**Embargo: Seattle, WA**

The scene at Temple De Hirsch Sinai in Seattle, which was vandalized with anti-Semitic graffiti.

Why ‘Holocaust Denial’ Graffiti Matters

Early Friday morning, March 10, 2017 Holocaust graffiti was discovered by an off-duty Seattle police officer on the façade of a major Reform Jewish Temple in the Capitol Hill District of Seattle, Temple De Hirsch Sinai.

According to a Buzz Feed report, the graffiti read:

“Holocaust is fake history!” A dollar sign appeared to be used in place of the letter S in the graffiti.”

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) undertook an immediate bias crimes investigation and established patrols for both the historic sanctuary on Capitol Hill as well as a companion one in Bellevue, Washington.   Later that morning, a thoughtful neighbor in the Capitol Hill district of Seattle hung a sign over the anti-Semitic graffiti with a comforting statement expressing community support for the temple, “Love wins.”Because of the heightened security, a suspicious box left at the door of the temple Friday afternoon was investigated by the SPD and found to contain a donation of old books.

Comments of the anti-Semitic incident by the  Seattle Temple Rabbi

holocaust denial graphitiA CNN report noted what Rabbi Daniel Weiner wrote on the Facebook page of Temple de Hirsch Sinai regarding the security precautions that this latest anti-Semitic incident prompted and its occurrence on the cusp of the Jewish festival of Purim:

And as we take all of these precautions, we are also adamant in our conviction that we will not allow the toxicity of intolerance and growing climate of hate to define who we are, how we live, and what our nation can be.

We take courage from the upcoming celebration of Purim and its story in the Book of Esther, as our people triumphed over the evil plans of those who seek to diminish and destroy us, and as we stand shoulder to shoulder with all who are vulnerable and in need, placing our faith in God to inspire us to perfect a broken world.

Condemnation of Anti-Semitic Seattle incident  by Washington Governor Inslee and U.S. Representative Jayapal

Washington Governor Jay Inslee condemned this latest act of anti-Semitic vandalism, saying: “It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to condemn any and all acts of hate and intolerance.”   US Rep. Pramilla Jayapal, whose 7th Congressional District  covers Seattle  tweeted:

“I condemn the anti-Semitic vandalism against Temple De Hirsch Sinai in Seattle in the strongest possible terms.”

The Seattle anti-Semitic incident reported on Friday was not the only occurrence that day.  CNN noted:

The graffiti is the latest in a wave of anti-Semitic vandalism and threats made to Jewish institutions all over the country.

Earlier in the day, staff at a Jewish community center (JCC) in Las Vegas received “suspicious communications,” according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, prompting them to evacuate the area and investigate. Police reported the property safe a short time later.

In Tucson, Arizona, police were investigating the second threat in two weeks sent to a JCC. Sgt. Pete Dugan, a spokesman for the police department, said a bomb threat was received via email.

There have been more than 148 reports of anti-Semitic bomb threats, calls against Jewish Community Centers across the US and several Jewish cemetery desecrations in St. Louis, Philadelphia and Brooklyn, New York. These occurrences have been condemned by both President Trump and Vice President Pence. The FBI has a task force currently investigating these occurrences and at least one arrest has been made in St. Louis of a suspect, Juan Franklin who made a string of 8 hate bombing calls. Franklin was a former staff journalist for on-line journal The Intercept, ironically fired for producing fake news stories.

Governor Inslee in a statement drew attention to this latest occurrence of intolerance in the State of Washington:

Yesterday’s act of vandalism at the Temple De Hirsch Sinai in Seattle is the latest in a wave of anti-Semitic threats against our state’s Jewish community.

We can’t ignore the reality that these threats have increased in recent months. Right here in Washington — a state known for being tolerant, open-minded and forward-thinking.   We are seeing an increase in reports of harassment, vandalism and attacks against Muslims, Sikhs, Hispanics and Latinos, African-Americans, LGBTQ individuals and other minority groups. I continue to stand with the Jewish community as I have stood with all Washingtonians. Regardless of one’s faith, color or orientation, Washington welcomes all.

2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooter Naveed Haq. Source: Seattle Times.

The 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation lethal attack

The Seattle Jewish Community is acutely aware that anti-Semitic attacks can be lethal.  In 2006 there was a shooting attack on the Seattle Jewish Federation offices by a Pakistani – American Muslim that killed one staffer, maiming and wounding others.  We reported  a second trial and conviction  to multiple life sentences of  a Pakistani American  in December 2009 in a New English Review/Iconoclast blog post,  .“Seattle Jihad Naveed Haq found guilty in Second Trial.” 

Remember the infamous Seattle Mass shooter, Pakistani American, Naveed Haq?  He was convicted by a Seattle Jury in a second trial.  The AP report noted what he did in 2006:

Haq made several trips to gun stores in the weeks prior to the attack, wrote two documents on his father’s computer criticizing Israel and U.S. policy in the Middle East, and used MapQuest to find directions to the center from his family’s home in Pasco, 180 miles east of Seattle

Haq drove from his eastern Washington home to Seattle the day of the attack and forced a teenage girl at gunpoint to let him into the Jewish Federation. Once in the second-floor office, he opened fire, shooting some people in their cubicles, some in the hall and one, Pamela Waechter, fatally as she fled down a stairwell.

He shot and seriously injured five others. One of the shooting victims a woman who was pregnant was shot in her arm shielding her unborn fetus. Her child, a boy was born unharmed seven months later.

Here is the Seattle Times ‘harrowing testimony’ of Layla Bush in the first Haq trial in 2008. She has not been able to walk again:

As Layla Bush lay bleeding from a gunshot wound on the floor of her boss’s office, her thoughts were a jumble.

Against a backdrop of gunfire and screaming coming from other parts of the building, Bush thought about how, as the receptionist, it was her duty to call 911 and report the rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

But the pain in her side anchored her to the floor.

“I realized that I couldn’t move, so there was nothing I could do even if he was reloading,” she said.

Suddenly, the gunman, Naveed Haq, returned.

“We made eye contact, and he shot me again. I believe he was trying to kill me,” she testified.

According to the AP report on the second  trial outcome:

Haq was found guilty of all eight counts against him. The 34-year-old man will spend the rest of his life in prison.

Haq’s first trial ended in 2008 with jurors deadlocked on whether he was legally insane during the shooting spree on July 28, 2006, that left one woman dead and five others injured.

The eight counts against him included one count of aggravated first-degree murder; five counts of attempted first-degree murder; one count of unlawful imprisonment; and one count of malicious harassment, the state’s hate-crime law.

Jurors rejected Haq’s defense that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. His lawyers acknowledged that he committed the shooting but said his mental illness kept him from understanding what he was doing.

They also conceded he poses a danger to the public and should never be free, but asked jurors to send him to a state mental hospital rather than prison. They declined comment after the verdict.

Prosecutor Don Raz said he was pleased the verdict would bring closure to the victims.

Raz argued Haq wasn’t insane – just angry – when he stormed the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

“He was tired that no one was listening to the Muslim point of view. He wanted that point of view heard,” Raz told jurors as Haq’s second trial opened in October, 2009.

A major difference between this trial and the first was the playing of jailhouse phone calls.

In a recorded phone conversation after the shooting, Raz said, Haq told his mother, “I did a very good thing. I did it for a good reason.”

She said, “I know you’re not well,” to which Haq replied: “Whatever, Mom.”

One of Haq’s lawyers, John Carpenter, argued that his client believed he could change the course of wars by attacking the Jewish Federation.

Conclusion

The 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation attack was a wake-up call to Jewish communities across the country to undertake robust security precautions. Now, with this latest anti-Semitic graffiti incident in Seattle, the fear is palpable about whether this might be a prelude to another possible shooting  incident or a temple bombing like the historic one in Atlanta in 1958.   We only have to look at the March 3, 2017 shooting by a gunman wounding a Sikh  in the driveway of his  home in a Seattle suburb.   The attacker shouted: “go back to your own country.” That is why this Seattle anti-Semitic incident matters both there and throughout this country. Violent intolerance kills.

ismail-elshikh

The Radical Ties of the Imam Behind the Trump Immigration Lawsuit by Jordan Schachtel

Originally published in the Conservative Review, March 10, 2017:

The plaintiff listed in Hawaii’s lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order on immigration is a member of an organization that has several current and former leaders tied to terrorist activity.

Dr. Ismail Elshikh — the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — is suing Trump in reaction to the second version of his immigration moratorium, which was signed on Monday. The order imposed a 90-day hold on foreign nationals from six terror-tied countries from entering the United States.

According to the Muslim Association of Hawaii website, Imam Elshikh is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), a fringe Islamic organization that has a board and current leadership stacked with radical Islamic connections.

Kyle Shideler, a terrorism expert and director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy, tells CR that it’s concerning that Imam Elshikh is a part of NAIF.

“Given NAIF’s history it should come as no surprise that the end goal of this lawsuit is, ultimately, weakening American counter-terrorism or immigration security efforts,” Shideler said.

He added: “That a member of an organization whose leaders have included a convicted war criminal, an individual who defended donating money to a Hamas linked charity, and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism bombing wants to tell the American people who they can admit for immigration should say a lot about why such an executive order is needed in the first place.”

Steven Emerson, the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, also voiced his concerns about Elshikh’s associations. He tells CR:

“NAIF is an extremely radical Islamist group whose leaders and members have defended some of the most violent terrorist groups in the world. Some members have been found to be actually linked to acts of Islamist terrorism. This is a group, some prosecutors have argued, whose incitement for violence could qualify their categorization as a providing material support for terrorism.”

Current NAIF board members include the former leader of an al-Qaeda-connected mosque and a radical preacher. Former leaders include a man convicted of leading an international death squad, and a prominent Islamist preacher who has praised Osama bin Laden.

Current NAIF leadership

Omar Shahin, a current board member of NAIF, is the former president of the Islamic Center of Tucson, a mosque that was once utilized as the “de-facto al-Qaeda headquarters in the United States,” according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. As imam of the mosque, Shahin raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation, which was later shut down for funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. He also held fundraisers for the Global Relief Foundation, which was later deemed by the U.S. Treasury Department to be connected to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

El Shikh received his PhD from the Graduate Theological Foundation Islamic Studies Department, which is headed by Shahin. The program was created in collaboration with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that was started as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Dr. Waleed Meneese, another NAIF board member, has explicitly called for fellow Muslims to kill Jews. “When the Children of Israel returned to cause corruption in the time of our Prophet Muhammad,” Meneese said in a recent sermon. “And they disbelieved him, God destroyed him at his hand. In any case, God Almighty has promised them destruction whenever they cause corruption,” he said of the Jewish people.

Meneese has also called for the killing of apostates from Islam, and for the treating of non-Muslims as second-class citizens.

Former NAIF leadership

Ashrafuzzaman Khan is the former president of NAIF and a current leader at the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In 2013, he was tried in a Bangladesh court as he was accused of drafting a kill list of intellectuals inside the country. He was charged with 11 counts of war crimes as the alleged leader of the Al-Badr death squad. In 2013, he and an accomplice were sentenced in absentia for the abduction and murder of 18 people, including nine university professors, six journalists, and three physicians.

Egyptian cleric Wagdi Ghoneim was the chairman of NAIF at the turn of the century. In 2005, he agreed to deportation to Qatar after U.S. authorities were concerned about his potential connections to terrorist organizations. Ghoneim has called Osama bin Laden a “martyred heroic mujahid” and is now closely tied to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He has been banned from entering several countries due to his radicalism.

LINK: Wagdi Ghoneim Video

Another former NAIF board member is Siraj Wahhaj, who was infamously listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Wahhaj testified in defense of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, who served a life sentence for being the mastermind behind terrorist plots in the United States.

What else?

The North American Imam Federation is perhaps best known as the group that allegedly planned and staged the “flying imams” incident. After a 2006 NAIF conference, several imams connected to the group were booted from a domestic flight after exhibiting bizarre, threatening behavior, terrifying fellow passengers. NAIF and the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) showcased the incident as a prime example of America’s supposed problem with “Islamophobia.”

President Trump’s immigration moratorium, blocking non-citizens from coming into the U.S. from the six terror havens of Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Libya, will go into effect next week, barring a successful legal challenge by Elshikh and Hawaii or other actors.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

A Short History of Islam in Hawaii

DTN: North American Imams Federation 

islam-religion-of-peace

Is there ‘racial bigotry’ among practitioners of the ‘religion of peace’?

Fighting a war on two fronts! Some Muslims believe “we shouldn’t talk about anti-blackness within the community, because we’re under siege by Islamophobes. This is not the right time to air internal laundry.” – Kameelah Rashad, University of Pennsylvania.

Yup, you know it is true!  Or, why would Somali Muslims, for example, want to build their own mosques in a community where  the Arab Muslims already had one?

Kameelah Rashad (right) with Linda Sansour. Photo: Philly.com

Also, according to The Atlantic there is a split between immigrant Muslims (many black) and the long-established (well-off) Arabs in America.  The tension within the ‘community’ burst in to full-flower, we are told, at a December Muslim conference in Toronto.

Rashad says she is fighting a war on two fronts—racism within Muslim ‘community’ and Islamophobia everywhere else.

The article is a bit disjointed (or maybe it is me!).  Or, could that be because the author can’t quite present the politically-incorrect information in a straightforward manner?

[BTW, when you have a few minutes look around at the many historical reports about how light-skinned Arab Muslims enslaved Africans for over a thousand years.]

Here are a few snips of Emma Green’s article at The Atlantic [emphasis is mine]:

Muslim Americans Are United by Trump—and Divided by Race

When weary Muslims gathered in Toronto in December for an annual retreat, marking the end of a tumultuous U.S. election year, they probably didn’t expect the event to turn into a referendum on racial tensions within the American Muslim community. But it did.

[….]

Even though slightly less than one-third of American Muslims are black, according to Pew Research Center, American Muslims are most often represented in the media as Arab or South Asian immigrants. The distinction between the African-American Muslim experience and that of their immigrant co-religionists has long been a source of racial tension in the Muslim community, but since the election, things have gotten both better and worse. While some Muslims seem to be paying more attention to racism because of Donald Trump, others fear that any sign of internal division is dangerous for Muslims in a time of increased hostility.

While the Toronto conference was upsetting, Evans [Ubaydullah Evans, the executive director of the American Learning Institute for Muslims, who is black] said, he doesn’t think it’s representative of the biggest racial problems in the American Muslim community. White racism toward black people is “not the kind of racism that circumscribes my life as an American Muslim,” he told me. “It’s the social racism I experience from people of Arab descent, of Southeast Asian descent. This is the racism no one is talking about.” [Wait!  I thought only white Europeans could be racists! Arabs too?—ed]

[….]

The wave of immigration that shaped today’s American Muslim population began in the 1960s, after Congress lifted previous race-based restrictions on immigration. In many ways, this surge was directly connected to the work of black Muslims and others involved in the civil-rights movement: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 allowed far greater numbers of people from Asia and Africa to emigrate to the U.S. As of 2014, an estimated 61 percent of Muslims were immigrants, according to Pew, and another 17 percent were the children of immigrants. Many of the perceived racial tensions among Muslims come from conflicts between these immigrant communities and non-immigrants, who are often black.

[….]

Omar Suleiman (Dallas Imam): American Muslim population segregated by ethnicity and income.

“Immigrant Muslims had a convenient comfort zone,” said Omar Suleiman, an imam based in Dallas with a large online following. As each new immigrant community established its own mosques and community centers, portions of the Muslim American population became segregated by ethnicity and income.

For non-black Muslims who grew up in the suburbs, attended private schools, and rarely encountered black Muslims in their mosques, it’s easy “to internalize many of the poisonous notions about the black community that … diminish the pain of those communities,” he said.

“I think a lot of African American Muslims see a hypocrisy sometimes with immigrant Muslims,” said Saba Maroof, a Muslim psychiatrist with a South Asian background who lives in Michigan. “We say that Muslims are all equal in the eyes of God, that racism doesn’t exist in Islam.” And yet, cases of overt racism aren’t uncommon, like when South Asian or Arab immigrant parents don’t want their kids to marry black Muslims. “That happened in my family,” she said.

[….]

Some Muslims believe “we shouldn’t talk about anti-blackness within the community, because we’re under siege by Islamophobes. This is not the right time to air internal laundry,” Rashad [Kameelah Rashad, a black Muslim chaplain at the University of Pennsylvania] said. But “if I have to contend with anti-Muslim bigotry outside of the Muslim community, and within my own community, I’m having to push back on anti-black racism, I’m kind of fighting a war on two fronts.”

There is much more, continue reading here.

Melting pot myth exploded!

So, not only do we have a lack of assimilation among the many ethnic and religious groups we are admitting to the U.S., we obviously have it within Islam in America too!

RELATED ARTICLES:

In the past year, 600,000 Afghans have returned home, so why are we bringing more to the U.S.?

Why are we taking any ‘refugees’ from Israel?

geert-wilders

‘Battle of Rotterdam’ — On the Eve of a Historic Election in the Netherlands

geert wilders party logo

Geert Wilders with Freedom Party logo.

Invasion of Europe news….

Western Civilization is under assault: “If this continues, our culture will cease to exist.” – A Dutch citizen of Amsterdam told The Washington Post this week.

All eyes will be on the Dutch election scheduled for this Wednesday!

And, if things couldn’t be more tense in the lead-up to election day, last night Turkish Muslim protestors were driven from the streets of Rotterdam by mounted police officers and water cannons.

Trumpeted The Sun:

THE BATTLE OF ROTTERDAM Dutch riot cops use batons, water cannon and horse charges to clear thousands of Turkish protesters in Rotterdam

DUTCH riot police have broken up protests by supporters of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after Turkish ministers were barred from speaking at a rally in the Netherlands.

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam last night after cops prevented Turkey’s family minister from entering the building.

The Washington Post, in a lengthy story written before the Battle of Rotterdam last night, tells us what is at stake on Wednesday:

Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands

AMSTERDAM — Xandra Lammers lives on an island in Amsterdam, the back door of her modern and spacious four-bedroom house opening onto a graceful canal where ducks, swans and canoes glide by.

The translation business she and her husband run from their home is thriving. The neighborhood is booming, with luxury homes going up as fast as workers can build them, a quietly efficient tramway to speed residents to work in the world-renowned city center, and parks, bike paths, art galleries, beaches and cafes all within a short amble.

By outward appearances, Lammers is living the Dutch dream. But in the 60-year-old’s telling, she has been dropped into the middle of a nightmare, one in which Western civilization is under assault from the Muslim immigrants who have become her neighbors.

“The influx has been too much. The borders should close,” said Lammers, soft-spoken with pale blue eyes and brown hair that frames a deceptively serene-looking face. “If this continues, our culture will cease to exist.”

The stakes have risen sharply as Europeans’ anti-establishment anger has swelled. In interviews across the Netherlands in recent days, far-right voters expressed stridently nationalist, anti-immigrant views that were long considered fringe but that have now entered the Dutch mainstream.

Voters young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural said they would back the Geert Wilders-led Freedom Party — no longer the preserve of the “left-behinds” — which promises to solve the country’s problems by shutting borders, closing mosques and helping to dismantle the European Union.

Ronald Meulendijks (left). Photo: Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post.

“They’ve found a very powerful narrative,” said Koen Damhuis, a researcher at the European University Institute who studies the far right. “By creating a master conflict of the national versus the foreign, they’re able to attract support from all elements of society.”

[ … ]

“The main issue is identity,” said Joost Niemöller, a journalist and author who has written extensively on Wilders and is sympathetic to his cause. “People feel they’re losing their Dutch identity and Dutch society. The neighborhoods are changing. Immigrants are coming in. And they can’t say anything about it because they’ll be called racist. So they feel helpless. Because they feel helpless, they get angry.

Echoing a theme I’ve heard on my travels everywhere in America:

“A government has to treat its own people correctly before accepting new ones. First, you must take care of your own.”

And if the government fails, Meulendijks has dark visions of what’s to come.

“I think Holland will need a civil war,” he said, “between the people who don’t belong here and the real people.”

Continue reading here.

Did the civil war begin in Rotterdam, last night?

Americans should be enormously thankful that we have a window on our own future as we watch the invasion of the European continent.  And, now that Donald Trump is in office, we, God-willing, will not go down the path Europe has been on for way too long.

Go here for our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive.  And, here for The Netherlands, Geert Wilders, here.

BTW, we heard Wilders speak as a side event at CPAC 8 years ago (2009). It was a side event because the organizers of CPAC refused his presence on the main program. (CPAC organizers have been notoriously Republican establishment dolts who never understood where the people were headed on the issues of Islam and immigration.)

NOTE: Ronald Meulendijks has a poster of Geert Wilders in his IJburg apartment. “I think Holland will need a civil war,” he said, “between the people who don’t belong here and the real people.”

VIDEO: Geert Wilders and Fitna at CPAC 2009

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Islamic Republic of Iran’s latest terrorist plots By Heshmat Alavi

Muslims and non-Muslims given guidance on how to fight Trump’s refugee slowdown

Michigan: More confirmation that refugee resettlement is an industry

Why do we take any ‘refugees’ from Russia? Are they even legitimate refugees?

Hawaii needs refugees! Sues feds over refugee pause, travel restrictions from certain Muslim countries

USCRI needs money now that President Trump has slowed the number of their paying clients

Idaho refugee contractor: Refugees pay taxes!

ISIS-social-media

Nineteen U.S. Muslims inspired or directed by ISIS since 2014

ISIS has a dedicated  group of Western jihadis based out of Iraq and Syria who specifically focus on encouraging attacks against the U.S. homeland. The group is known to the FBI as “the legion.” It is “the legion,” which preys on U.S. residents who express sympathy for ISIS on social media, by reaching out to them and nurturing their jihadi beliefs.

The Islamic State adheres to a puritanical and violent form of Islam which we are told that Muslims in the U.S. and the West in general reject. Yet it still attracts some Muslims who adhere to the Salafist understanding of Islam. Despite the fact that some Muslims reject Salafism, and leftists frequently deny its appeal to Muslims or even its existence, it remains influential within Islamic communities, even in the U.S.

In some cases, “legion”-affected zealots would express a desire to travel to the core caliphate in Syria, or affiliates in Libya, and the virtual entrepreneurs would redirect them towards plotting attacks at home.

As the response to this threat develops, it is unlikely the world has seen the end of virtual entrepreneurs with the deaths of Legion members and others associated with them.

Those Westerners who fail to see the threat and the need to address “radical Islamic terrorism” persist in thinking that the Muslims who are attracted to the Islamic State actually hold to or respect Western cultural norms.

ferguson isis“How ISIS ‘Virtual Entrepreneurs’ Inspire US Citizens to Carry Out Terror Plots”, by Saagar Enjeti, Daily Caller, March 10, 2017:

Nineteen U.S.-based individuals have been inspired or directed by Islamic State virtual entrepreneurs since 2014, warn two senior members of the George Washington University’s “Program on Extremism” in a new report.

The rise of social media and encrypted communications platforms like Whatsapp, Telegram, and Signal, enable ISIS recruiters from around the globe to communicate directly with U.S.-based would-be terrorists, the report explains.

ISIS has a dedicated group of Western jihadis based out of Iraq and Syria who specifically focus on encouraging attacks against the U.S. homeland. The group is known to the FBI as “the legion.” It is “the legion,” which preys on U.S. residents who express sympathy for ISIS on social media, by reaching out to them and nurturing their jihadi beliefs. The legion’s role is to encourage “their contacts to take on more extreme positions and helping them make connections in real-world foreign fighter networks.”

The group encourages U.S. citizens to plot heinous attacks, including beheading an American soldier in the U.S., bombing a police station, and buying assault weapons to kill as many as many innocent civilians as possible. Each plot involves an ISIS recruiter communicating, guiding, nurturing, and in some cases, sending money to would-be terrorists in the U.S.

In some cases, “legion”-affected zealots would express a desire to travel to the core caliphate in Syria, or affiliates in Libya, and the virtual entrepreneurs would redirect them towards plotting attacks at home. Where it concerned an ISIS-sympathizer based in New York City, an ISIS recruiter told the individual he would vouch for his entry into the caliphate only after he successfully carried out an attack.

“As the response to this threat develops, it is unlikely the world has seen the end of virtual entrepreneurs with the deaths of Legion members and others associated with them,”…….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump reportedly considering Mideast peace conference

Time for Reza Aslan to tell the truth about Islam after brain-eating stunt

Just one in five foreign rapists in Sweden are ever deported to their home countries

govt-terrorism-watch_645x400

The Trojan Horse of Terrorism

In a March 7, 2017 story by Dan Bilefsky, headlined “Hungary Approves Detention of Asylum Seekers in Guarded Camps,” the New York Times reported that,

“Europe’s simmering backlash against immigration came into sharp relief on Tuesday when the Hungarian Parliament approved the detention of asylum seekers in guarded and enclosed camps on the country’s southern border, in what human rights advocates called a reckless breach of international law.”

According to the Times,

“Prime Minister Viktor Orban justified the measure on the grounds that it would secure the European Union’s borders from migrants and act as a powerful deterrent against migration, which he called the ‘Trojan horse of terrorism.’ ”

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying,

“We are under siege.  The flood of migration has slowed down but has not stopped.  Laws apply to everyone.  This includes those migrants who want to cross Hungary’s border illegally.  This is the reality, which cannot be overruled by charming human rights nonsense.”

Unfortunately, it is “charming human rights nonsense” that now informs immigration policy on the political left in the United States, just as it has in most Western European nations.  While liberals and Democrats oppose any and all limitations on immigration from majority Muslim countries… in the apparent hope that American Muslims will repay the favor by becoming a reliable Democratic voting bloc… even they express concern over the potential for isolated terror attacks in the near term.  What apparently escapes their attention is the clearly stated long term goal of Muslim migration: the complete domination of Islam over all the nations of the world.

In his first speech before a joint session of Congress on February 28, President Trump paused, gazed directly into the camera, and carefully enunciated words that Barack Obama famously refused to utter. He said,

“Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States… We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.”

However, as appealing and as essential as that resolve might be, by focusing only on the unspeakable atrocities of radical Islamists, we run the risk of overlooking or downplaying what is an even more deadly and more pervasive long term threat: the danger of what Hungarian Prime Minister Orban referred to as the “Trojan horse of terrorism,” the unfettered flow of Muslim migrants and refugees across international frontiers into the Western world.

In his book, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, Dr. Peter Hammond explains something that every Christian, every Jew, and every other non-Muslim on the face of the Earth must understand… which is that Islam does not qualify as a religion in the normally accepted sense of the word.  Instead, as a complete legal, political, economic, social, and military system with a religious component, the West’s dangerous flirtation with multiculturalism can only be described as “charming human rights nonsense.”  And while most non-Muslims worry about the possibility of being murdered in an isolated “lone wolf” terror attack, they all but ignore the long term implications of Muslim expansionism.    

Dr. Hammond explains the process of “stealth jihadism” carried out by muhajirs, or Muslim immigrants.  He tells us that “Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.  When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.”

In his May 8, 2015 treatise, titled, Islam, Interreligious Dialogue, and Evangelization, Andre Villeneuve, Ph.D. of Saint John Vianney Seminary, describes the ecumenical schizophrenia displayed by the Catholic Church in their approach to Islam in just the past two decades.  He quotes Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg Lecture of September 12, 2006.  Benedict quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said,

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

However, Villeneuve goes on to describe a contrary view held by the current prelate, Pope Francis.  He writes,

“After praising the commitment to prayer, faith, devotion, and ethical values of many Muslims, (Pope) Francis encourages Christians to adopt a welcoming attitude towards the increasing number of Muslim immigrants in traditionally Christian countries, while asking for a reciprocal freedom of worship for Christians living in Muslim countries.”

Reciprocal freedom of worship?  It is, at best, a naive pipe-dream.  While a few majority Muslim nations have tolerated Christian congregations in their midst, many of those Christians are now victims of genocide.  To expect that those attitudes will ever change is worse than naïve… it is dangerous and it is suicidal.

Christians are taught from early childhood to heed the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:39.  In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,

“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

As the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, Pope Francis is obliged to instruct his flock to “turn the other cheek.”  However, while that counter-intuitive advice may be valuable to me in a one-on-one relationship with my next door neighbor or a co-worker, just how far does it go?  In other words, how are we to react when all of western civilization hangs in the balance?

On September 3, 2011, Swiss parliamentarian Oskar Freysinger, of the Christian Democratic People’s Party addressed some very important thoughts to a Berlin audience… thoughts that the American people would do well to hear and heed in 2017.  He said, in part, “My dear Berlin friends, I come to you today as a neighbor and as a concerned friend…”

Referring to the rules imposed on non-Muslims living in majority Muslim nations, Freysinger said, “The dhimmi attitude of Europeans sustained a wound which must not heal over if the millennia-old European civilization is to survive, for Europe is more than a plot of land, more than a continent, more than the sum of its countries.  Europe is an idea, a cultural landscape, an intellectual space shaped by history.  Europe is the cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression.

“This is ever more strongly endangered by the possibility that our political elite will bend their necks before (an Islamic) religious dogma that is alien to our intellectual history, our values, and our constitutional state.  This dogma is gnawing away at the pillars of our system of laws, wherever it is allowed some space.  This dogma demands total obedience from its followers.

“They are in no case to integrate into our value system.  That would be like treason and can even be punished with death.  They are expected to conquer our intellectual home, make the Western world subject.  Not with tanks, rockets, or riflemen.  Not through brutal revolution.  No, Islam is in no hurry.  It has an eternity.  A long process of softening up and leisurely occupation of our child-poor society is foreseen.  The Islamic doctrine is expected to gradually creep into everyday life and Fortress Europe will crumble from within.

“And what are we doing?  We are allowing this violent doctrine, unhindered in cultural ghettos, to strain at toppling the nation of laws…  When women are beaten and whole city districts are taken over, we look the other way.  We believe we can soften the power hunger of the holy warriors with welfare money.  We believe we can buy peace! What lunacy!  No one fingers the Prophet’s beard.  Fanatics cannot be bought.  Germany should know that better than any country in the world…”

He concluded by saying, “If we lose this battle there will be no second chance, for Islam does not give back what it has conquered.  So I summon all the humanists of this continent not to keep their heads in the sand and to resist the Islamic dogma’s drive to conquest.  Let us stand together and uncompromisingly insist upon the primacy of our civil law over any religious dogma.  Let us find our way back to our precious intellectual heritage.  Islam is only as strong as we are weak”

It is estimated that, by the end of this century, in the absence of some unforeseen divine intervention, Muslims will exceed 50 percent of the world’s population.  But long before that time, it is reasonable to assume that most of 21st century Western civilization will have become unraveled and our descendants will find themselves facing a squalid 7th century lifestyle. As Prime Minister Orban so aptly describes it, the current level of Muslim immigration into the West can best be described as the “Trojan horse of terrorism.”  Left unfettered, it can have no good end.  As matters now stand, we cannot assume that the Europe we have known and loved for many centuries, and from which our forbears emerged, will continue to exist beyond ten or twenty more years.

While Europe may be the “cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression,” the United States is the laboratory in which those concepts were tested and proven.  That fact, alone, gives Islamists all the justification they need to see us wiped from the face of the Earth.  There is far too much at stake to be gambled away in some “charming human rights” experiment, in a contest we cannot win.  And if we are so unwise as to invite the forces of Islam to coexist with us, on our own soil, then we too, like Europe, will crumble from within.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump reportedly considering Mideast peace conference

statue of liberty

The Case for a ‘Religious Test’ in America

There has been a narrative that there cannot be a “religious test” for public office. This is based upon Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Note that Article IV says “required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” Article VI does not say that citizens cannot establish a personal “religious test” when voting for anyone running for or currently holding public office. Voters do vote their values. This raises the question:

Should there be a religious test, and if so, who should be tested?

Recently Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett ask those visiting his office who are Mohammedans, followers of Mohammad, to fill out a questionnaire. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Adam Soltani asked: “The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others? Does he ask question to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

Mr. Soltani has a valid point, which raises two fundamental questions:

  1. Do elected officials have the right to ask their constituents to take a “religious test” questionnaire before meeting with them?
  2. Do citizens have the same right to present a “religious test” questionnaire to their elected officials?

In the United States there are voters who cast their ballots based upon their beliefs. These beliefs can be political, social and religious. Many argue that these three are inextricably linked. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican, Independent or other, you will vote your values.

So, where do values come from? Answer: Religious beliefs!

The First Amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of speech and to petition their elected representatives.

Religious beliefs are a measure of ones character as Dr. Martin Luther King noted in his “I have a dream” speech. Therefore a religious test is really a test of one’s character and is not only necessary but fundamental to our Constitutional republican form of government.

As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

To help determine the character of citizens and elected officials alike, we have modified the questionnaire used by Representative Bennett and added another to be given to all those who are not Mohammedans.

Please feel free to use them as you wish.

Questions for non-Mohammedans

  1. The the Book of Genesis states: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Do you agree with this?
  2. “You shall have no other gods before me.” Do you agree with this? If not what God do you worship?
  3. “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Do you agree with this? Do you bow down to false images?
  4. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Do you agree with this?
  5. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Do you agree with this?
  6. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.” Do you agree with this?
  7. “You shall not murder.” Do you agree with this?
  8. “You shall not commit adultery.” Do you agree with this? Have you ever committed adultery?
  9. “You shall not steal.” Do you agree with this? Have you ever stolen?
  10. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” Do you agree with this? Have you lied?
  11. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Do you agree with this? Have you coveted?

Questions for Mohammedans

  1. The Sunna of Mohammed says that Muslims must be punished for leaving Islam. Do you agree with this?
  2. Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?
  3. Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive Kafirs to advance Islam. The Koran has over 90 versus that say Mohammed is the perfect example for Muslims to follow. Do you follow the perfect example of Mohammed? Have you deceived a Kafir?
  4. The Koran, the Sunna of Mohammed and Shariah Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?
  5. Shariah law says that if must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?
  6. I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at the age of 49, married a 6-year old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?
  7. In December 1948, the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the most important values of Western Civilization such as freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of conscience, equality of religions, and equality of men and women. It is a fact that not a single one of the 57 Muslim countries has accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, all of the Muslim countries signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which makes Islam superior to all other religions, and which explicitly makes shariah Law, the only source of human rights. What, exactly, is it about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which shariah law finds unacceptable?
  8. The Koran says: The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101). The Koran also says that unbelievers are the “vilest of all creatures” (96:8) and “worst of animals” (8:55). What hope is there of coexistence when Mohammed teaches practicing Muslim to have this attitude toward non-Muslims?
  9. A fundamental principle of Christianity and Judaism is the “Golden Rule” which says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet, the Koran says: “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (48:29) With this attitude, how can orthodox followers of Mohammed possibly co-exist with non-Muslims?

RELATED ARTICLE: The Eighth Deadly Sin

Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century

PODCAST: Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century

Listen to this March 9, 2017 Israel News Talk Radio –Beyond the Matrix program with co-hosts Ira Michaelson and Rod Bryant. They were joined by their frequent new co-host Jerry Gordon, a senior editor of the New English Review, to discuss the issue of the rise of anti-Semitism around the world. In light of the recent desecration of Jewish cemeteries and the threats against Jewish Community Centers across America, one has to wonder if these are isolated events, or a picture of things to come.

Ira read some of the bizarre tweets and a string of 8 Jewish Community Centers (JCCs) CC hate calls by alleged suspect Juan Thompson, the fake news artist fired by lefty on-line publication, The Intercept. He was trying to say that his white gal friend was the perpetrator of the anti-Semitic calls to those JCCs.  He was arrested by the FBI in St. Louis and could face up a sentence of up to five years upon conviction at a trial in the Brooklyn Eastern Federal District court in New York.

As to the balance of those 120 JCC hoax bombing calls, we spoke of who might be the source of the robo calls from offshore that might surprise you. Moreover, we asked why it took the FBI and the Justice department nearly two months before they cranked up an investigation.

We talked about why Ms. Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn born American of Palestinian origins, an item in yesterday’s  International  Women Strike protest rally in New York,  and other Muslims  raising  hundreds of thousands of funds for repair and replacement of tombstones in those desecrated Jewish cemeteries in St. Louis, Philadelphia and Brooklyn. That perhaps it was not so much an act of humanity, but rather Islamic taqiyya as they may be fearful the Trump Administration might ban Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups. After all Sarsour is virulently anti-Israel, believes that Sharia is ‘great’ and that Israelis are “white Supremacists” oppressing Blacks and Palestinians. Then ask her about her relatives raising funds for Hamas.

Ira and Rod commiserated about good Israel- supporting Muslims that they have had on the program. I referenced chaver Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser, Canadian Raheel Raza and American journalist and author Asra Nomani as leader of the international Muslim Reform Movement. They all oppose political Islam, Sharia, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates here in North America. I pointed out that Asra Nomani was the colleague of the late Danny Pearl, who disappeared in Lahore, Pakistan in October 2002, only to be slaughtered by the infamous 9/11 mastermind, Khaled Sheik Mohammed. Nomani led a team of volunteer students at Georgetown University in DC who identified the perpetrators of Pearl’s murder.

Note in particular the discussion about encounters with US Customs and Border Protection agents by Israeli Rabbi Moshe Dror Cassuto and his wife and Ira Michaelson passing through JFK to Rome and hence to Israel on their recent world tour. Ira was amazed at how Muslim women in full Burqas with slits for eyes were cleared by the CBP, and this was after the temporary lifting of the travel ban.

Then there was the fabulous reminiscence by Ira of a fabled Bush I White House friend of Ira’s during Bush I who became an Evangelical Christian Zionist. But we also discussed FBI anti-Semitism during Bush II when then Counterterrorism Assistant Director was looking for an Israeli ‘mole’ besides Jonathan Pollard. Lest we forget the FBI and some other members of the Intel Community would hire qualified Jewish Arabic and Farsi speakers after 9/11.

Then there is the question whether the anti-Semitic ‘deep state’ at both State and the CIA state remain despite the Trump Administration support for Israel. Witness anti -Israel Pentagon Secretary Mattis and his recent hire, former Obama State Department Bureau of Near East Assistant Secretary and Ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson.

Steve Cioccolanti & Discover Ministries

The TRUTH about the Muslim Immigration BAN

This video by Steve Cioccolanti & Discover Ministries explains why Christians have a Biblical role to deal with real world issues, such as media lies and America’s policies toward Islam.

Pastors, priests and rabbis have a duty to expose the truth as does Steve Cioccolanti.

Gold-star father Khizr Khan, father of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed in 2004 in Iraq, takes part in a discussion panel on the Muslim and Refugee ban in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., February 2, 2017.    REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque - RTX2ZDBY

KHAN JOB? Khizr Khan claims his ‘travel privileges are being reviewed’

Khizr Khan first rose to national prominence when he verbally attacked Donald Trump during the Democratic National Convention stating that Trump had sacrificed nothing and questioned whether Trump had ever read the Constitution.  We will discuss the Constitution at the conclusion of my commentary.

Khan is a Harvard educated lawyer whose son Humayun Khan, a captain in the U.S. Army died in Iraq in 2004.  He had graduated from the University of Virginia.

Khizr Khan has accused President Trump of discriminating against Muslims and once again, made headlines when Ramsay Talks, the speakers bureau who purportedly had arranged a speaking engagement in Toronto for Khan, posted a notice that a March 7 speaking event was cancelled blaming a purported notification that his “travel privileges are being reviewed”:

Khizr Khan Event Cancellation:

Late Sunday evening Khizr Khan, an American citizen for over 30 years, was notified that his travel privileges are being reviewed.  As a consequence, Mr. Khan will not be traveling to Toronto on March 7th to speak about tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law.  Very regretfully, Ramsay Talks must cancel its luncheon with Mr. Khan.

Guests will be given full refunds.

Mr. Khan offered his sincere apologies to all those who made plans to attend on March 7th.  He said:  “This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all omg fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad.  I have not been given any reason as to why.  I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.

On March 6, 2017 Politico reported, Khizr Khan claims travel privileges under review, noting in part:

Khan said in a statement that he was confused about why his travel status changed, without explaining in detail the circumstance.

“This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad,” Khan said. “I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.”

It’s not clear exactly what Ramsay Talks meant by “traveling privileges,” and the group did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Khan.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, citing privacy issues, declined to discuss Khan specifically but appeared to dispute the report, telling POLITICO that CBP doesn’t contact travelers in advance of their travel abroad.

“With respect to Global Entry or trusted traveler membership, CBP’s engagement is about the status of membership in the program, not any particular travel itself,” the official said. “Of course, any U.S. citizen with a passport may travel without trusted traveler status. All individuals are subject to inspection departing or upon arrival to the United States.”

On March 7, 2017 the Washington Post reported, Khizr Khan’s claim that the U.S. is restricting his travel may be unraveling.

In rushing to report on this, the media ignored the laws that address the issuance of passports to U.S. citizens and the admission of U.S. citizens seeking to enter the United States.  Apparently

the overwhelming visceral urge to attack the U.S. government under the Trump administration was apparently too great for the journalists to take a breath and do their homework.

American citizens who possess a valid passport or equivalent travel document do not require the permission of the United States government to travel outside the United States.  The only time that any such restriction might be imposed is if a citizen of the United States has been convicted of certain crimes or is being prosecuted for allegedly committing serious crime(s) and a court has required that such a citizen surrenders his/her passport to prevent international flight to evade prosecution.

Federal law established the grounds by which a U.S. citizen would be denied a passport.  Generally convicted felons may be issued a passport but citizens convicted of certain crimes international drug trafficking may be ineligible.  The section of law that relates to such situations is, 22 U.S. Code § 2714 – Denial of passports to certain convicted drug traffickers.

As for United States citizens returning to the United States, two documents are worth considering because they provide verification of a fundamental fact, American citizens may never be barred from reentering the United States under any conditions, whatsoever.

The official website of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provides information about the Immigration Inspection Program and includes the following excerpt:

Individuals seeking entry into the United States are inspected at Ports of Entry (POEs) by CBP officers who determine their admissibility. The inspection process includes all work performed in connection with the entry of aliens and United States citizens into the United States, including preinspection performed by the Immigration Inspectors outside the United States.

“An officer is responsible for determining the nationality and identity of each applicant for admission and for preventing the entry of ineligible aliens, including criminals, terrorists, and drug traffickers, among others. U.S. citizens are automatically admitted upon verification of citizenship; aliens are questioned and their documents are examined to determine admissibility based on the requirements of the U.S. immigration law.”

Next we should consider that Section 12.1 (Inspection of U.S. Citizens) contained in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspector’s Field Manual:

12.1 Inspection of U.S. Citizens.

When you are convinced that an applicant for admission is a citizen of the United States, the examination is terminated. This is not to say that your role as an inspector is always completed at that time. Listing of the subject in a lookout system may dictate further action, such as notifying Customs or another agency of the person’s entry.

It must be emphasized that the grounds of inadmissibility contained in 212(a) of the INA are applicable only to aliens. Consequently, the examination of a person claiming to be a United States citizen is limited to matters required to establish present citizenship. Once you are satisfied the person being examined is a U.S. citizen and any required lookout query has been completed, the examination is over.

The only question the remains is why Kahn would make these claims.  Were there not enough customers willing to pay to hear him speak about “tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law?”

Was he convinced that the sequel to his appearance at the Democratic Convention where he launched an attack on Donald Trump might propel him into a politically prominent role in the Democratic Party?

Was he seeking to create the illusion that the United States has turned into a police state and Americans had lost their freedoms under the month-old Trump administration?

Whatever his motivation, it is clear that Mr. Kahn is hardly eager to promote “tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law.”

The death of Kahn’s son is a tragedy and he must be remembered as a hero who died defending our nation.  But Mr. Kahn needs to understand that by creating a false claim about some contrived review of his “travel privileges” does not honor his son’s memory and certainly does not help to bring all Americans together but is divisive- perhaps intentionally divisive.

It is likely that Khizr Khan and his wife legally immigrated to the United States, to obviously pursue his dreams and apparently prospered as a result.

Mr. Khan is certainly right about the Constitution guarantees of equal protection under the law, but also includes

Article IV, Section 4, to wit:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of terrorists operating in the United States in a series of deadly attacks carried out by radical Islamists who most often entered the United States through ports of entry.

The measures that Donald Trump called for in his campaign and in his subsequent executive orders, including “extreme vetting” have been consistent with the demands of the Constitution and with the findings and recommendations published in The 9/11 Commission Report and the official report “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

A section worth reviewing found in the latter report, Terrorist Entry and Embedding Tactics, 1993 to 2001 begins with the following paragraph:

The relative ease with which the hijackers obtained visas and entered the United States underscores the importance of travel to their terrorist operations. In this section we explore the evolution of terrorist travel tactics and organization. We begin with terrorist plots in the 1990s and conclude with the 9/11 attack.

3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot includes the following:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports. In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

interview Dr. Walid Phares

Middle East Strategic Issues Facing the Trump Administration

Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares, Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser and Fox News National Security and Foreign Policy Expert.

Dr. Walid Phares was the Middle East and Foreign Affairs consultant to the Trump Campaign and national security and foreign policy expert at Fox News.  Among his extensive published noteworthy works are the acclaimed best selling 2006 book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and the 2014 The Lost Spring: US Policy: in the Middle East and Catastrophes to Avoid.  He is currently under consideration by the Trump Administration for a possible post at the US State Department. We were afforded an opportunity to interview him on a wide range of Middle East issues facing the Trump Administration on Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio 1330 AM WEBY.  The program aired February 20, 2017.

Among Middle East policy issues addressed by Dr. Phares during the interview were

  • The rise of a new Mid East Security alliance known as the Arab NATO composed of the Gulf Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan; Egypt with outreach to Israel to combat the rising regional and global hegemony of a nuclear ICBM equipped Iran.
  • Possible initiatives to contain Iran Middle East and Global geo-political objectives following the JCPOA and release of over $150 billion in sequestered funds used to acquire and develop nuclear weapons and Nuclear ICBMs threatening the Middle East, Europe and ultimately the US.
  •  Creation of  autonomous  safe zones  within the framework of a post-Assad federal  Syria for ethnic/religious groups in Syria including Kurds, Alawites, Druze and Sunni Muslims;
  • Withdrawal of all foreign forces including Iran and  proxy Hezbollah; Islamist terrorist groups, Turkey, defeat of ISIS by US –led coalition forces;
  • End of the 27 year regime of indicted war criminal Sudan President Bashir to end Jihad  genocide of indigenous populations in Darfur, Nuba Mountains, South Kordofan  a threat to the Sahel region of Africa
  • Possible Administration adoption of both domestic and international Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designations.

What follows is the transcript of the interview with Dr. Phares.

Mike Bates:                Good afternoon welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. Middle East roundtable discussion time. With me in the studio Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog “The Iconoclast”, welcome Jerry.

Jerry Gordon:            Glad to be back Mike.

Bates:            You can find Jerry at www.newenglishreview.org.  Joining us by telephone is Dr. Walid Phares, Middle East and Foreign Affairs Consultant to the Trump campaign and expert foreign policy contributor to Fox News.  Dr. Phares, welcome.

Walid Phares: Thank you for having me gentlemen.

Bates:              Dr. Phares is also the author of the books The Lost Spring. U.S. Policy in the Middle East and Catastrophes to Avoid” and the bestselling book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. You can find Dr. Phares at www.walidphares.com.

Gordon:          Walid there has been a flurry of interest in the media recently about the formation of a regional national security group that would involve the Sunni monarchies, Emirates and even possibly Israel. You have been a proponent of something like that for a while. Why don’t you give us your views and an update?

Phares:           Yes indeed. Basically the idea is about forming an Arab military alliance. I have called it seven years ago in an article on al-arabiya.com in 2010, the Arab NATO. Originally the idea before the Arab Spring erupted was to put together the resources of Arab governments’ counter-terrorism forces to fight at the time Al Qaeda. Then the Iranian regime started to become very active in Yemen and of course it has Hezbollah in Lebanon. Since the Arab Spring all these civil wars created an unstable area in the region. The idea travelled through briefings before Congress and at the European Parliament. Many quarters in the region were talking about it. It became a strong idea over the past year, especially after the U.S. election of Donald Trump as President. During the election campaign, he met with Egyptian President El-Sisi in September 2016. After the election he communicated with a number of Arab leaders including with Sheikh Mohammed of the UAE, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, the King of Bahrain, the Tunisian President, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, and after inauguration he met with King Abdallah of Jordan and with important players in the region. He will soon be meeting again with President Sisi as he already met with the Prime Minister of Israel. The idea is to build mostly an Arab alliance which means those countries described as moderates who face not just Al Qaeda and ISIS but also the Muslim Brotherhood. Three of these countries have put the Brotherhood on their list of terrorist or extremist entities. Then you have the Iranian Islamic Republic threatening Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The project is now being discussed among these players. There are lots of tensions with some of these countries on other issues. However, they are coming to the conclusion that they need a joint force to confront radical Islamic terror.

The question with regard to Israel is different. At this point in time and after the Iranian expansion in the region and the war against ISIS, some of these countries, Egypt, Jordan and to a certain extent the Gulf Cooperation Council members are talking to the Israelis. In certain areas of the region, such as the Sinai and Southern Syria, there is coordination between Israel, Egypt and Jordan which has been facilitated via Camp David and the other peace agreements. However, never have we seen an Arab military alliance forming; especially when Iran is progressing with development of its own missile force. Iran has fired missiles at Mecca, against United States Naval vessels. So the proposal for a regional Arab military force is building momentum to push forward. The coordination with Israel is going to come when the Trump administration will be able to reignite discussions between these countries and Israel with regard to security arrangements in the region to make sure that the threats of ISIS and the Iranian regime are dealt with.

Gordon:          There have been missile tests which are said to violate the JCPOA agreement. What is the status of Iran’s compliance with their end of the deal that was brokered with Barack Obama and the P5 Nations? What is the threat from the Iranian regime?

Phares:           There are two kinds of threats I mentioned in my 2014 book The Lost Spring and in later briefings and hearings before Congress and with European lawmakers.  Number one, it’s about non-implementing the Iran nuclear deal. They are actually not shutting down their program and there has been a lot are reporting about this.

Second they are developing long range and medium range missiles. These missiles are not designed to deliver conventional pay loads. These are missiles that would have nuclear, chemical or biological warheads. The range of some of these missiles can reach the Gulf Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Egypt. Some of the missiles they are developing are able to reach Europe and may soon be able to reach the across the Atlantic. So this is a very serious threat.

In my writings I call this the dome. Israel has the Iron Dome to defend against rockets and missiles coming from Hamas or from Hezbollah. What the Iranians are doing is establishing a ‘superdome’ that would be equipped with anti-aircraft and very advanced missiles purchased from Russia with the Iran nuclear deal money. Under that superdome they are developing everything in their armed forces: their tanks, missiles, communications and radars. Any geopolitical expert will tell you Iran is not just involved in warfare in Iraq, although they have their militia there. The commander of the Iranian Qods Force Suleimani is always there. In Syria they are virtually in control of the Assad regime. In Lebanon they have Hezbollah. In Yemen they are basically the partners of the Houthi militia. And Iran is doing something else, basically sending threatening messages to our partners in the region. Threatening messages against Israel? All the time. However, it is sending threatening messages against the UAE, Bahrain, and the Saudis. Recently they even signified that they will be acting in the Bab-al-Mandab at the mouth of the Red Sea, which commands access to the Suez Canal.

All this was done under the Obama administration which allowed the Iranians to develop the expansion of its “superdome.” Regarding the Iranian expansion, the Trump administration is sending a signal back to Tehran that we are watching these developments. The question is how the Iranian regime would respond to Washington when it says it has had enough – these are red lines and we are not going to permit your expansion any further.

Bates:              In terms of the nuclear agreement under the Obama administration it was very front-loaded for Iran and very back loaded for the United States. Iran got all their money up front without really having to do anything. They made a promise to comply while they received all that they wanted up front. We expected them to not continue developing their nuclear weapons program, while it seems like they are really proceeding to achieve that objective anyway. Given that background I have two questions. One, is there any possibility of re-imposing sanctions and two, what would be the point since Iran has received what they wanted, already?

Phares:           That is a great question. Indeed, the fact that we have just transferred a lot of money to the Iranian regime which they have used to purchase the equipment. They are not using those funds to support the people of Iran. They are using it for the comfort of the elite of the regime and to equip themselves with a deterrent despite our having released those funds. This is the tip of the iceberg. The hundred and fifty billion dollars is only the beginning. By opening up the Iranian market, by lifting up some of the sanctions and opening the market from Europe and other parts of the world, the hope was this would have a positive effect on the Iranian regime. Because we cannot control it, can we reinforce sanctions? Yes. President Trump can cancel previous executive orders; however, he would need to have Congress pass new sanctions.

What we need in America is a new joint strategic approach towards the Iranian regime. We have an opportunity for the next two years to achieve that. This should be initiated during the next six months. We need to signify that to our allies in Europe. That is why the recent trip by Vice President Pence to the Munich Security Conference sent an important message. We need to assure that the Europeans are not doing something else while we are putting sanctions in place, while at the same time they are doing business with Iran. We need to communicate that through the foreign policy pundits here in the US and abroad. At the same time, the new Administration is working with Israelis on intelligence coordination with pro-American members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. We need to work more with Jordan and the Egyptians. I think we can reverse the Obama policy. However, we also need to send a strong message to the Russians when President Trump meets with President Putin that while we can work together on fighting the Jihadists, the Islamic State and al Qaeda. On the other hand we must tell them that we have serious problems with the Iranian regime and they need to recognize that situation.

Bates:              Assuming that President Trump was to reverse executive orders by President Obama and re-impose some U.S. sanctions on Iran, what would be the effect on US firms interested in opening the Iranian market? Other than Boeing, the United States really isn’t doing a whole lot of business with Iran, while the rest of the world is. Can’t Iran really live without us anyway?

Phares:           Yes, we have the contract with Boeing and then we have a long line of American businesses waiting to do business with Iran. We have stopped not just the contracts under consideration but also many US companies mobilized by the Iranian regime to do business there. Don’t underestimate when a U.S. decision is made public what would happen in other parts of the world. There are many Europeans who will start to calm down and are not going to do business with Tehran. I am not saying all Europeans will follow our lead. Germany under Chancellor Merkel will continue but others may not. The Arab economic and political power of the region will be strengthened by our making those decisions. Moreover, the ripple effect of such Presidential executive orders could go as far as East Asia. Iran has achieved tremendous economic openings, because of the Obama policy, with South Korea, Japan and others. These are our partners in the region who have a common problem with North Korea. Their choice will be: should they risk their relationship with the U.S. now that we have this problem with North Korea and do some business with Iran? I would not underestimate a change in U.S. policy towards Iran, even if we cannot control that change with our partners. They will understand that they would have to rearrange their policies.

Gordon:          Syria is foremost in the minds of people trying to find a resolution to nearly six and a half years of a bloody civil war hemorrhaging refugees involving Iran its proxy Hezbollah, the Russians, Turkey, Kurds and others. You have written about this. You have actually been ahead of the pack on this. What are your thoughts and suggestions about what to do?

Phares:           Let’s address Syria. What we should not see in the Syria resolution is for Assad, Hezbollah and Iran to take back all of Syria and to transform it into an anti-American, anti-Western, anti-moderate entity. On the other hand, we don’t want to see the Jihadists, Al Qaeda, ISIS or Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations take over Syria, bring down Assad and create an Emirate or Caliphate. Everything in between can be looked at as possible solutions. But these are the two “no’s.”

What has happened in Syria over the past six years is a new set of geopolitical realities. One of these realities is that there is a consensus worldwide that ISIS should disappear. Most of ISIS areas are in western Syria. Therefore the forces operating in the northwest of Syria are the Kurds and Arab Sunni in the south. The first recommendation would be to have the US-led coalition establish safe zones. To create those safe zones you are going to have to dismantle ISIS and create this coalition. With regard to the Assad regime, for now it is protected by the Russians. There needs to be a discussion between the President of the United States and President of Russia to solve that issue.

More importantly, the issue is what is going to be the future of Syria? My answer is that I cannot imagine a Syria which won’t be federal, which won’t give the Kurds autonomy. I’m not addressing who will rule that autonomy, but the principle should be having a Kurdish community with its own autonomy. Every other community in Syria may have its own version of autonomy for the Alawites, the Druze, the Christians and Sunni Arabs. They should be enabled to rule their own areas. Of course we will back the moderates across that federation. However, that seems to be the healthiest geopolitical solution for Syria.

Gordon           You have written extensively about the problems of Jihadism and the Sudan, which has been a state sponsor of terrorism. After the election of President Trump you reached out to a number of émigrés, particularly from the Nuba community here in the US. Why is the Sudan a clear and present geo-political danger under President Bashir to the Sahel region of Africa?

Phares:           Realize that Sudan has been having these problems, not just during the last six months. We are talking about nearly thirty years since 1989 while an outspoken Jihadi regime has committed genocide first against the south that established its own independent Republic in 2011 and which still has its own its own problems. Then there is genocide perpetrated by the same regime that has been sanctioned by the International Criminal Court. Bashir’s Jihadist militia ravaged Darfur, in the west the Abyei people in the east, the Nubian community in the north and the Nuba people in the south of the Islamic Republic of Sudan. It seems to me that the international community and U.S. effort should concentrate on making a change in Sudan because this regime has been backing Jihadists perpetrating these collective atrocities. There needs to be a regime change. Unfortunately, the Obama administration just before leaving office lifted some U.S. and U.S. backed UN sanctions against the Bashir regime. What Washington should do under the Trump administration with the help of Congress is to put back those sanctions but also develop a coherent Sudan policy. We don’t have one now.  We need to speak with the communities inside Sudan and figure out what is their desire for the future.

Bates:              Dr. Phares what is the current status of the Muslim Brotherhood vis-a-vis the U.S. State Department and are you expecting any changes under the Trump Administration?

Phares:           Under the Obama administration there was no change in terms of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the opposite. The Muslim Brotherhood was seen as partners within our own homeland. Their NGO’s or fronts across the United States have participated in the activities of various departments of the U.S. Government. a number of Congressional members have denounced the Brotherhood in briefings and hearings but nothing has happened. The Brotherhood was able to have an influence at the State Department and other parts of the Obama administration in terms of our policy towards Egypt. We actually backed the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. We backed Ennahda of Tunisia which is a cousin of the Brotherhood. We backed Brotherhood factions in Libya and across the region. Now this has to change under the Trump administration. President Trump mentioned them in his speeches, as did both Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Mattis.

Bates:              Do you expect the President to change that?

Phares:           I expect it to change but it’s going to take longer than our current expectations.

Bates:              Dr. Walid Phares thanks for joining this discussion. You can find Dr. Phares at: www.walidphares.com.

Phares:           Thank you for inviting me.

A massive crowd estimated by police to be upwards of 100,000 people rally in solidarity with the Women's March on Washington as part of a global protest against the presidency of Donald Trump in Los Angeles on January 21, 2017.   Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI

Meet the Antisemitic Terrorist Leading #DayWithoutAWoman

In the New York Post column “Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march” Kyle Smith reports:

Instead of milling around Washington, organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.

The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes. She then managed to become a US citizen in 2004 by lying about her past (great detective work, INS: Next time, use Google) but was subsequently convicted, in 2014, of immigration fraud for the falsehoods. However, she won the right to a new trial (set for this spring) by claiming she had been suffering from PTSD at the time she lied on her application. Oh, and in her time as a citizen, she worked for a while as an ObamaCare navigator.

Rasmea Yousef Odeh. Photo: AP

You can see why she’s a hero to the left. Another co-author, Angela Davis, is a Stalinist professor and longtime supporter of the Black Panthers. Davis is best known for being acquitted in a 1972 trial after three guns she bought were used in a courtroom shootout that resulted in the death of a judge. She celebrated by going to Cuba.

A third co-author, Tithi Bhattacharya, praised Maoism in an essay for the International Socialist Review, noting that Maoists are “on the terrorist list of the US State Department, Canada, and the European Union,” which she called an indication that “Maoists are back in the news and by all accounts they are fighting against all the right people.” You know you’re dealing with extremism when someone admits to hating Canada.

Read more…

World Jewish Daily reports:

The lead organization behind the upcoming “International Women’s Strike” has called for the destruction of Israel and embraced a Palestinian terrorist as one of its leaders.

According to the Algemeiner, the organization behind the proposed “strike” issued a manifesto calling for “the decolonization of Palestine,” a euphemism for the genocidal desire to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

It declares this racist goal “the beating heart of this new feminist movement” and states, “We want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.”

In addition, one of the movement’s most prominent organizers is the antisemitic, racist Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who spent over a decade in an Israeli prison for murdering two Israelis in a pair of terrorist attacks.

Odeh has been charged with lying on her citizenship application by denying her terrorist history.

Indivisible North Coast Oregon (INCO) posted the following on its website:

MARCH 8 Women’s Strike and Postcard Party

From the Women’s March Instagram post:

In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day Without A Woman. We ask: do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities? Do they strive for gender equity or do they support the policies and leaders that perpetuate oppression? Do they align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children? We saw what happened when millions of us stood together in January, and now we know that our army of love greatly outnumbers the army of fear, greed and hatred. On March 8th, International Women’s Day, let’s unite again in our communities for A Day Without A Woman. Over the next few weeks we will be sharing more information on what actions on that day can look like for you. #DayWithoutAWoman #WomensMarch

Read more…

Regarding Indivisible and the Women’s March, Politico reported:

Indivisible is also embracing collaboration with other major anti-Trump protest outlets. Leaders of the group were in communication with Women’s March organizers before their main event on Jan. 21, and that partnership will become official when the March unveils the third in its series of 10 direct actions that attendees have been asked to pursue in their communities.

Obama, Organizing for Action, Indivisible, Women’s March and Day Without A Woman are all part of the same anarchist movement called “resist.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘A Day Without a Woman’ Strike Promotes the Liberal Idea that Women are Helpless

Jewish Students Counter Anti-Zionist Rhetoric at Columbia University

communism3

U.S. Catholic Bishops promise to ‘disrupt’ President Trump

In January 2016 The Vortex reported on Communists infiltrating the Catholic Church. The Church Militant’s Michael Voris reported:

During the early years of Communism in the 1920s and 30s, the evil was being spread worldwide as the Blessed Mother had predicted at Fatima in 1917. Communist parties were being formed in various European countries and in American cities as well. They were already attempting to upset the political and cultural order.

alice_von_hildebrand-255x362

Alice von Hildebrand

But what only a very small number of people knew was that the top dogs of Communism had already released the hounds on the Church. The carefully organized plan was to recruit young men who were loyal Communists and get them placed in seminaries. This was carried out by various agents during the 1920s and 30s.

Fast forward 30 years to the 1960s, and the fruits were beginning to be seen. Learned, dedicated, faithful men and women in the Church were looking around and fretting, not sure from what framework they should understand the demolition of the Faith they were witnessing. At one point, Pope Paul VI even said that it appeared the Church was in auto-demolition.

One of those deeply distressed was a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, the brilliant theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand. He and his wife Alice were sitting down one day with a friend, a woman by the name of Bella Dodd. Bella Dodd had been received back into the Catholic Church by Abp. Fulton Sheen in April of 1952.

Read more.

VIDEO: The Vortex—Trump and Catholics

In the Life Site News article “These US Catholic bishops promise to ‘disrupt’ Trump” John Zmirak reports:

…Cardinal Peter Turkson and twenty-four American Catholic bishops have recently endorsed a political program that is dangerous, unbiblical, un-Catholic and uncharitable. In fact it is soaked in ideological rage, and explicitly aligns itself with the anti-Trump movements to “disrupt” the president’s enforcement of U.S. law. At least one of the bishops present, Robert McElroy of San Diego, has promised that the church he controls will actively help flout U.S. immigration laws.

This program was laid out at the First U.S. Regional Meeting of Popular Movements, which happened two weeks ago, and summed up in a manifesto called “Message from Modesto.” That “Meeting” included not just the cardinal and the bishops, but staff from the Vatican department for the Promotion of Integral Human Development and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development [CCHD].

The CCHD is the organization that radical Saul Alinsky personally helped left-wing Catholics to design, as the exposé A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing documents. The Chicago branch of the CCHD, with the approval of then Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, cut the check that sent the young Barack Obama to his first Saul Alinsky “community organizing” school.

Another group that took part in the “Meeting”  was PICO, the Latin American far-left organization that used George Soros’ money  to spin Pope Francis’ 2015 U.S. visit as a boost to Democrats in the 2016 election.

Read more…

Zmirak lists five proposals made by these 25 Catholic bishops, the first being, “We urge every faith community, including every Catholic parish, to declare themselves a sanctuary for people facing deportation …. All cities, counties and states should adopt policies that get ICE out of our schools, courts and jails, stop handing over people to ICE…”

The Holy Bible says:

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”

These bishops are welcome to their personal views on President Trump and the federal laws dealing with immigration and refugee resettlement. But they are not ordained to deny the word of God.

Please watch this excerpt of the interview with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Coup Against Trump

Politics and Pope Francis: What is the role of the Catholic Church and the State?

clint pussy quote

VIDEO: The Slaughter of the Sissys

Manhood is on the decline in America. What is going to happen when the patriotic seniors are gone?

RELATED ARTICLES:

The War Against Boys

Lost Voices in the Transgender Debate: Liberals and Conservatives Unite

Disney Continues Its Culture War on the Family

The Texas Privacy Act (Bathroom Bill) is about Public Safety

Russia bans children from seeing Beauty and the Beast

Ivy League Student said He Can’t Go to Class since His Professor Won’t Acknowledge White Privilege

woman crying

ANSWERING FACEBOOK: Playing Dodgeball with Abortion Realities

The abortion debate inevitably travels in the same issue-avoiding circles. I was recently on an ABC panel debating the courts blocking Florida’s 24-hour wait period for a woman to get an abortion after receiving counseling, providing time for her to weigh more information into her life-and-death decision.

Naturally enough, it devolved into a debate on abortion — as it always should. I was debating a pro-choice feminist and board member of the ACLU. And a friend. Our debate was feisty but civil — an important goal.

However, the debate continued on Facebook, where it became decidedly less civil. One of the great canards thrown at me all the time is that I cannot have an opinion on this because I am a man. This is so easily cut down and burned that there is never a response to my point. It’s just reiterated that I can’t. I’m male.

What this and so much of the rest of abortion debate dodgeball suggest is that rational thought, morals and, more than ever, science, make the pro-choice position completely indefensible. There is simply no way to defend a woman’s “right” to end the life of another human being for any reason she chooses, at any point in the pregnancy she chooses.

Canards flying everywhere

Hence we have the dodgeball arguments that this is a “choice”; that this is about “reproductive health rights”; that this is about “health care”; that a man cannot have an opinion.

No, the first and central issue is whether that which is in the womb is a human being with rights inherent as a human being. Most people actually see that is the case, at least after a month or two. Science gives us evidence with brain waves, heartbeats and in-womb pictures.

So when I make these points, they are really never refuted head-on. This is demonstrated with painful clarity in the Facebook debate that followed. It’s linked below.

Here is a sampling from Facebook, from both men and women:

“I watched it last night. I still don’t understand why men think they have a say in women’s health.”

“The next segment should be on prostate health. I’m looking forward to (a woman) expressing her opinion on that.”

“A man’s opinion on a women’s health and body issue is just not on equal footing with (a woman’s), no matter how eloquent and reasonable it may be.”

“What if women were up in arms because of men’s selfish refusal to get vasectomies?? What if we tried to FORCE men to get vasectomies for the safety of women?”

“Another man chimes in, lol.”

FYI, the response that men cannot have an opinion on this is astonishingly faulty thinking. Morals are not gender-dependent. Right and wrong is right and wrong. There is not a different set of rights and wrongs based on gender. It is not morally acceptable for a woman to steal from a man because she is a woman, because *stealing* is wrong. It is not morally acceptable for a man to kill a woman, or another man, because *murder* is wrong. Stealing and murder are wrong independent of which gender is doing it and which gender is considering its morality. In the same way, killing an unborn baby is either morally acceptable or not morally acceptable, independent of which gender is doing it or which gender is considering its morality.

Let’s play abortion dodgeball!

All of this is dodgeball. You see how all of the accusations avoid the central point. I’m convinced most know deep down this is the willful taking of an innocent human life. They know that is not defensible on any moral grounds.

So they play dodge the issue.

  • I throw out “Is it a human life in the womb?” They dodge left with “It’s a woman’s choice!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They dodge right with “It’s about reproductive rights!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They duck with “It’s about healthcare!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They spin sideways with “Pro-lifers don’t care about the life outside the womb!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They slide down with “If pro-lifers really cared about abortions, they would support better sex education!”
  • I throw again “Is it a human life in the womb?” They spin sideways with “You’re a man!”

I throw one last time “Is it a human life in the womb?” And one may finally answer with “No! It’s a clump of cells. Nothing more than a tumor.”

Finally. Someone admits to being a science-denier. But at least we can get on to debate the core issue with all the scientific evidence that it is indeed a measurable human being within weeks. We measure the death of a human with heartbeat and brainwaves. The baby has both of those in six to eight weeks.

That’s it. Dodge the ball of what abortion really is.

None of these remotely approach a defense for a state policy of allowing the willful killing of a human being with inherent rights by another human being for any reason, or no reason.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.