Posts

Muslims at the Hajj are worried about Donald Trump and his policies

…..but, not a word about the responsibility of Muslims to rein-in their terrorist element.

Screenshot (808)

These Hajj Muslims seem to think our concern about Muslim migration is completely lacking in any rational calculation. Don’t miss Raheem Kassam’s good report on Islamic terrorism attacks in ‘welcoming’ Europe and how more Americans need to wake up.  …And, here they are in Saudi Arabia which will never let them stay and become citizens of that Muslim country!

Victims, always victims!

Reuters:

MECCA/RIYADH (Reuters) – Even at Islam’s holiest sites and during the most sacred time of year for Muslims, some people cannot stop talking about Donald Trump.

Among one group of American, Canadian and British pilgrims in Mecca this week for the annual haj, the U.S. president and policies they say target Muslims and immigrants are a regular conversation topic.

“People are irritated, angry, somber, a little bit worried,” said Yasir Qadhi, an Islamic scholar who traveled from Tennessee for his fourteenth pilgrimage.

Haj

“No one that I know is happy at the current circumstances or the current administration. No one, not a single person in this entire gathering.”

As a candidate, Trump proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States. In office, he ordered temporary bans on people from several Muslim-majority countries, which have been blocked by courts that ruled they were discriminatory.

His administration has denied any intention of religious discrimination in the travel ban, saying it is intended purely as a national security measure.

But sharp rhetoric about the threat posed by “radical Islam” which was a central part of his campaign has also drawn accusations he risks alienating more than three million Americans who practise Islam peacefully. [So where are the peaceful Muslims standing up at the Haj to to speak against and discourage the violent ones?—ed]

Many American Muslims say his stance has fueled an atmosphere in which some may feel they can voice prejudices or attack Muslims without fear of retribution.

‘STOP ATTACKING ISLAM’

Reuters apparently didn’t find anyone to speak up against their own terrorist element, but they found this guy!

Baha al-Deen, a pilgrim from ex-Soviet Georgia, said any labeling of Muslims as terrorists should stop.

“God gave us minds and tongues so we can understand each other and talk about our problems,” he said. “Otherwise we will fight like animals.”

Oh, that is going to inspire communication—NOT!

More here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Administration has kept refugee flow relatively low, but real test coming

Here is what the ‘Refugee Act of 1980’ says the President and Congress must do right now…

New Charleston, WV refugee resettlement office will not open

What about America’s own refugees!

Wailing Wall of the West

Temple Mount psychodrama

Act 1 July 14th: three Arab Israelis pick up weapons previously stored by an accomplice in the al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount and gun down two Israeli Druze policemen. Being courageous jihadis, they shoot the policemen in the back. Israeli authorities step in where the Waqf, guardians of the mosques, had failed to exercise due diligence. They bar entry to the Temple Mount, gather evidence, install metal detectors to prevent further killing-this type of crime often comes in waves-and  then reopen the Temple Mount. This normal exercise of Israeli sovereignty provokes violence in Jerusalem and recriminations from Western media onlookers that echo the war cry: Israel is not respecting the status quo. Prime Minister Netanyahu remarks that stashing weapons in the mosque is a violation of the status quo, but chronology loses its bearing whenever Islam is concerned. Steps taken to restore that status quo are presented by Western media and commentators as provocative measures that led naturally to rioting, murderous attacks, and diplomatic aggression.

Thousands of Muslims prostrate themselves outside the gates, defiantly refusing to pass through the metal detectors. In between prayer sessions they unleash their fury on law enforcement, throwing firebombs, firecrackers, allahu akhbars, and threats of extermination. The genocidal war cry khaybar khaybar ya yahud, jaish muhammad sawfa ya’ud! ricochets in the steep narrow lanes of Jerusalem’s old city. We know that tune. It was on the hit parade in the summer of 2014 when our local jihadis stomped through the streets of Paris bellowing khaybar khaybar (“Remember Khaybar [dirty] Jews, Mohamed’s army is coming [to exterminate you] again.”) [cf Poller, The Black Flag of Jihad Stalks la République]

Act 2: our French media, undoubtedly guided and fed by Agence France Presse, report fulminatingly on the distress caused to Muslim worshippers by the installation of metal detectors at entries to l’esplanade des mosquées [mosque compound]. Commentators, never at a loss for words, lock into default position: The problem is the colonies. The problem is far and further right wing Netanyahu, gobbling up Palestinian land, making peace impossible. The problem is, he won’t make a 2-state solution.

N.B. factual mistakes, careless mistakes, incomplete information and sloppy reporting of every sort are the hallmark of news makers. However, honest mistakes are random. Deliberately failing to mention that the two Israeli policemen were shot with weapons smuggled into the al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount is not sloppy reporting. It’s a lie.

The metal detectors become an arbitrary gesture of humiliation and, far worse, they’re one step away from the total destruction of the al Aqsa mosque. Yes, our ladies and gentlemen of respectable media automatically identify with the most bloodthirsty of the ranting raging rioters. They integrate the rage and the rationale. It’s so natural they don’t miss a step. Metal detectors, they’re tearing down the mosque, the Israelis have turned this into a religious war,au secours, help! What about the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Israel and the disputed territories that are not chanting khaybar khaybar kill the Jews? Enlightened Muslims publish op-eds denouncing the counterproductive uprising fueled by Islamic extremists. Our opinion makers don’t seem to be aware of their existence. Seventeen years since the al Dura blood libel triggered an unending wave of atrocities, the sky is still falling, the mosque is in danger, and kill the Jews seems like a reasonable response to a few metal detectors.

Muhammad’s army strikes Halamish

Act 3: another brave warrior girds for battle. Dressed like an Orthodox Jew, white shirt, black trousers, kippa…and a butcher knife, he deftly climbs over the barrier (we don’t know exactly how), enters the Jewish neighborhood of Halamish, and knocks on the door of the first house he comes to. The Salomon family, gathered around the shabat table, is celebrating the birth of a grandchild hat very morning. They open the door, thinking the young man is the first of many guests that will come to share their joy of fruitfully multiplying, of new life and renewed generations. He pulls out the knife and slaughters the grandfather, his adult daughter and adult son. The grandmother is stabbed but survives. The daughter-in-law runs upstairs, takes refuge in a bedroom with her five children and, holding the door closed with all her might, calls for help. An off duty soldier next door comes out, sees what is happening, shoots the killer, ending his spree but not his life.

We learn subsequently that the soldier did not shoot twice because the wounded murderer fell next to   Yosef Salamon whose wife Tova had been the soldier’s kindergarten teacher.

Slash tag interlude: in nearby Amman, in the kingdom of Jordan, holy seat of the negligent Waqf, a young man delivering furniture to a residence in the Israeli embassy compound deliberately (or mistakenly…taking him for a piece of wood) stabs the security guard in the back with a screwdriver. The security guard shoots him dead. The owner of the building who had accompanied the delivery boy-reportedly the son of the furniture store owner-is apparently stuck dead by a stray bullet. So, of course, the royal Jordanian kingdom refuses to allow the security guard and other embassy personnel to leave his realm. Sticklers for international law, ready to set the world on fire if the status quo on their third holiest site is not respected, the Jordanians don’t only insist on the right to let Muslims store weapons in the mosque, they also trample diplomatic protocol like it was an Israeli flag at the feet of raging allahu akhbars. And of course they are raging all around the Israeli embassy.

The voice of reason strikes again

Act 4: A closed door emergency session of the UNSC is convened at the request of France, Sweden, and Egypt-three nations internationally known for their expertise in preventing jihad attacks and other subversive actions. The voices of reason prevail. What do they say? From this day forward, visitors to the Temple Mount will wear electronic bracelets, as do pilgrims to Mecca? Or perhaps, ceasefire first, negotiations afterward? Pull back your mob from the gates, apologize for allowing killers to store weapons in the Al Aqsa mosque, and then we can talk. The president of the United States brings the full force of his power to bear? True, the American embassy has not made one step off the Tel Aviv beachfront on its way to Jerusalem but never mind. The time has come to apply the directives outlined in President Trump’s May 22nd speech to sheiks, princes, kings and prime ministers assembled in Riyadh. What was the theme again? Oh yes, to fight terrorism.

Hah! The voices of reason prevailed. Israeli police under cover of the night dismantled the offensive metal detectors. An international sigh of relief and a friendly pat on the back to the Israelis for these tension- reducing measures. The liberated embassy staff comes home from Jordan. Smiles and thanks to the American president’s men, Greenblatt, Freeman, and Kushner without whom, it is publicly said, the metal detectors would not have come down and the embassy staff would not have come home and the tensions would not have been reduced.

Which is why the Temple Mount temper tantrum kept going strong. The high tech surveillance cameras had to come down too, but that didn’t prevent the war drums of street prayers interlaced with wild mob action to persist and grow with promises of another day of rage on Friday the 28th. The ummah was beside itself. Worldwide. An imam in Davis California, caught by MEMRI giving a classical exterminate-the-Jews sermon complete with the rock & tree surah protests his innocence: he was only referring to the Jews that prevent Muslims from praying at the al Aqsa mosque.

A day of rage is circled on the calendar when the mufti, the imam, Mahmoud Abbas, and King Abdullah suddenly tell worshippers they can go back to pray in their mosque on the Temple Mount that they now call al Aqsa. Not just the mosque, the whole Temple Mount, jihadistically expropriated, with the help of the willing executioners of UNESCO. Rage mixes with joy as Muhmmad’s army celebrates its victory and our media headline Israel’s surrender. Conveniently forgetting that Muhammad’s army has already taken stabs at Notre Dame!

Compensating for the removal of every sort of low and high tech surveillance gadget, Jerusalem police chief Yoram Halevi stood upright and reaffirmed Israeli sovereignty in advance of Friday prayers. All will go well if everyone cooperates. Suspicious people will be searched as always. Worshippers will be admitted as usual. But anyone that tries to create trouble will be met with iron fisted force. There will be injuries there will be arrests. We are strong and we know what to do.

Commemoration of execution of a priest in a Normandy church

July 26, 2017, St. Etienne du Rouvray. People gathered from near and far to commemorate the slaughter of Père Hamel, a Catholic priest celebrating mass in a small, nearly empty church in Normandy. Two young men born in France of North African origin put together a shahid video, walked into the church, solemnly pronounced allegiance to Daesh, forced an elderly parishioner to film the exploit as they slit the throat of the 86 year-old priest, and then stabbed their videographer-slave, who survived. The jihad attack was the third in a morbid series that summer: 13 June, a young couple, both members of the police force, were savagely assassinated in front of their 3 year-old child at their home in Magnanville. 14 July, 84 civilians were killed and more than a hundred maimed by a jihadi at the wheel of a truck on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. Not to mention 130 murdered by ambitious shahids in 2015, and scattered incidents before and since…

Here too the voices of reason speak out. At the high point in a moving tribute to the slaughtered priest, President Macron thanks Catholics for not giving in to hatred after this heinous crime. He thanks them, as if they had been two steps away from going on the rampage, stomping through the streets screaming annihilate the Muslims, torching mosques, beheading imams, raping women in hijab and ripping open pregnant Muslim bellies. We’ve been hearing this nonsense for 17 years. Our bewildered citizens are doing candle and flower ceremonies and hugging the nearest Muslim, anything to prove how much we love each other.

We don’t make bloodthirsty calls for revenge! The ones that go on the rampage are there in front of our eyes. They are verbally photoshopped into defenseless victims. And the voice of reason orders the targets of their genocidal hatred to stand down. Jihadis are fulfilling their sacred duty to punish, annihilate, convert. They clearly state their inspiration and objectives. But our political leaders and confused opinion-makers keep prettying it up with lace embroidery. They [the killers] want to turn us against each other, preaches the president, but we won’t do it, we’re stronger than ever in our vivre ensemble. The blood of the innocent flows through the byways of our societies and the smooth talkers warble in harmony-Muslims and Christians closer than ever after the horrifying murder of the beloved priest. Here’s the July 2016 photo of Salafists in front of the mosque that is actually connected by a door to the [other] St. Etienne du Rouvray church. The sign says “mosque in mourning.”2

Dhimmitude

This wailing wall of the West is dhimmitude. This deliberate concealment of Islamic acts and methods, this insane identification with the bloodthirsty, this constant exhortation to tie our own hands behind our backs, this vicious condemnation of Israel’s self-defense is dhimmitude  And it’s not just in France, not only European submission. I heard it wherever I went on a recent visit to the US. In North Carolina, in NY, in Boston, at a conference at Brandeis, always the same song, we should be better kinder more tolerant more aware of our faults and shortcomings more inclusive less judgmental… it’s dhimmitude. Bash me and I’ll weep for my sins. It’s not the media, the left, the stupid these and those, it’s jihad conquest. We’re being conquered and we don’t know it. It’s not just naked genocidal violence, it’s crass ignorance and dulled conscience. It’s cute conquest, an article bubbling with Muslim American patriotic appreciation of the American Eagle denim hijab, “as American as apple pie.”3 It’s the Islamic Center of Davis explaining that the imam only called for the annihilation of Jews that keep worshippers out of al Aqsa. And the Center has not been closed and shuttered.

It’s jihad conquest, dhimmitude, and vacancies at the highest levels of our democracies. At a joint press conference with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, President Trump awkwardly read out a prepared text praising the Lebanese army that is “on the front lines in the combat against Daesh, Al Qaida, and Hezbollah.”  The statement included several lines about the evils of Hezbollah. Ha’aretz reports that Hariri respectfully corrected him: we’re fighting Daesh and A Qaida, yes, but not Hezbollah. They’re in the government. We have an understanding.” This rectification does not figure in the video posted by the U.S. government.4 Was it edited out? Or hidden in the untranslated questions and answers in Arabic?

Blood spattered wall

In the few short days since I started this text, a 26 year-old Palestinian born in the UAE stabbed a man to death in a Hamburg supermarket and wounded five. Like Kobili Traoré who savagely murdered Sarah Halimi, he is said to be psychologically fragile, and his motivations are not clear. At this stage of the investigation the flagged security risk doesn’t seem to “belong” to any terrorist “organization.” Like the Tunisian that crushed twelve people under his truck at a Christmas market in Berlin, this killer was awaiting deportation after rejection of his demand for asylum. The third European victim of a recent stabbing attack at an Egyptian resort died of her wounds. Two father-son couples suspected of preparing to bring down a plane have just been arrested in Australia. And Jordanian sources screaming for blood published the photo of the Israeli security guard that killed his assailant.

Metal detectors there, hamstrung bureaucracies here, and mentally disturbed allahu akhbars everywhere. But the Great Big International Al Aqsa Intifada did not occur. All things considered, who surrenders, and who stands his ground?

RELATED ARTICLE: “Palestinian” Muslim Who Slaughtered Israeli Family to Receive $3,120 Per Month Reward From Palestinian Authority

REFERENCES:

1. http://www.timesofisrael.com/jerusalem-police-chief-threatens-casualties-if-protests-continue/

2. The running account, originally published by ruthfully yours, is collated here:  http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nidra_Poller/Jihad_Attack_on_a_Little_French_Church/

3. http://nypost.com/2017/07/20/american-eagle-introduces-the-denim-hijab/

4.https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+hariri+joint+declaration+to+press&view=detail&mid=C9F32D40CB9B26348C09C9F32D40CB9B26348C09&FORM=VIRE

Marquette University pays for faculty to attend ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ workshop

It also “will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.”

When will Marquette pay faculty to attend a workshop about the ideological and theological roots of jihad terrorism? Why, that would be inconceivable. And so would any honest discussion of the jihad terror threat at Marquette or most, if not all, other universities in the U.S. today, especially Catholic universities. They are radioactive centers of hard-Left indoctrination, not institutions of higher learning in any genuine sense.

The real “Islamophobia” industry, the one dedicated to fooling people into thinking that “Islamophobia” is a genuine problem, operates by deliberately conflating two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are rare but never justified under any circumstances, and honest examination of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. By lumping the two together, “Islamophobia” victimhood propagandists hope to inhibit all examination of the jihad doctrine, and to demonize and marginalize all those who engage in such examination.

“University Offers To Pay For Faculty Attending ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ Workshop,” by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, July 17, 2017 (thanks to Tom):

A Wisconsin university announced Monday that it will cover costs for its faculty to attend an anti-Islamophobia workshop, and will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.

Marquette University will pay the $30 registration fee for faculty that choose to attend “Overcoming Islamophobia: Creating a Positive Classroom Culture,” hosted at Alverno College in August. The fee will also cover lunch at the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Alverno College, the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Marquette University will grant attendees that submit a written assignment pertaining to Islamophobia an Alverno graduate credit….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim cop tells friends, not investigators, he was “startled” by unarmed woman he killed

Boston to hang 50 posters addressing public harassment, “Islamophobia” around city

Judicial Secularists Attack Religious Freedom

On June 7, the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida dealt the latest blow to religious freedom in our country.

The case arose from a request by Cambridge Christian High School, which had earned the opportunity to compete in the 2A division playoffs finals, to use the stadium’s public announcement system in prayer prior to the beginning of the game. The team’s opponent was another Christian school equally devoted to serving God and to conducting itself in His image with every activity it undertakes.

Citing issues of potential coercion and fearing that such prayer might be offensive to others, Dr. Roger Dearing, the executive director of the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), declined the request.

Of course, in so doing, Dr. Dearing dismissed the fact that the same FHSAA had approved such a request in 2012. He also dismissed the national tradition of engaging in prayer prior to the start of a football game. And most astoundingly he ignored that both teams, meaning all parties involved, wished to engage in a unified prayer as one community under Christ.

Following the denial, Cambridge Christian brought the case to the judiciary for consideration. After all, they weren’t asking for the announcer to lead everyone in prayer. They weren’t asking for the FHSAA to buy new equipment. They weren’t even asking for the game to be delayed for one moment because, in point of fact, the two teams were going to pray on the field and in front of the fans anyway.

No. The only question they were asking was, “Hey, man, can I borrow your microphone?”

Court predictably quashed religious freedom

But almost predictably, the court ruled against religious freedom citing issues of perceived endorsement of religion by government and of the infringement praying might have on the rights of others (yes, this is not a misprint).

Every time I learn of a case like this, I am baffled at the extent to which the state squashes the public’s ability to pray in an open forum merely because of government’s presence. This catastrophic road upon which the Supreme Court of the United States has placed us suppresses our right to worship and to pay reverence to God — in direct violation of the original intent First Amendment.  It ignores the spiritual aspects of human existence, and most importantly, casts aside the foundational roles of religion and religious worship in our nation’s birth.

Repeatedly, I am told that the reason for following this road is the wall of separation between church and state espoused by Thomas Jefferson in his letter written on the first day of 1802 to the members of the Danbury Baptist Church.

But there is so much that runs counter to this assertion.

First, President Jefferson’s comment was completely extrajudicial in nature.

Second, the concept of a wall of separation between church and state has been tainted by the agenda-driven nature of the Supreme Court’s 20th-century opinions. Following the 19th-century Court’s introduction of Jefferson’s wall into the legal corpus, the first two 20th-century cases invoking it did so in an effort to keep the government from interfering with state-based, religious-supporting programs.

But in 1947, the Court changed direction to one that would inhibit, rather than support, religious worship. With its McCollum decision, the court prohibited Bible verses from being recited in public schools, and later, it struck down prayer in schools as well as the observance of even a bland and neutral moment of silence.

The subsequent deterioration in the nation’s moral posture and the breakdown in the family as a central societal unit are the predictable consequences of these actions.

An alternative route ensuring freedoms

But lost in these recitations is the overt bias the Court displayed in selecting Jefferson’s wall of separation in its interpretation of the First Amendment.

Let’s consider a few similarly applicable observations made by some of the nation’s foundational greats in equally extrajudicial fashion.  George Mason, in writing the Virginia Bill of Rights, wrote, “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and. . . it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” His proposed amendment was subsequently approved by the Virginia legislature, the same legislature Madison and Jefferson inhabited — a far greater weight of influence than one man’s personal letter.

Based on Mason’s language, would it not have been more appropriate for a 20th century court to hold that in interpreting the First Amendment we should recognize that our nation was created with the purpose of guaranteeing that all men be able to engage in Christian forbearance? If so, wouldn’t using a public microphone for spontaneously requested prayer be not only allowed, but encouraged?

Or how about using John Marshall, the most prolific justice in the history of the Supreme Court? When asked about the nexus of Christianity and the nation’s government, he wrote in a letter, just like Jefferson did, that, “The American population. . . is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institution did not presuppose Christianity.”

Consequently, wouldn’t a more appropriate truism for the Supreme Court to follow in its interpretation of the First Amendment be that the United States of America, through its foundation and its culture, presupposes Christianity?

Or consider the observation made by Justice Joseph Story, one of the early members of the Supreme Court, who extra-judicially wrote, “My own private judgment has long been (and every day’s experience more and more confirms me in it) that government cannot long exist without an alliance with religion to some extent; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundations of free government.”

From this, wouldn’t a more appropriate guide for the interpretation of the First Amendment be that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests, foundations, and existence of these United States of America?

Back the need for a legislative override

If any of these guides had been adopted instead of, or perhaps in addition to, Jefferson’s wall of separation, imagine how different American jurisprudence would be as it relates to religious liberty and our freedom to worship! Sharia law would be an impossible legal threat, and the concepts of love for one’s neighbor and respect for the dignity of man would be freely taught in our schools under the direct supervision of the community’s parents.

From this analysis a few conclusions may be reached.

First, there is no inherent reason for Jefferson’s wall of separation, at least as the courts apply it today, to be the only compass in interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution. So long as all religious views are respected, the government can peacefully cohabitate with worshipers be they Christian, Jewish, or any peace-loving faith.

Second, neither the people of this great nation nor its elected representatives selected the road our nation has traversed regarding religious liberty. Instead, it was embraced by an oligarchy of legalists unaccountable to the will of the people.

Consequently, if it is true that the Courts have interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people, then isn’t it up to We The People, as the true purveyors of the Constitution, to override an opinion of such a Court and reverse an ill-conceived opinion? We know, through their writings, that at least Jefferson and Madison would think so.

Truly, the road we are following regarding our religious freedom is nothing short of harrowing. It has diminished our sense of morality and has curtailed our abilities to teach our children that there are things bigger than themselves.

It is time for our country to navigate back to the road built upon Christian forbearance; the same road that would lead us to the shining city on the hill.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2 Cases Threaten to Shut Down Public Prayer. Why the Supreme Court May Need to Act.

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

Religious Protection Gone Wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition. What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

  1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
  2. A particular system of faith and worship.
  3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation. What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”(Wikipedia)

Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisaprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs whether they are citizens of the United States, guests in this country, here illegally, or citizens of other countries, but we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29] In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion was understood as items 1 and 2:

  1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
  2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam is governed by religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. Islam is intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion and cannot be allowed religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

If Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism and its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia.

There is no difference.

If, as apologists for Islamic barbarity claim, Islamists have perverted their religion – then it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other and its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

Major policy shift: Trump administration declares Jerusalem part of Israel

Major, and most welcome. Jerusalem belongs to Israel by the record of history, international law, and the right of conquest that is recognized for every other state in the world, but not for Israel. This is an extremely encouraging development; we can only hope there will be more to come.

“Trump Admin Declares Jerusalem Part of Israel in Major Policy Shift,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, May 22, 2017:

The Trump administration declared the president is in “Jerusalem, Israel,” on Monday for a series of meetings with Israeli officials, a proclamation that breaks with years of American policy refraining from stating that the city of Jerusalem is part of Israel.

Senior Trump administration officials had ignited a wave of controversy over the past several weeks when discussing Jerusalem, with some top officials refusing to say that the ancient city is part of Israel.

Decades of U.S. policy has refrained from formally labeling Jerusalem as part of Israel due to concerns this could negatively impact the Middle East peace process, in which Palestinian leaders have staked a claim to the city as their future capital.

Ahead of a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House, on its official website, provided a live stream of the event. Prior to its start, the White House included a frame stating, “President Trump gives remarks with Prime Minister Netanyahu.” The location provided was “Jerusalem, Israel.”

The statement appears to be part of an effort to normalize this language, which is widely backed by U.S. lawmakers and senior officials in the administration, sources said.

The State Department, which is disposed to address the issue with more caution, declined to comment on the latest declaration, instead referring a reporter to the White House. The White House did not provide comment on the matter by press time. Pro-Israel observers on Twitter and other social media immediately praised the declaration.

The Obama administration also faced its own controversies when dealing with the city. The former administration was caught altering official photographs to remove “Israel” as the location for several meetings. The effort roiled the pro-Israel community, but was in line with standing U.S. policy.

The Trump administration has faced its own struggles on the issue.

Candidate Trump vowed in multiple speeches on the campaign trail that he would move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the country’s capital.

While U.S. law states that the embassy should be moved, consecutive presidents have waived the requirement, claiming that it interferes with efforts to advance Middle East peace.

Trump’s administration has taken heat from the pro-Israel community for failing thus far to take concrete action on moving the embassy. While White House officials maintain that the plan is still being examined, the slow roll of the move has angered Trump’s biggest pro-Israel supporters.

Trump administration officials also have issued a range of answers when pressed to explain whether they believe Jerusalem is part of Israel.

White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster last week would not tell reporters whether Israel’s holiest site, the Western Wall, is located in Israel proper.

The latest declaration on the issue by the Trump administration appears to show that the president is committed to affirming Israel’s sovereignty over the city and turning the page from years of chilly relations between the Israeli government and the United States under former President Barack Obama.

In joint remarks with Netanyahu, Trump emphasized his opposition to the landmark Iran nuclear deal, blaming the previous administration for inking a deal that has only emboldened the Islamic Republic….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Abbas and Palestinian Authority Honor Terrorists Amid Trump Visit by IPT News

Trump Signals a Reset Between Israel and US

The Unapologetic American — Donald Trump brings a new message to the Middle East

UK: Several killed, many injured after two explosions in arena at Ariana Grande gig

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Trump Moves U.S. Towards a Realistic Approach to Jihad Threat

Manchester Explosion: UK Has Been Targeted By Terrorists ‘Time and Time Again’

Why Should We Care?

When I broach the subject of Islam in a critical way most people are disinterested, or perhaps afraid to discuss it lest they be labeled as intolerant, or what is worse – an Islamaphobe. In spite of all the contrary historical evidence – past and present – we are repeatedly told that Islam is a peaceful religion. Muslim imams reach out to Christian clergy and seek “dialogue” and “understanding.” People commonly say that they know a Muslim family and they are nice people, courteous, good neighbors.

So, why should we care that America has 3,000 mosques and a rapidly growing Muslim population? Why rock the boat of ecumenical harmony and perhaps offend somebody?

With Ezekiel 33:1-6 as our reference point, let me explain why we should care. Islam divides the world into two groups: the House of Islam (ostensibly peaceful) and the House of War. The House of War comprises all societies not dominated by Islam. Islamic theology (sharia law) obligates every Muslim to use persuasion, legal means, emigration (called hijara by Muhammad) and frequently violent jihad to change a society to Islam.

European society is being changed today by means of sharia courts, no-go zones (non-Muslims not allowed), rapes, immigration and violence – all of which are foreshadowed in the bloody history of the political-religious ideology called Islam. By extrapolating current history and the high birth rate of Muslim families many scholars believe that Europe will be under Islamic control by 2050.

Fortunately most of the Muslims in our country are westernized, unorthodox Muslims who do not faithfully follow the more violent dictates of the Koran and the hadith (traditions of Muhammad).

Why should we care?

Of course we don’t want our country to experience what is happening in Europe, but the main reason we should care is that God cares and “desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). At 1.6 billion Muslims are the largest unreached people group on earth. They walk in darkness, deceit, and destruction with no knowledge of a gracious, forgiving God who seeks to have a personal relationship with them.

Their god, Allah, is a slave master who hates sinners and all non-Muslims. Our God is a personal friend, brother, Father who loves the sinner and calls him into an eternal friendship culminating in heaven.

We should not fear Muslims or avoid the challenge of sharing God’s love. Most Muslims do not practice orthodox Islam and are not terrorists. But they are blind to the grace and love of the true God.

Surely you would help a blind person cross a busy intersection. Speak and show the grace of Jesus to your Muslim friend. Establish a relationship and when an opportunity presents itself share your faith.

That is our mission as a chosen people “that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9).

RELATED ARTICLE: Europe’s Childless Leaders Sleepwalking Us to Disaster

EDITORS NOTE: Reverend Bruce Lieske, Chairman, Florida-Georgia District Task Force on Muslim Evangelism, is available to speak if you would like to sponsor a seminar on this topic we have presenters available. You may contact Reverend Lieske at blieske7@bellsouth.net.

President Trump Loosens Free Speech Cuffs on Churches

President Donald Trump, in an executive order released Thursday — timed to coincide with National Prayer Day — loosened some of the Internal Revenue Service restrictions on churches that prevented pastors from preaching about politics from the pulpits.

Specifically, he called for the easing of the tax agency’s enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, a decades-old rule that bans churches from openly endorsing political candidates.

Churches and places of worship may have an easier time getting in the political game, thanks to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump that loosens some of the regulations guiding nonprofits and tax exemptions.

The rule’s been used by far-leftists and atheist groups, like the Freedom From Religious Foundation, in recent years to clamp all types of speech in churches that seem applicable to modern day issues, however. The FFRF, for example, complained in 2012 to the IRS that a bishop was breaking the Johbnson Amendment by telling readers of a local newspaper in a letter to the editor that Catholics, in good conscience, could not vote for candidates who favored gay marriage and abortion.

Trump’s newest executive order makes clear: such enforcement is above and beyond the scope of the Johnson Amendment.

USA Today writes:

“Seeking to redefine the balance between church and state, President Trump signed an executive order that – depending on your point of view – either protects religious liberty, licenses religious groups to practice discrimination, or doesn’t go far enough in any direction.

“‘We’re a nation of believers,’ Trump told supporters during a signing ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House. “Faith is deeply embedded in the history of our country… No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the American government and the tenets of their faith.’

“Trump’s executive order, which he signed on Thursday to coincide with the National Day of Prayer, calls for easing of Internal Revenue Service enforcement of the so-called ‘Johnson Amendment,’ which prohibits churches from getting directly involved in political campaigns.

“While only Congress can formally do away with the law, this will pave the way for churches and other religious leaders to speak about politics and endorse candidates without worrying about losing their tax-exempt status.

“Trump, criticizing the Johnson amendment as a violation of free speech rights, views his actions as fulfillment of a campaign pledge. “I talked about it a lot” during last year’s presidential campaign, and “promised to take action,” he said. “I won.”

“The Executive Order on Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty also aims to make it easier for employers with religious objections not to include contraception coverage in workers’ health care plans, although it would be up to federal agencies to determine how that would happen.

“At the ceremony, Trump recognized members of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of nuns which runs homes for the elderly. The group objected to the Obama administration’s policy that while religious organizations don’t have to directly provide birth control to employees, workers could still get it through a third party. ‘Your long ordeal will soon be over,’ he told them.

“Vowing to fight what he called discrimination against religious people and institutions, Trump said, ‘We will not allow people of faith to be bullied, targeted, or silenced any more.’ The government, he added, has been used as ‘a weapon’ against religion and people of faith.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: ‘No One Should Be Censoring Sermons or Targeting Pastors’

Trump’s Executive Order Fails to Address Most Pressing Religious Liberty Threats

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

VIDEO: Special Gun Rights for Muslims?!

Faith Goldy reports:

When I applied for my Canadian firearms licence after passing my federally mandated PAL and RPAL courses, the RCMP got all of my information. They asked for everything from medical history, relationship history, familial structures, and a photograph.

However, when I recently logged online to renew my license, I noticed something peculiar:

An exception to the usual regulation requiring a photograph, citing religious exemption!

So, I contacted the RCMP, and you won’t believe what happens next.

While I’m no fan of tighter gun control measures, shouldn’t all law-abiding gun-owners be treated equally in Canada?

Why are special rights being granted to members of certain religious sects while other Canadians are held to a different standard?

Trump is right: France is no longer France

“Paris is no longer Paris,” U.S. President Donald Trump recently said. A few days later, the New York Times ran a story entitled “As France’s Towns Wither, Fears of a Decline in ‘Frenchness.’” But the liberal newspaper refused to testify about the real metamorphosis of the French landscape. That is perfectly summarized by a book entitled Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, in which Philippe de Villiers writes that France, the “eldest daughter” of the Catholic Church, is turning into the “eldest daughter of Islam.”

Trump was right. A 2,200-page report, entitled “Suburbs of the Republic,” commissioned by the French think tank Institut Montaigne, explained that suburbs are becoming “separate Islamic societies,” where sharia has overcome French secular rule. The French Interior Ministry called these “Priority Security Zones,” and they include heavily Muslim parts of Amiens, Aubervilliers, Avignon, Béziers, Bordeaux, Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Montpellier, Mulhouse, Nantes, Nice, Paris, Perpignan, Strasbourg, Toulouse and many other towns. French mayor Robert Menard has been dragged into court for saying that Muslim classrooms are “a problem.” The more the problems get bigger in France, the more the system punishes those who point out what is happening.

muslims praying france

Muslims praying in streets of Paris.

France has ceased to be “la lumiere du monde,” a light unto the world, as it was called a long time ago. And it is indeed also no longer the eldest daughter of the Church; it is caught between two fires: a phony secularism and Islam.

Avignon is no longer “the city of Popes,” but “the republic of the Salafis,” as it has been called in a recent Paris Match article. In many parts of the city, women who do not wear the veil cannot leave the house, alcohol is forbidden, men go around in djellabas, and some imams support the Islamic State. “The farther I walked between the buildings, the more I was stunned,” a Paris Match reporter wrote. “A courtyard of Islamist miracles, a Salafist pocket, an enclave that wants to live as people did during the times of Muhammad. A bakery, a hairdresser, building managers, teenagers. All (or almost all) overcome with the Koran. Well, their Koran. It is a mini Islamic Republic.” That is the real change that the New York Times should have denounced.

In Creteil, in the heart of a middle-class neighborhood of Paris, there is the “mosque of convertì.” Every year, 150 ceremonies of Muslim conversion are performed under an 81-meter-high minaret, a symbol of the strong presence of Islam in France. Vesoul, in the Midi, is nicknamed the “French Raqqa,” since a group of high school friends left to fight in Syria, and during the day, in some neighborhoods, one can hear the Islamic muezzin instead of Christian bells.

In the Breton village of Hédé-Bazouges, you hear what de Villiers calls “the clergy in the djellaba,” the muezzin’s call to prayer. Roubaix is not only famous for the Paris-Roubaix cycling race, but also as one of the Salafists’ centers, as denounced by Gilles Kepel. In Trappes, Muslims make up around 60% of the population; this is the electoral bastion of Benoît Hamon, the Socialist candidate in the French presidential elections. Catholics and Jews are hiding their identities for fear of reprisals from Islamic supremacists. “In Trappes, the French Republic no longer exists; this is a town ruled by Islamists, jihadists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists,” said Alain Marsaud, a former anti-terrorist investigating magistrate. 50 Muslims left Trappes for Syria.

Saint-Denis, the cradle of French Catholicism, where the kings of France rest, has been called “Molenbeek-sur-Seine,” after the name of Brussels’ terror hub. Le Figaro Magazine published a story by the journalist Rachida Samouri, who infiltrated in Saint-Denis to talk with the French Muslims who support ISIS. “In Raqqa, the French are at home: the second most spoken language after Arabic is French. In the streets, ISIS spreads terror, and the French are the worst, they threaten and beat women if their face is not hidden by the niqab, or if they make any noise with their shoes. The noise of the heels of a woman is considered a sin.” In Châteauneuf-sur-Cher, a town of 1,500 inhabitants in the heart of the Loire, a group of Muslims live in accord with the sermons of an imam who invited all the faithful to abandon the cities to move to the French countryside and create pure “Muslim villages.” It is happening everywhere. In Saint-Uze, a town of 2,000 inhabitants in the south of France, the parents of a Muslim family of six children refuse to send their children to the “infidels’ schools.”

But there are not only the Salafists. Tariq Ramadan and other Islamic preachers daily appeal to the French Muslim masses through mosques and schools, conquering minds and hearts through televisions, books and rallies. The magazine Valeurs Actuelles called it “the quiet conquest”: “Its ambition is clear: changing French society. Slowly but surely.”

Comparing the weekly frequency of attending a mosque on Friday and a church on Sunday, the scenario is clear: 65% of practicing Catholics are over the age of 50. By contrast, 73% of practicing Muslims are under 50. The trend indicates that in France, there are three young practicing Muslims for every young practicing Catholic. There are nearly 2,400 mosques today in France, compared to 1,500 in 2003: “This is the most visible sign of the rapid growth of Islam in France,” according to Valeurs Actuelles. In the last 30 years, more mosques and centers for Muslims have been built in France than all the churches built in the last century. Observant Catholics, the famous “Catholiques pratiquants,” have become an eccentricity.

After Father Jacques Hamel was murdered inside his church in Normandy, Prime Minister Manuel Valls spoke about the need to build new mosques to train imams, while Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve suggested a new pact between the state and Islam. The French authorities have up to now refused to wake up.

French philosopher Pierre Manent, not Donald Trump, wrote in his book La situation de France that “we are witnessing the extension and the consolidation of the domain of Muslim practices, rather than its shrinking or relaxation.” This will be the central issue of the next French presidential campaign. Islam looms not only in the French elections, but also in Europe’s future.

ABOUT GIULIO MEOTTI

Giulio Meotti, cultural editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author. He is the author of three books: A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism (Encounter Books); J’Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel (Mantua Books), and La fine dell’Europa, about the Christian and demographic decline in Europe. He is a columnist at Arutz Sheva and his writings have appeared in publications including the Wall Street Journal, FrontPage, Commentary, and The Geller Report.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘I shot the police’: Text message sent by ‘Radicalised Muslim’ who shot at cops before grabbing an officer’s gun at Paris Orly airport and being killed

Paris: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” slits throats of father and son, cops search for motive

Quebec imam says Islamic ruling allowing slave girls is still in force

“You are the future of Europe”: Erdogan urges Turks in EU to have at least 5 kids

Refugee resettlement contractors “whipsawed” says New York Times

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

Israelis file multiple lawsuits against Facebook for providing radical Islamists a platform

While Facebook is being sued for providing a platform for jihadists “involved in the ‘stabbing intifada’” against innocent Israelis, the social media giant has apparently been all too busy playing thought police by cranking down on harmless conservatives. According to “former Facebook workers,” they “routinely suppressed conservative news,” including stories that were trending on major news sites. The “news curators” were ordered to “artificially inject selected stories into the trending news mode,” even if they were unpopular.

Media and social media collusion has become the norm, to the detriment of the people, whose thoughts are being manipulated via lies by omission.

Facebook even reportedly banned a Trump supporter last May for complaining that the social media site was censoring “right wing activists,” thereby proving his point.

“Terrorism Cases Against Facebook Reach climax”, by Yonah Jeremy Bob, Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2017:

American-Israeli Richard Lakin, [sic] told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that he is “outraged” at Facebook for pretending that it has zero tolerance for terrorism.

He spoke minutes after a climactic hearing in a terrorism lawsuit against the social media giant.

Lakin was one of the original plaintiffs in a 2015 lawsuit filed by a group of 20,000 Israelis against Facebook for providing a platform for terrorists involved in the “stabbing intifada,” and demanding an injunction ordering the firm to act more forcefully against terrorist incitement on its pages.

Wednesday’s hearing was the final one in a US federal court in Brooklyn before the judge decides whether Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center, representing the plaintiffs, has found the first-ever legal silver bullet for breaking what has been an impenetrable barrier protecting Facebook from terrorism lawsuits.

Lakin was wounded and later died from his wounds in an attack by two Palestinians armed with a knife and a gun on a Jerusalem bus in fall 2015.

The 20,000 plaintiffs’ case is combined with a $1 billion damages case on behalf of the families of five victims, including US Army veteran Taylor Force, of the terrorist group Hamas.

Facebook had filed a motion to dismiss both cases arguing that, like all prior similar terrorism cases against it, the US Communications Decency Act (1996) bars all legal claims against it for posts by third parties using its platform – a defense that has proved unbeatable to date.

Shurat Hadin has argued that Facebook was not the intended target of the Communications Decency Act, which was focused on publishing, and that the social media platform has powerful algorithms it could use to catch and take down incitement and terrorist communications.

One relatively novel issue is the NGO’s attempt to use the US Anti-Terrorism Act against Facebook and to define the company as providing material support for terrorism by letting terrorists use its platform, instead of merely accusing Facebook of failing to control incitement, a less serious charge.

Shurat Hadin has admitted that the only court decision to date on this issue, earlier in 2016, went in favor of Facebook, but has claimed that case was “plainly wrongly decided and an outlier,” since a terrorism claim, unlike an incitement claim, relates not to publishing content, but to providing services.

The argument is that even if Facebook is not actively publishing third parties’ content, it is actively providing them the service of its platform.

Avni also told the Post that he “continued to be outraged by Facebook’s behavior… While this is a lawsuit about a specific issue of law, that they shouldn’t provide services to terror organizations, there is a basic ethical question that they shouldn’t help terrorists and allow them to operate freely on their platform.”

He added, “Facebook’s lawyer started his speech saying it has zero tolerance for terror. But the big dirty secret is that they make a ton of money from it. Facebook is getting lots of traffic and selling ads – the quantity of jihadists’ traffic is big and they get a lot of money out of it.”

Shurat Hadin’s New York counsel Robert Tolchin said, “Our case transcends” the Communications Decency Act, since “we are not talking about who published a post – we are talking about who provided services to a terror organization. Most of the judge’s questions [at the hearing] focused on that tension.”

Tolchin said he thought the judge came away with a view that the issue was more complicated than being able to just simply dismiss it because of the standard Communications Decency Act argument.

Shurat Hadin Director Nitsana Darshan- Leitner said, “The terrorist stabbing attacks throughout Israel and the murder of these innocent American and Israeli victims would never have occurred without the massive wave of incitement over social media.

“Facebook believes it is entitled to make billions of dollars annually while having no obligations to police its web pages and filter out calls to murder innocent Jews worldwide,” she added….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi police pack two transgender Pakistanis into a sack and beat them to death with sticks

Islamic State on killing spree of Christians in Sinai

Students for Justice in Palestine caught in a lie

sjp logoArlington, TX – Leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Arlington, Texas (SJP UTA), which has been embroiled in an anti-Semitism scandal, are claiming that they don’t know former friend and colleague Nancy Salem. They are also denying that any of their members have made anti-Semitics comments.

Canary Mission’s evidence concludes that both of these claims are flagrant lies.

Following the release of a report by campus watchdog Canary Mission, SJP UTA have sought to distance themselves from Salem. The former pre-school teacher who called to “kill some Jews” on Twitter, was fired yesterday from her job at Children’s Courtyard amidst calls for the school to shut down.

In response, SJP UTA yesterday posted a statement on their primary Facebook page making two absurd denials. The first is that Salem has “never been associated with SJP” and second that “Sjp has never had any members make any anti-semitic [sic] statements.”

SJP UTA latest hires.png

Canary Mission’s investigation of the activists Twitter interactions revealed that at least half a dozen SJP UTA members implicated in Canary Mission’s expose, including their Vice President, are closely acquainted with her.

Here is Salem wishing their Vice President a happy birthday last year:

Though never a student at UTA, a point made clear in Canary Mission’s profile on her, Salem was clearly affiliated with the SJP UTA chapter. SJP UTA have a second Facebook account, which can still be viewed now, even though since our expose the names of those individuals implicated in their anti-Semitism scandal have since been removed and there is virtually no content. Nancy Salem was one of those individuals whose name was removed.

Nancy_Salem_FB.jpg

Below are examples of interactions between Salem and the above mentioned SJP UTA activists clearly showing that they know her:

Lastly, here are just two examples conclusively showing just three SJP UTA members together with their anti-Semitic statements. The rest can be found on the Canary Mission UTA page.

Trump vs. the ‘Islamic Conquest of the West’ [+Video]

The irrational left, which means virtually all the left, is apoplectic over President Trump’s executive order halting immigration from terrorist-spawning countries. Its minions are complaining that the move is “un-American,” which in their world apparently involves playing Russian roulette with American lives.

The New York Times just ran a teary-eyed piece lamenting “immediate collateral damage imposed on people who, by all accounts, had no sinister intentions in trying to come to the United States,” as the paper put it. The fake news is right there — “by all accounts” — slipped in casually in the hope the reader will slide by it unthinkingly. In reality, there are many people, from intelligence experts to politicians to social commentators to Muslims themselves, warning that there’s no way to truly know these people’s “intentions.”

One of the most striking reports on this front — both because of its content and how the Fake News (mainstream) Media ignored it — was an October 2015 Glazov Gang interview with Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition now living as a refugee in Britain. While calling himself an “orthodox Muslim,” he nonetheless issued an eyebrow-raising warning:

Keep the Muslim migrants out of Europe.

What’s more, he insists that they must be returned to their native lands.

While Europe was the focus at the time (as the destination of most Mideast migrants), Zahran’s warnings absolutely apply to the US. And what he says is troubling: Many if not most of the migrants are not what they appear (video below).

First, we’d always been told the issue was Syrian refugees uprooted by their nation’s civil war. Yet Zahran stated that many of the Muslim newcomers aren’t even Syrian.

The proof is in the pudding, too. When we read stories about migrants committing crimes — rape, murder, a terrorist act or something else — the perpetrators generally are Afghani, Moroccan, Tunisian, Iraqi, Somali or some other nationality that doesn’t happen to be Syrian. This is just casually mentioned in the reportage’s “who” aspect, and the relevant question doesn’t occur to most readers.

What the heck are these non-Syrian migrants doing in the West when the “refugee” scheme was sold to Westerners with a “help the Syrians” message?

The next part of the con, states Zahran, is that “75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]” because the Syrians “in disaster areas cannot … leave.” But it gets worse. He also asserts that half the Syrian male migrants “have actually held weapons and fought in the Syrian war.”

Then there are the truly malevolent fakefugees. As Zahran put it, “I can authoritively [sic] confirm — I have photos, I have images, I have pictures, I have names of terrorists who actually are already in Europe posting their photos in Europe on Facebook.”

This warning has been echoed by other Muslim figures as well. Also in 2015, Lebanese Education Minister Elias Bou Saab warned that 20,000 jihadis likely lurk in his country’s refugee camps, and Syrian ambassador Riad Abbas claimed that 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe had Islamic State (IS) ties.

How these miscreants could penetrate the West brings us to the third part of the con: Despite leftist claims to the contrary, there is no way to reliably vet the Muslim migrants.

First, nations such as Syria simply don’t have comprehensive, Western-style databases containing information on their citizens. Intelligence officials have acknowledged this, as has the Greek government and even former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. As Investor’s Business Daily put it in 2015, “Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren’t even kept. Agents can’t vet somebody if they don’t have documentation and don’t even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.”

Moreover, what good would the data be, anyway? As NYC Syrian community leader Aarafat “Ralph” Succar pointed out in 2015 while warning of IS infiltration in the US, you can bribe Syrian public officials and get government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be. Said he, “You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” reported the New York Post.

As for the notion these migrants can be vetted, Succar has a simple response: “[A]re you out of your mind?”

Yet even if we could weed out the fakefugees, it wouldn’t matter because vetting informs only about what migrants are, not what they will become or what their children will be. This is relevant not only because radicalization often occurs in the West itself, but because studies show that younger generations of Muslims in the West are actually more jihadist-minded than their elders. “Islam is the problem,” as I recently wrote — the gift that keeps on giving.

And the calculation is simple: If one million Muslim migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of one percent are or will become terrorists, that’s 1,000 dangerous jihadists. Are you willing to bet, your life, that this estimate is liberal and not conservative?

Yet as dangerous as terrorists are, there’s a bigger picture here, a deeper con being perpetrated by the Arab world via the mass migrations. As Zahran warned, “I have to be honest; you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers [and] they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

Zahran called this process “the soft Islamic conquest of the West” and noted that what Muslims “couldn’t do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free — and even [is] paying for it.”

The last part of the migration con concerns why leftists “care” so much about fakefugees. Not only is there the ego-driven ideological imperative of preserving their multiculturalist dogma, but consider: The vast majority of U.S. Muslims now vote Democrat, with Obama having gotten 89 and 85 percent of their votes in, respectively, 2008 and 2012. In contrast, pious, church-going Christians favor Republicans by wide margins.

Now note that while Christians are 10 percent of Syria’s population and are being targeted for extermination by IS, only one half of one percent of the “Syrian” migrants admitted under Obama were Christian. Compassion? Does the Left really care about these migrants’ lives?

Or just their future votes?

Whatever the case, the treasonous — or, as some would say, “internationalist” — alt-left often speaks about redistributing the wealth. They clearly don’t mind spreading the terrorism around, either. Why not? The West won’t long feel compelled to send soldiers to the Middle East if we bring enough of the Middle East to the West.

More Muslims have arrived in the US just since 9/11 than did so during our nation’s entire history leading up to it. This, the handiwork of the left, has already resulted in hundreds more Westerners dying in jihadist attacks. How much more blood do you liberals want on your hands?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting – Middle East Quarterly

Stop Gender Genocide

Following the death of Carrie Fisher — and the death one day later of her mother, Debbie Reynolds — I ran across an article about Fisher’s 24-year-old daughter, Billie Lourd.

Fox 2015 programming presentation Red Carpet Arrivals at Wollamn Rink in Central Park  in New York City Featuring: Billie Lourd Where: New York City, New York, United States When: 11 May 2015 Credit: Alberto Reyes/WENN.com

Carrie Fisher’s daughter, Billie Lourd (pictured above) says her mother “raised me without gender.” Photo credit: Alberto Reyes/WENN.com

Lourd proudly spoke about her upbringing at the hands of single mom and admitted drug abuser Carrie Fisher. Lourd boasted that her mother “raised me to not think of men and women as different. She raised me without gender. It’s kind of the reason she named me Billie.”

Yet clearly Billie Lourd is a woman, despite Fisher’s attempts to raise her without any gender identification. She looks and dresses as a woman, and she dates men. Lourd believes her upbringing was a success, but if the intent was to raise her as gender neutral, it was a dismal failure. Nature, it appears, was victorious.

In another example of what today can only be described as gender genocide, the National Geographic magazine put on its December cover a picture of a nine-year-old transgender, a boy dressed as a girl with long, bright pink hair.

Inside, the story details the difficulties little children encounter living as transgenders. One of these little kids had been struggling since he/she was five years old.

Another little girl, age nine, is described as a Muslim living in India who wants to be a boy so she can earn money and “get stuff for her family.” Is that a good enough reason to neutralize this child’s sex? Maybe for that family it is.

It’s hard to believe that children as little as five are actually struggling with their gender identity unless they are coerced into such a struggle by the adults around them. Kids that age are still contemplating the mystery of Santa Claus, not their gender identity.

This is gender genocide — the willful destruction of our biological sex. It’s the last frontier for the gay lobby (the sex lobby, it may as well be called) and its quest for ultimate control over our sexual behavior and identity. This is a deeply sinister social engineering that seeks to indoctrinate children into thinking they can define their own gender, regardless of their God-given gender.

Having conquered the battlefield of gay marriage (in 2015 when the Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex marriage) … the sex lobby has turned its sights on transgender rights and gender fluidity. The more victories they achieve, the more absurd their goals become. Gay rights … gay adoption … gay partner benefits … gay marriage … transgender acceptance … same-sex bathrooms … gender fluidity … new pronouns. Just when it seems the end is in sight and they can’t possibly do more damage to our culture, they move the bar further.

Eliminating God From American Life

But at its heart, this is a movement to eliminate God’s natural order from our lives, plain and simple. It is a twisted effort to undermine the biblical underpinnings of our culture and eradicate the sexes.

The Bible says that in the beginning, “God made them male and female.” (Gen. 5:2) Pretty clear and straight forward, though the sex lobby never likes the word “straight” in any context.  This rock-solid fact is the one immovable force that they cannot surmount, so they have come up with ways around it.

One way is to declare, despite what our eyes tell us, that people can be any sex they want. We only need to decide which sex we identify with in our minds — and voila, that’s the sex we are. And, it must follow, we should be allowed to use the bathroom of our choice absolutely anywhere and everywhere in the United States … especially in our taxpayer-funded schools.

Literally, this new battle is being waged in the toilet.

But at least now we’re getting to the meat of the issue. If the sex lobby can change the attitudes of our children about sex, and encourage them to follow every urge that pops up in their pubescent heads, they will have a captive army of young adults to march out into the world and tear down the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation.

Like lemmings following each other off a cliff only to drown in the sea, our young people obey, just like Billie Lourd and other Hollywood celebrities do. In the process, though, they position themselves as role models for our kids, and there’s the danger.

Miley Cyrus says she is “gender fluid.”

miley cyrus

Miley Cyrus says she is “gender fluid.”

Miley Cyrus, who performed a music video stark naked on a wrecking ball, claims she is “gender fluid.”

“I’m just equal,” she gushed in an interview. “I’m just even. It has nothing to do with any parts of me or how I dress or how I look. It’s literally how I feel.” She had to add those last few sentences because she has female body parts and dresses like a woman, so don’t be fooled if she looks like a woman, she’s really whatever she wants to be at the moment.

Hypocrisy Of Gender Warriors

The hypocrisy of the gender genocide advocates is stunning. If gender doesn’t matter anymore, why did women go berserk when Hillary did not become the first FEMALE president? If Hillary’s not a she but a “ze” — the preferred neutral pronoun of the gender genocide lobby — then there’s no glass ceiling to break, right?

Witness also the hysteria that followed the publication of a Washington Post magazine article just recently that displayed the wrong symbol for womanhood (they used the male symbol with the circle and arrow, instead of the circle and cross for female). Male and female heads were exploding over the mistake — which the Washington Post apologized for abjectly and corrected right away.

But if gender doesn’t matter, then why do the symbols matter?

For that matter, why was it so important to legalize same-sex marriage? If genders don’t matter, or if they are all in our head, what’s the big deal?

The answer is obvious to even the little children who are being used as petri dishes for the sex lobby’s ungodly experiments. There are boys and there are girls. Period. Even the most strident advocates for gender neutrality recognize this physical reality.

Within the past couple of years hundreds, perhaps thousands, of school districts, institutions and municipalities have jumped on the gender-neutral bandwagon and declared that their bathrooms are open for use by any gender. Men may use the women’s room if they’re feeling a little feminine that day, and vice versa.

No doctor’s note is required to show that a sex change operation has been performed. No psychiatric exam is required, either.

What is so shocking is the lack of thoughtful and reasoned examination of the movement. Schools and public places are just lining up to follow the new guidelines like brainless robots programmed to obey. They should be asking, Where’s the science?

Christians Toe The Line

At a time when the Christian community should be standing up to these attempts to pollute biblical truths, some so-called Christian institutions are toeing the line. One Christian school in the Seattle, Wash., area, sent home notices to all parents that it would be hosting a “coming out day” for its gay and transgender students, and that students may now use the restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

The alternative is to be forced out of business or suffer staggering fines. The Obama Administration ordered every public school in the nation to cater to transgenders in the restrooms or lose their federal funding. One transgender girl in a Maine public school was awarded $75,000 because her school forced her to use a staff restroom. That’s a scary prospect for a school district that needs the money — money, mind you, already paid by parents in the form of taxes that should rightfully come back to the schools with no gender strings attacks.

Jonas Maines, left, and his transgender sister, Nicole Maines, stand outside the Penobscot Judicial Center, Wednesday, June 12, 2013, in Bangor, Maine. The siblings were born as identical twins boys. The state supreme court heard arguments on Wednesday over a school district’s handling of Nicole Maine's restroom needs. The lawsuit accuses the school district of breaking a state law in 2007 when it stopped letting the Maines use the girls bathroom and required to her use a staff bathroom after a student's grandfather complained. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Nicole Maines, a boy who is a transgender “girl,” sued a Maine public school for forcing her to use a staff restroom. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

These sick stories remind me of another Bible verse, the one that warns us not to cause children to sin against God.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble,” warned Jesus, “it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

bruce reimer

Bruce Reiner was born as a boy, raised as a girl, had surgery to create a vagina and then later committed suicide.

The Sad Case of Bruce Reimer

I am also reminded of the tragic case of Bruce Reimer, born a male with a twin brother, Brian, in Winnipeg, Canada, in the 1960s. Following a botched circumcision Bruce was raised as a girl, Brenda. Doctors fully castrated him as a baby and later gave him female hormones so he could like his entire life as a woman. Bruce’s clueless parents agreed to this.

Enter the evil mad scientist, Dr. John Money, a “sexologist.” It was Money’s theory — as it is the theory of so many in today’s sex-obsessed culture — that gender identity is the product of nurture rather than nature. Dr. Money followed the twins’ progress throughout their tragic lives, forcing them to strip naked in interviews and examine each others’ genitals … and forcing them to re-enact the sex act as male and female while the mad Dr. Money took pictures.

But Brenda, formerly Bruce, knew in his soul that there was something wrong with him, and as time went on he began to live out a more masculine lifestyle — despite Dr. Money’s efforts to force him to behave like a girl. At the age of seven Dr. Money began to torment Brenda with demands that he have surgery to create a vagina. Brenda resisted to the end.

When, as a young adult, Brenda finally learned that he was a male, he immediately began to live as a man and stopped taking the female hormones. He even married a woman and adopted his wife’s children.

But the horror of what had been done to him was too much for both twins. First the twin brother Brian killed himself with an overdose of anti-depressants. Then, at the age of 38, Bruce shot himself in the head with a shotgun.

Dr. Money was allowed to live out his life in comfort until the age of 85 as a renowned sexologist, dying in 2006. Sadly, at least two of his victims killed themselves because they could not live out the false life that Dr. Money had chosen for them.

Are we repeating today the experiments that Dr. Money performed all those years ago? Are we risking the lives and happiness of our children to satisfy the sex lobby’s insatiable appetite for destruction?

Tragic Human Cost

Like the heartbreaking story of Bruce Reimer, which can be viewed here in a BBC documentary, the lifestyles of Billie Lourd and Miley Cyrus are just exotic theories without regard for the tragic human cost. Because despite the “feelings” of these sad and confused individuals, God made them male and female. Their feelings really don’t matter.

Bruce Reiner was born as a boy, raised as a girl, had surgery to create a vagina and then later committed suicide.

Thankfully, we are beginning to see some pushback to all this nonsense. Thirteen states have filed lawsuits against the Obama edict mandating that transgenders have free access to any bathroom (and locker room) of their choice.

In late 2016 a Texas judge blocked Obama’s edict. And in North Carolina officials enacted a ban on forcing public facilities to provide transgender restrooms. (The LGBT lobby is fighting this tooth and nail and vowing to overturn the ban.)

Taken to its illogical extreme — that we are whatever we think we are — then what is to stop me from claiming age fluidity? So what if my birth certificate shows that I’m a senior citizen. I identify as a 24 year old, at least today.

Or, I may be just 24 and identify as a senior citizen …

… so I demand the senior citizen discount.

Foolish it is, this gender genocide is sweeping our nation. But dangerous, too. In Romans 1 we are warned:

“God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

And “furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” And, “although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

God help us if we continue on this path toward the utter and complete genocide of the genders that God ordained for us.

Radical Syrian Cleric Comes To Central Florida Preaching Hate

sheikh-mohammed-rateb-al-nabulsi-2

Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi

For those who did not see this Channel 9 Investigative report there was a Radical Syrian  Cleric, Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi,  who openly calls for the death of Jews and Gays speaking in Central Florida.   Sh. Al-Nabulsi found a welcoming home at the Islamic Society of Central Florida – Imam Musri’s Mosque, AlBir Mosque in Kissimmee, Islamic Society of Pinellas County Mosque, and a Embassy Suites Banquet Hall in Tampa for the American Muslim Leadership Council of Tampa, FL.

Sh. Al-Nabulsi wrote a paper called “Lesson 35: Ruling on Martyrdom Operations in Palestine.

In it Al-Nabulsi says,

…the wicked Jews are a collection of defects and imperfections, and a hotbed of vices and evils. They are the worst enemies of God, against Islam and its people, The Almighty says: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists. [Quran 5:82]”

Sh. Nabulsi goes on,

It is not permissible under Sharia to relinquish to the Jews any part of the lands of the Muslims nor to make peace with them, for they are the people of cunning and deception, and the breaking of pacts.  

All the Jewish people are combatant…this is essentially an entirely aggressive entity from A to Z. This is the Sharia ruling, This is what many of the Ulema say, the Sharia ruling on Fedayeen activity is that it is permissible. “

Sheikh Al-Nabulsi has never retracted his statements publicly.  These statements of hatred for all the Jewish people from A to Z, is part of his schadenfreude or worldview.  In the Muslim world, Sh. Al-Nabulsi is a world renowned Islamic scholar and those who support him must also, by default, share his hate filled worldview.

Imam Mohammad Musri on January 7, 2014 invited this Hate Sheikh into his Mosque.  Imam Mursri was interviewed by Channel 9 reporter Field Sutton on why he would invite such a controversial  figure to his Orlando, FL Mosque.  Imam Musri did not condemn  his friend Al-Nabulsi’s hate speech against the Jews.  In fact, Musri ignored those  anti Jewish comments thinking Mr. Sutton was referring only to Sh. Al-Nabulsi’s anti gay remarks.

Imam Musri’s answers appeared to only reference Sh. Al-Nabulsi’s video saying that, “All homosexuals deserve the death penalty” not addressing any of the hate Sheikh’s Anti Jewish comments.  Imam Musri said, “We would not welcome any person or organization that will bash any group,” Musri said, “after the Pulse nightclub attack, he hopes the visiting scholar no longer feels the way he used to feel. “If he does, then it gives us the opportunity to discuss and maybe challenge those views and maybe change minds or hearts,” I’m sorry to tell you  this Imam Musri,  but any reasonable person would want that little detail of calling for the murder of an entire demographic cleared up before inviting him to speak at your Mosque, instead of giving the Hate Sheikh a clever pass.  Imam Musri – I find your cavalier attitude towards your brother Al-Nabulsi’s hate speech and incitement to violence pathologically disturbing.

Imam Musri’s  refusing to condemn Al-Nabulsi’s hate speech against the Jews specifically, creates a dilemma for many in the Orlando Jewish leadership.

sheikh-mohammed-rateb-al-nabulsi-speak-posterFor example, Imam Musri co-hosts a interfaith radio show on National Public Radio with Rabbi Steven Engel of the Congregation of Reform Judaism in Orlando.  Rabbi Engel must decide if his personal friendship with Imam Musri is more important than his association with a  radical Syrian cleric who says all Jews are legitimate targets for martyrdom operations and death.  Imam Musri had the opportunity to condemn Sh. Al-Nabulsi on Channel 9 News but never did, one must ask why?  Rabbi Steven Engel and his congregation must ask why?

The afternoon of Sh. Al-Nabulsi’s lecture at Imam Musri’s Mosque we went to ask that exact question, but never got the chance.  Before entering the Mosque, we were confronted by Bassem Chaaban, Director of Outreach for  Imam Musri’s Mosque.  Mr. Chaaban told us, “This is a private event and not open to the public…it was not advertised to the public and for our members only.” We were denied entry and asked to leave.

Nowhere on Imam Musri’s flyer for the Hate Sheikh event does it say ‘Private’ or RSVP required.  The Al-Nabulsi lecture was advertised on the ISCF Facebook page.  Clearly Mr. Chaaban, acting on Imam Musri’s behalf, only wanted Muslim’s in attendance, all others not welcome.

Hate Sheikh’s Anti Gay Comments

Sh. Al-Nabulsi said on video tape that, “All homosexuals deserve the death penalty.”  The only person from Orlando’s gay community who publicly  condemned Al-Nabulsi was Randy Ross, the Orange County leader for President Donald Trump’s election campaign.

How deep does the hate and intolerance run in the Central Florida Muslim community? There are three Mosques and the American Muslim Leadership Council of Tampa who hold Sh. ‘Hate’ Al-Nabulsi in such high regard they invited him to speak, knowing his visceral hatred for Jews and Gays.

Conclusion 

Imam Musri was the voice of the Orlando Muslim community after the Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack.  Imam Musri spoke a message of love, togetherness, and that Islam had nothing to do with the attack by ISIS Jihadi, Omar Mateen.

Imam Musri did an interview next to the Pulse Nightclub with Tim Vargas, local gay leader, and George Stephanopoulos.   Imam Musri was saying how the Pulse Nightclub shooter did not represent Islam and how the Muslim community stands with the Gay community and the entire Orlando community at large.  That was a good and much needed message, only now we learn Imam Musri was not telling the truth.  If Imam Musri was truthful in his interview with George Stephanopoulos,  today he would have condemned Sheikh Al-Nabulsi publicly for his call to murder gays and Jews.  Imam Musri invited a hate cleric to his Mosque as an honored guest for his thousands of Muslim congregants, now he must account for his actions.

This is serious business because Imam Musri is well respected in the Jewish, Christian, Gay, and interfaith communities.  Imam Musri has built these relationships over many years telling these local leaders exactly what they need to hear to build bridges of  friendship.

Then while Imam Musri thinks nobody is looking, he shows what lies underneath his slick polished veneer.  Underneath that veneer of bridge building lies a man who reveres an Islamic scholar who calls for the murder of Jews and Gays.  Imam Musri had the opportunity to set the record straight condemning Al-Nabulsi with Channel 9 News reporter Field Sutton, but he did not.

How many followers of Islam in Central Florida who went to hear the Hate Sheikh speak  agree with his views on the killing of Jews and Gays?

How many people who hear Sheikh Mohammed Rateb Al-Nabulsi’s incitement to violence against Jews and Gays will act upon it?  In light of the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack, Ft. Lauderdale airport  attack,  San Bernardino attack, Ft. Hood terrorist attack, bomb scares to 3 Jewish facilities in Orlando, this question can no longer be ignored.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Family Security Matters. Reprinted under Creative Commons License: Attribution