death for apostates in the Qur’an are: 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Article 19: Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Canadians must have the right to critique any ideology or religion. Preventing Canadians from speaking about Islam, is about denying Canadians the right to warn about a potential threat to their nation. A warning is not treason, but preventing a warning is. Isn’t this government sponsored Petition against the laws of the Constitution of Canada? CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I

If the government prevents us the right to criticize any ideology, our government overrides our most basic freedom—the freedom of speech—and at the same time will undermine diversity, the “value” the Trudeau Liberals take pride the most in.

“Islamophobia” is used as a tool by political Islam to shut down criticism of Islam. At what point does western civilization demand that as a free society, all ideological matters conform to some common ground?

Can Canada simply ignore what is happening particularly in Europe, no-go-zones? Many places in Europe have become a breeding ground for radical Islam where they enforced their own sharia law.

Again, Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada, the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones.

That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology.

Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

In reference to the above, I urge you to take the time and read the following article by Canadian investigative journalist, Christine Williams – “Canadian parliament passes anti-Islamophobia motion!”

M-103 does NOT define Islamophobia and is Not inclusive but will only endanger and silence Canada’s freedom of speech. I urge you and all Parliamentarians to vote against Motion M-103 and to rescind Petition e-411.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi, Ottawa, ON.
Award-winning Human Rights Advocate; Former Child prisoner of Evin imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran

REPLY FROM MP PETER KENT

Shabnam:

I will be voting against Motion M-103 for the following reasons:

1)      Abundant protection against discrimination and hate already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada and The Human Rights Act
2)      The word “Islamaphobia” is a confected term that has a wide range of meanings and interpretations.
3)      A “phobia” is a medical term that relates to an anxiety disorder.  It is inappropriate to apply in Parliamentary debate.
4)      Finally, I don’t believe the study proposed in Motion M-103 is worthy of a standing committee’s time or budget.

When I participated as a founding-member of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, MPs agreed that it’s study would be conducted as a special, all-party committee, responsible for its own funding but reporting to Parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write me expressing your genuine concerns for Motion-103.  E-411 is an electronic petition and closed for signatures October 6, 2016.

Sincerely

CANADIAN MP PETER KENTHon. Peter Kent, P.C., MP
Thornhill, ON

House of Commons
Chambre des communes

Critic, Foreign Affairs                               
                    Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs

MY REPLY TO MP PETER KENT

Dear MP Peter Kent,

Thank you for taking the time, reading my open letter and responding to it.

Did you know that the Quebec, and Ontario imams say apostates are to be executed by The Islamic State? I am an apostate—I left Islam when I was in my early teens in Iran and I am a convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here is my terrifying story.

The article “Quebec, Ontario imams say apostates to be executed by The Islamic State” published by CIJNews documents that Since 2015 Sheharyar Shaikh serves as the Imam of the Islamic Society of Kingston, Ontario and he also served as the President of the North American Muslim Foundation and the Imam of Masjid Qurtabah in Scarborough, Ont. In recent years, he also took part in Dawah (introducing Islam to disbelievers) with activists affiliated with the Islamic booth at Toronto’s Dundas Square.

Supporter of the establishment of a Caliphate, or (The Islamic State), Sheharyar Shaikh believes that the Islamic Law (Sharia Law) is essential to maintain a healthy and moral society which can be achieved by using the Islamic punishments (execution, amputation, hanging , flogging etc.) as effective deterrents against potential criminals. In this regard he emphasized that punishment for apostates, Muslims who left Islam, is execution. The following are excerpts from a sermon entitled “There Is No Compulsion In Islam” which was delivered in English in 2013 (29:47-31:46):”

Please read the article and watch the Imams statements:  http://en.cijnews.com/?p=199556

I have never heard in modern times of a Jew or Christian being killed for leaving their faith! It certainly is NOT common like it is in the Islamic world or the western world where there are enough “honor” killings to prove the barbarity of the sharia law.

Calling for the execution, or killing of anyone in Canada or abroad based on religion or faith should be a crime against humanity and included in our laws. Any and all Canadian imams caught saying or promoting this must be charged and deported if they hold dual citizenship.

Where are Prime Minister Trudeau, The Parliament of Canada, RCMP,  Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Police, the Premieres, and those who are enforcing M-103 on all the “hate speech” coming from these quarters lately?

Why can’t we have a motion in parliament to remove this excrement from the country rather than punishing those who criticize this ideology?

Ms. Iqra Khalid should have tabled a motion requesting a study on why some Muslims insist on breaking our Canadian laws, promoting violence and demand preferential treatment. One illegal migrant crossing into Manitoba told CBC, “We need more sanctuary cities to protect us.” The US illegals just arrived here illegally and are demanding governments to change and accommodate more for the Islamic faith!

Shouldn’t everyone share equal rights? In Iran, under the Islamic laws women are denigrated as second class citizens. I openly share my personal story, along with comprehensive and troubling examples of the reality that all Iranian women face in my article published by Mackenzie Institute:  “Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy”. I stated: “As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law, which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.” This article will leave one asking if enough is being done in the fight for the rights and freedoms of Iranian women compared to women in the West.

To read my article, please click here.

“Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy” A comprehensive look at Islamic shariah law may surprise you. It could be closer to home than you think.

All cultures are NOT equal and anyone who respects a culture who bases their entire ideology and laws on “Honor Killings”, female genital mutilation, child brides as young as 8 years old, rape, marital rape, molestation, pedophilia and torture is to say that you respect the atrocities that it perpetrates. They can call themselves, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, Al-Shabob, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, devout, extremist, etc. The common denominators are always Islam, the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia, which violates our Canadian Constitution and should not be practiced on Canadian soil and Islam’s sharia and ideology cannot coexist with our culture or constitution.

Please read my Op-ed: “Trudeau’s Multiculturalism

Islam is far more of a political system than a religion. Islam is in the guise of a religion is actually a militant political ideology intended for conquering the world for the imaginary, Allah… It is indeed an open ended war against Jews and Christians until we convert to Islam, or are murdered, or enslaved. Historical record shows what happened to Persia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey, to name a few.

  • There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslims, apostates or infidels).
  • Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
  •  Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
  • The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
  • The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Quran in a Muslim’s daily life….

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada has laws to protect Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. Motion M-103 does NOT define “Islamophobia”, is Not inclusive, and will endanger Canada’s freedom of speech. Motion M-103  is undemocratic, immoral and unacceptable. This biased motion is a trait of totalitarian governments and not Canadian democracy!

I urge you and all Conservative Parliamentarians to please defeat Motion M-103 without ANY amendments and rescind Petition e-411 and sincerely I hope and trust that this biased Motion will be voted down and put to rest, permanently. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi

ofa obama podium

Organizing for Action: Obama’s Army of 32,500+ Soldier Anarchists

Discover the Networks reports:

OFA logoOrganizing for America (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC’s Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President’s plan to invest in America’s future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

Read more…

OFAction logoThe Office of Barack and Michelle Obama website lists Organizing for Action as its primary political activist organization.

It appears that Organizing for America has now morphed into Organizing for Action (OFA).

It was and continues to be Barack Obama’s army of activists and, in some cases, violent anarchists. The OFA website states:

OFA is committed to mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers and leaders, because real, lasting change doesn’t just happen on its own—it requires a program, it requires organizing, and it requires people like you.

With grassroots chapters in neighborhoods across the country, OFA volunteers are building this movement from the ground up, person to person, community by community—because democracy isn’t a spectator sport. [Emphasis added]

Organizing for Action has more than 250 local chapters around the country. According to it’s website OFA has the following six policy objectives:

  1. Turning up the heat on climate change deniers, because the stakes are too high not to act. [silencing science]
  2. Calling for lawmakers to stop standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform. [open borders]
  3. Telling the stories of the millions who are seeing the life-saving benefits of Obamacare. [“resist” the repeal and replacement of ACA]
  4. Rallying around the simple principle that love is love and that no one should ever be discriminated against because of who they are or whom they love. [radical homosexual agenda]
  5. We organize because too often a woman’s health care is debated as a political issue, not as a basic right. [abortion]
  6. And we believe that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair shot at the American dream. [amnesty]

Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post:

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Read the rest of the article here.

As Sperry points out, “Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show ‘nonpartisan’ OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.”

Shadow government, anti-Trump protests, OFA, anarchist army, Barack Obama, the media, Democrats and sabotage are all united against President Donald J. Trump.

So, what’s new? These efforts may border on sedition.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

The Left Is Self-Destructing: Stand Back and Enjoy It

OBAMA’S PERMANENT PROTEST: Why the rise in rioting and civil unrest under Obama is no coincidence, but part of the plan

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

Sabotage: Obama is commanding an Army of 30,000 anti-Trump activists from his home 2 miles from the White House

EDITORS NOTE: Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.

brown

Georgetown Islamic studies professor: Slavery is Moral, Rape is Normal

Georgetown professor jonathan brown

Jonathan Brown, Georgetown University professor of Islamic Studies and Muslim Christian Understanding

IPT News in a column titled “Prof’s Slavery/Sexual Consent Comments Become Georgetown’s Latest Outrage” reports:

A Georgetown University Islamic civilization professor’s lecture on slavery, asserting that it isn’t “morally evil to own somebody” and minimizing the need for sexual content from a spouse is bringing the school renewed criticism and scrutiny.

Jonathan Brown’s remarks came last week during a lecture at the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization Brown works closely with, and one that law enforcement has long suspected of being a Muslim Brotherhood front.

People obsess too much over the word “slavery,” Brown said, when what matters are the conditions, whether people were treated well or harshly.

In fact, “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery,” he said. “As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout state and time trans-historically, there’s no such thing as slavery.”

Brown is a Georgetown associate professor and the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service.

Read more…

These comments support Islam’s view of slavery and dominance over women.

David Wood discusses the issue of slavery in Islam in his video “The Islamic View of Black Slaves.”

For more on slavery in Islam, be sure to watch “Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Terrorism Adviser Says War on ISIS About Ideology

Defense Leaders Agree: US Military Readiness Is at a Dangerous Low

#BLM Protester Who Assaulted DeVos from Entering School is Actually Afghani Refugee, Charged With Crime

TruthfeedFeaturePage

PROMISES TO KEEP: The ‘Law and Order’ President hits the ground running

During his campaign for the presidency Donald Trump frequently disdainfully scowled when he spoke about how most politicians were “All talk and no action.”

Candidate Trump promised that immigration would be a primary focus of his administration.

President Trump has indeed focused on multiple aspects of the immigration crisis that go well beyond building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

His selection of Senator Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General was the best possible choice for this important position.

Sessions had chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Consider that on February 25, 2016 that subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, “The Impact of High-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Workers.”

When the Obama administration conducted meetings for “Stakeholders” on the immigration issue corporate leaders were invited to attend as were immigration lawyers representing illegal aliens and special interest groups that advocate for illegal aliens.

However, no one in attendance represented the “average American.”

Even the union leaders representing the Border Patrol, ICE agents and the adjudications officers were barred from participating in those meetings.

On February 9, 2017 President Trump held a news conference in the Oval Office to conduct a public swearing in ceremony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Immediately after Vice President Pence swore in Jeff Sessions, President Trump signed three executive orders:

  1. Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
  2. Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers
  3. Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

President Trump promised to be the “Law and Order” President and he has certainly hit the ground running.

His executive order to prevent violence against law enforcement officers is tangible evidence of his keeping his promise to look out for law enforcement officers.

Let’s next consider how he articulated the purpose for his executive order on enforcing federal laws to attack transnational criminal organizations:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including transnational drug cartels, have spread throughout the Nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens.  These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life.  They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts.

These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery.  In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs.  Likewise, the trafficking and smuggling of human beings by transnational criminal groups risks creating a humanitarian crisis.  These crimes, along with many others, are enriching and empowering these organizations to the detriment of the American people.

A comprehensive and decisive approach is required to dismantle these organized crime syndicates and restore safety for the American people.

That statement underscores his understanding of how important immigration law enforcement and border security are to combatting transnational criminals.

What is unfathomable is how many politicians who have to understand this issue have opposed Trump at every opportunity.  Only they can explain their conduct.  However, I have to conclude that those who would oppose President Trump’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders and effectively enforce our immigration laws are siding with the cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This certainly apply to mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors who want to create “Sanctuary States.”

Sanctuary Cities should be called “Magnet Cities” because they attract criminal aliens including members of transnational gangs, fugitives and international terrorists.

The politicians’ claims that by shielding vulnerable illegal aliens from immigration law enforcement they would be willing to come forward when they fall victim to criminals is a blatant lie that ignores that Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Sanctuary policies attract more violent criminals who are likely victimize members of the ethnic immigration communities.  However the false narrative serves to vilify valiant ICE agents who go in harms way every day they report for duty, seeking to protect national security and innocent lives.

Statutorily, U Visas are available for victims of human trafficking and other crimes if they come forward and assist with law enforcement efforts to apprehend the criminals.  Similar visa programs are available for illegal aliens who provide assistance to criminal investigations.

If those duplicitous politicians really wanted to assist illegal alien victims of crimes they would bring them to immigration offices and urge them to cooperate with the investigations of their criminal assailants.

That way everyone would win.

But then the politicians would not get their campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of special interest groups, and who know who else, who are literally and figuratively making out like bandits by exploiting the immigration system.

In continuing to consider Trump’s executive order on trafficking I call your attention to two of the key elements of this executive order are proverbial “music to my ears.”

(e)  develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies — such as through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), Special Operations Division, the OCDETF Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center — to counter the crimes described in subsection (a) of this section, consistent with applicable Federal law; and

(f)  pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.

I speak from extensive experience when I say that this task force approach to identifying, investigating and dismantling international drug trafficking organizations is extremely effective.  I spent the final ten years of my career with the INS as a Senior Special Agent assigned to the OCDETF program in New York City.

As for immigration fraud and visa fraud, these two issues are elements of “Extreme vetting” that Trump promised when he campaigned for the presidency.

On May 18, 2004 I testified at a hearing by the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence Initiatives that addressed the issues of visa fraud and also the strategy of providing visas for illegal alien informants.

On May 20, 1997 I testified before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic, Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.

That hearing was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in 1993 at the CIA and first World Trade Center Bombing.

In one way or another, all of those involved with those attacks had gamed the visa system and/or the immigration benefits program.

The Clinton administration’s failures to address these vulnerabilities of visa fraud and immigration fraud that enabled these two deadly attacks to be conducted on American soil literally and figuratively, left the door open to the deadly terror attacks of 9/11.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” included this excerpt found on pages 46 and 47:

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

In the years since the terror attacks of 9/11 more terror attacks were carried out in the United States while other attacks, for one reason or another, failed.  Most of those attacks involved aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Trump’s executive orders address our immigration vulnerabilities and Attorney General Sessions will provide the legal horsepower.

All Americans should be thrilled that this President is keeping his promises.

RELATED ARTICLE: Federally-funded refugee resettlement contractor, HIAS, organized NY rally against Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.