Posts

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’

Benjamin Netanyahu: Moving U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Wouldn’t Harm Peace

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, said the United States could move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem without worrying about any dings to the peace process.

U.S. Embassy to Israel

His remarks came after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hinted that Bibi might not want the embassy moved there, because it could prove an impediment to peace talks.

But Netanyahu doubled down and said his position on the embassy hasn’t changed.

From CNS News:

“‘Israel’s position has been stated many times to the American administration and to the world,’ Netanyahu said in a statement, which his office said was in response to Tillerson’s remarks.

“‘Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would not harm the peace process,’ the prime minister said. ‘On the contrary, it would advance it by correcting an historical injustice and by shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.’

“For months Israeli and regional media outlets have speculated that while Israel has long sought embassies to move from Tel Aviv and surrounding areas to its declared capital, the government worries that should President Trump make good on his campaign promise to move the U.S. mission the benefits could be outweighed by negative consequences.

“The implication has been that Netanyahu – while unable to say so publicly for fear of alienating his support base – hopes that Trump will not keep his pledge.

“Moving the embassy would be deeply controversial since Palestinians contest Israel’s right to the city and want to establish the capital of a future independent state there – a demand Palestinian Authority (P.A.) chairman Mahmoud Abbas reiterated at his March 3 Oval Office meeting with Trump.”

Islamic leaders have warned that recognizing Israel’s claim to the land in so openly a manner would put a stop to peace talks, and trigger anger in the Muslim world.

But Trump made a campaign vow to move the embassy.

Again, from CNS News:

“Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would not only keep an unequivocal campaign promise but would also be in line with U.S. law, which three successive administrations have chosen not to observe over the past 18 years, by passing six-monthly national security waivers.

“President Obama invoked the last such waiver on December 1 last year, so Trump will either have to follow suit on or before June 1, or set in motion steps towards moving the embassy from its current Tel Aviv beachfront location.

“The now-confirmed new ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is due to take up his duties from Monday. An orthodox Jew and ardent Zionist, Friedman made clear when nominated and since, that he hopes to be working from Jerusalem as soon as possible.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swedish Senior Citizen Prosecuted for ‘Hate’ for Posting on Facebook She Saw Migrants Defecating in Streets, Setting Cars Ablaze

Germany Confiscating Homes to Use for Muslim Migrants: “A Massive Attack on the Property Rights”

Denmark: Imam calls for murder of Jews

VIDEO: Muslim Migrant beats up helpless disabled Dutch boy on crutches

British Child Rape Victim: ‘Authorities Did Nothing’, Was Told Not to Mention Attackers Were Muslim

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

VIDEO: Bibi Netanyahu to Mahmoud Abbas ‘Google Yourself’

Netanyahu is right to call this savage out on his lies. It is a shame that Trump seemed to believe him. We can only hope that someone around him set him straight.

“Netanyahu Recommends Abbas ‘Google Yourself,’” by Hana Levi Julian, Jewish Press, May 6, 2017:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recommended in a tweet to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas on Friday that he try “Googling [himself] sometime.”

The tweet – and the video that came along with it – followed the incredulous lies spoken by Abbas at the podium of the White House during his joint press briefing with U.S. President Donald Trump this past week.

Abbas said during the briefing with media that his government “educates for peace,” and affirmed the Palestinian Authority is “raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace.”

The Palestinian Authority has named sports events, children’s summer camps, schools and public buildings, streets and squares after some of the most bloodthirsty terrorists in the world.

The PA government also funds and sponsors television programming — clips of which are translated by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) organization — encouraging small children to hate Israel and Jews, and teaches them it is their sacred duty to murder. They are also taught by these programs that the entire Land of Israel is actually “Palestine”, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and that someday it will all belong to the Arab nation “once more” – when they have eradicated the “Zionist enemy.”

These concepts are reinforced to children and teens in the classroom during the day in their textbooks and in the curricula formulated by the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Education.

Adult citizens of the Palestinian Authority are reminded of the “truth” of these vicious lies via the daily media they are exposed to in government-backed newspapers, radio stations and television programs, whose incitement-filled hate is also often translated and then publicized by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) so the world can at least be aware of what is being said.

All of these lies are funded via the PA Ministry of Communications, which receives support from the European Union and the United States, among other foreign nations….

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

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.

‘The Catholic Church…has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters’

In this excellent piece, George Neumayr refers to the rupture of relations between the Vatican and al-Azhar that took place during the time of Pope Benedict. As I explained here, that rupture took place because Pope Benedict dared to speak out about the Muslim persecution of Christians.

By contrast, Francis energetically defends Islam, and leaves the persecuted Christians twisting in the wind, so he is acceptable to al-Azhar.

The worst part about this is the fact that because this man is Pope, all too many Catholics, including some in positions of high authority, treat him as if he were a divine oracle, his every utterance to be revered, respected, studied, and followed. Because of the statement of Vatican II that “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra,” and “must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will,” Catholic leaders and publications tend to think that they must adhere to anything the Pope says about anything.

This leads them into impossible positions. When Pope Benedict XVI appeared to criticize the aspects of Islam that incite and justify violence, they allowed for criticism of Islam. When Francis showed himself to be an Islamic apologist, they became Islamic apologists. All too many Catholic leaders and institutions, in other words, are more interested in being papists than in being truthful. They would rather show loyalty to the Pope, no matter how damaging his utterances, than stand for the truth on the own against the Pope.

The contradiction is clear, and absolute. If the Catholic Church has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters, then those who are aware of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, have to make some hard decisions about where they stand.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

POPE-ISLAM-NON-VIOLENT“The Papal Propagandist for Islam Heads to Egypt,” by George Neumayr, American Spectator, April 26, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):

As the prototypical progressive Jesuit, Pope Francis prides himself on his “ecumenism.” He oozes enthusiasm for every religion except his own. At the top of his list of favorite religions is the Church’s fiercest adversary — Islam.

He often sounds more like a spokesman for CAIR than a Catholic pope. After jihadists cut off the head of a French priest in July 2016 — yelling “Allahu Akbar” over the priest’s slit throat — Pope Francis rushed to the defense of Islam. “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence,” he said, before ludicrously blaming the rise of terrorism on the “idolatry” of free-market economics: “As long as the god of money is at the center of the global economy and not the human person, man and woman, this is the first terrorism.”

As Europe turns into Eurabia, Pope Francis is picking up honors and awards from progressives, including, hilariously, the 2016 “Charlemagne Prize” for his Islamic apologetics. It is hard to imagine a Christian leader less like Charlemagne. Pope Francis is energized not depressed by the disappearance of Christian Europe. “States must be secular,” he told La Croix. Christian states, he said, “end badly” and go “against the grain of history.” He added that “when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful.” It also takes on “colonialist overtones,” he complained.

The most liberal pope ever, of course, sees no irony in shilling for the most illiberal religion on Earth. On his anti-colonialist scorecard, Islam wears the white hats and Christian Europe, the black ones. After jihadists gunned down ten journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Pope Francis rushed to Islam’s defense again, in effect rebuking the dead journalists for incitement: “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” Those who do, he continued, should “expect a punch.”

This week Pope Francis takes his pro-Islamic apology tour to Egypt. Previewing the trip, which starts on Friday, he said he seeks to “offer a valid contribution to inter-religious dialogue with the Islamic world.” Francis’s fawning media courtiers are already rolling out the propaganda for it, predicting that it will “build bridges to moderate Islam.”

“A main reason for the trip is to try to strengthen relations with the 1,000-year-old Azhar center that were cut by the Muslim side in 2011 over what it said were repeated insults of Islam by Francis’s predecessor, Pope Benedict,” according to Reuters. “Ties with the center were restored last year after [Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb] visited the Vatican. Tayeb, widely seen as one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt, has repeatedly condemned Islamic State and its practice of declaring others as apostates and infidels as a pretext for waging violent jihad.”

Being “one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt” is about as meaningful a distinction as being one of the most chaste Kardashian sisters. Useful idiots in the West call Tayeb moderate, but anyone paying attention knows that he is not, unless calling for the killing of apostates now counts as “moderate.”…

Past popes regarded Islam as a font of poisonous heresies. Dante placed Muhammad in hell. St. Thomas Aquinas said Muhammad peddled “fables and doctrines of the greatest falsity” and sardonically remarked upon the perverse basis for his claim of divine favor: “Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms — which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”What has changed? Nothing. Islam remains as violent as it started. But one thing is new: The Catholic Church, under the death-wish progressivism of Francis, has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Europe: What Happens to Christians There Will Come Here

Robert Spencer, PJM: Florida Diocese Punishes Teacher Who Quoted Saint’s Critique of Islam

Austrian President: Day will come when we ask all women to wear headscarf

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

islam graphic

The Crimes of Qassem: The U.S. should shut down Iran’s top terrorist

He might not be a household name in America — at least, not yet. But throughout the Middle East, Qassem Suleymani makes the righteous and the innocent tremble.

To the righteous — meaning, from his perspective, the Shiite zealots who believe the Islamic state of Iran should establish the caliphate and dominate the world — he is an awe-inspiring figure.

He is powerful. He is brash. He brazenly shows up on the battlefield to encourage his troops. In Iraq, he has become the maker of prime ministers and governments, and commands a militia of 100,000 men.

To his innocent victims, he is the face of Terror, Inc. As head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – Quds Force (IRGC-QF), Qassem Suleymani is Iran’s top terrorist.

The Quds Force is euphemistically in charge of “extraterritorial” operations for the IRGC. I call it their expeditionary overseas terrorist wing.

In the early days, they were the ones who sent terror trainers to Lebanon to teach Hezbollah how to build better car bombs. Later, they knocked off a Lebanese prime minister and launched an all-out war on Israel in the summer of 2006, firing thousands of rockets at Israeli schools, hospitals and towns.

When Iran’s leaders decided in the early 1990s to forge an alliance in terror with a Saudi dissident named Osama bin Laden, they turned the file over to the Quds Force for action.

The Quds Force has been implicated in terror plots all around the world, including a failed 2011 attempt to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a Washington, D.C. restaurant. Suleymani and his operatives were also implicated in the September 11 plot, helping 10 to 12 of the Saudi “muscle” hijackers travel clandestinely through Iran to Afghanistan and providing logistical and other support.

In February 2007, Pentagon officials briefed reporters in Baghdad on Quds Force assistance to insurgents in Iraq.

The briefing included information and documents seized from Quds Force operatives detained by U.S. forces in Iraq, and photographic evidence of Iranian-made roadside bombs, known as Explosively Formed Projectiles, or EFPs.

The introduction of EFPs onto the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan by Suleymani and his men changed the scope and scale of U.S. casualties, ultimately accounting for as many as 1,500 U.S. battlefield dead.

I spoke recently to medically retired U.S. Army Sgt. Robert Bartlett about his encounter with an Iranian EFP. The force of the projectile “cut me in half from the left corner of my temple down to my jaw, and took my gunner’s legs off. Because of this Iranian bomb, I died three times in five days.

“Only my faith kept me alive,” he said.

The U.S. Army told Samantha Balsely that her 23-year old husband Michael had been killed in Iraq by an Improvised Explosive Device. Later, it became apparent that he, too, had been killed by an Iranian EFP.

“When I found out the government had given Iran billions of dollars, it was the biggest slap in the face,” Samantha told me. “How can you say you respect what our men and women do when you order them over there and then you pay their killers. It’s not right.”

Samantha Balsley is right. It’s just not right for the U.S. government to continue rewarding the Iranian regime, when they continue to kill Americans.

We know who these killers are. They have names. And they work for an organization: the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its “expeditionary” Quds Force.

As an immediate step, the Trump administration should follow through on hints that it is contemplating designating the IRGC and the Quds Force as international terrorist organizations.

The United States should take additional steps against Suleymani personally, blocking his assets, punishing businesses that transact with him or his Quds Force killers, and seeking an international travel ban.

Beyond that, the U.S. intelligence community should investigate reports from officials and media in Iraqi Kurdistan that Suleymani and the Quds Force facilitated the ISIS takeover of Mosul and the Nineveh Plain in June 2014, acts that could qualify as war crimes.

The crimes of Qassem Suleymani are many. After Osama bin Laden, he has more American blood on his hand than any terrorist. It’s time we shut him down for good.

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.

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

Those pushing ‘Islamophobia’ are advocating Sharia law, oppression of free speech & hamper public safety

People who push the false Islamophobia narrative are advocating Sharia law, trampling other people’s free speech rights, and hurting public safety.

Approximately 1.7 million Muslims in America believe Sharia is superior to the United States Constitution, and approximately 800,000 Muslims in America believe violent jihad would be justified to make Sharia superior.

Failure to confront this issue could have dire consequences for our freedoms.

Organizations with links to the Muslim Brotherhood like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America(ICNA), and Muslim Student Association (MSA) together with the leftist media and educational institutions who empower them, are using grade school humiliation tactics of name calling and social stigmatization to intimidate people away from criticizing Islam.

Those who use the term Islamophobe to label and stigmatize people who criticize Islam are enforcing a top tenet of Sharia law.  Muslims are instructed by the Quran to strongly oppose anyone who criticizes Islam even if that means brutal violence.  Quran 5:33 states “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.”

Many Americans personal and professional lives have been “maimed” for criticizing Islam on social media and in the marketplace and classroom. The consequences of being labeled an Islamophobe can cost a person their employment, educational opportunities, business relationships, and friendships.

The threat of encountering such personal costs for being labeled an Islamophobe are having a chilling impact on the rights of Americans guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.   The fear of being labeled a racist or Islamophobe has intimidated scores of Americans to forego saying anything about Islam. Such stifling of free speech impairs public safety and helps the Islamist political agenda to go unnoticed and therefore not countered.

It appears that people who push the Islamophobe false narrative believe their First Amendment Right is superior to the First Amendment Right of the people they stigmatize as Islamophobes.  They know that their punitive name calling tactics can “maim” people’s socio-economic status.  Consequently, they know that many people will give up their free speech right to criticize Islam in order to avoid such “maiming” consequences.  The Islamist and leftist progressive will to win the political correctness game at the cost of “maiming” people’s socio-economic lives indicates that they believe their speech is superior to Americans who express legitimate concerns regarding Islam.

This superiority of rights is documented by the statements that CAIR leaders have made. Omar Ahmad, Chairman and founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, told a Muslim crowd that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”  Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas in 2013 that “if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.” 

The Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll in May 2015 which found that 51 percent of Muslims in America preferred Sharia courts over the legal system governed by the U.S. Constitution.  The poll also found that nearly 25 percent of Muslims in America believe the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Sharia.

Pew Research reports that there are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living in America. Therefore, based upon the Center for Security Policy poll results approximately 1.7 million Muslims in America believe Sharia is superior to the United States Constitution and approximately 800,000 Muslims in America believe violent jihad would be justified to make Sharia superior.

Islamophobia campaigns attempt to discredit prominent, safety conscious Americans who voice support for vigorous efforts to counter terrorism and the Islamist agenda.  Islamophobia propaganda and “maiming” tactics have caused people to remain silent regarding situations that they have observed that could pose a public safety risk from terrorism.

Fear of being branded an Islamophobe played a role in suppressing communications that may have had different results for the lives of thirty-six people in San Bernardino and 102 people in Orlando.  Townhall.com issued a report titled “Neighbor Didn’t Report Suspicious Activity of San Bernardino Killers For Fear of Being Called Racist.”  The Townhall article by Katie Pavlich on December 03, 2015 reported in part “According to a local Los Angeles news report, a neighbor of San Bernardino massacre suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik didn’t report suspicious activity at their apartment for fear of being accused of racism.” Floridatoday.com issued a report titled “Mateen’s employer ignored complaints about his death threats because he was a Muslim.”  The Floridatoday.com article reported in part “Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.”

Many in the liberal left media and educational institutions appear to also follow and advocate for other tenets of Sharia law which instruct Muslims to hate Christians and Jews.  Quran 5:51“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” Quran 9:30 “The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.”

The leftist media and educational institutions are complying with and enforcing a top tenet of Sharia law with their Islamophobia propaganda.  Such “maiming” propaganda scares Americans away from reporting suspected Islamic terrorism and thwarts the sharing of facts regarding the Islamist political agenda to subvert the United States Constitution in favor of Sharia law.

EDITORS NOTE: The Florida Family Association is spearheading numerous projects with the goal of countering Islamophobia propaganda.  These projects include countering CAIR’s “maiming” of Americans who are brave enough to oppose Islamism and countering the Huffington Post’s proliferation of Islamophobia propaganda.

VIDEO: On the War against the First Amendment

The ground we’ve lost during the Obama years — and the dangerous consequences for national security. I’ve posted this video before, but here is a transcript as well.

Below are the video and transcript to Robert Spencer’s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 10th-13th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Robert Spencer: Thank you very much.  It’s great to be here on this occasion.  I’m here year after year and this is certainly the happiest Restoration Weekend I’ve been to and very happy to say we won’t have Chick Nixon to kick around anymore.  Come on.  The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s defeat is a very, very serious victory not only for the Second Amendment, but for the First and this is something that has been insufficiently appreciated in all the commentary before the election and after.  Donald Trump, of course, he went after her many times saying Hillary Clinton is against the Second Amendment, she’s going to stop the sale of lawful weaponry in every way she possibly can, but he never spoke about the threat that she posed to the First Amendment and that is an ongoing threat and a still existing threat and it’s very important to bear that in mind because even though she was defeated, this threat has not gone away.  The left is in a full court press and a year’s long effort to destroy the First Amendment and essentially to criminalize any point of view that is not their own and this is a struggle that they are going to continue.  Now, there are many, many facets of this.  One is, of course, the most notable one I should say, is the organization of Islamic cooperation, which is 57 Islamic governments around the world, 56 states and the Palestinian Authority, the largest voting block at the United Nations, and they of course for years now since the publication of the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed in 2006 they have been working to restrict the freedom of speech and to compel Western states to restrict the freedom of speech at the UN.

I know a lot of you are familiar with that effort and that they have, under the guise of what they call “incitement to religious hatred,” been trying to compel Western governments to criminalize essentially criticism of Islam.  Obviously, when you talk about incitement through religious hatred, any kind of incitement, unless it’s absolutely direct and explicit, is a subjective judgment in the first place.  Secondly, nobody cares when people put crucifixes in jars of urine or mock Israel and Judaism.  Nobody cares about those things.  They only care about religious hatred in an Islamic context, and the most insidious aspect of this endeavor, this initiative, is of course that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence is classified explicitly by the OIC as incitement to religious hatred.  So, what they want to do is criminalize any discussion of the motivating ideology behind Jihad terrorism and the goal of that, of course, is to enable Jihad terrorists to advance unopposed and unimpeded.

Now, this has been going on for years.  It’s been going on since the Bush Administration and the Bush Administration at the UN vetoed these initiatives every year, but then of course came Barack Hussein Obama and twice the United States signed on to these initiatives and actually cosponsored one with Egypt in 2009 and even more notoriously signed on to Resolution 1618 of the UN Human Rights Council, which once again called upon UN member states to criminalize incitement to religious hatred and then had a little asterisk going to a footnote explaining that yes, the UN understood that there were certain countries that had protection for the freedom of speech and they would have to devise other ways to implement this initiative that would not collide with their laws.  Now that was the most insidious aspect of the whole thing and Hillary Clinton explained what it was all about not long after that in a speech in Istanbul to the OIC. And she said, and I know many of you have heard this quote, many of you are very well aware of what she said in this, but I think that not many of you are aware of exactly how this initiative is proceeding.  What she said of course was that we value the freedom of expression, which she doesn’t, but she said that she did and that in light of protecting the freedom of expression as well as protecting religious sensibilities, in order to compel people not to do what we don’t want them to do, we have to resort to, she said, old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming. Remember when she said that?  This is exactly how the Western media has proceeded in order, essentially, not to criminalize, but to rule out of the realm of acceptable discourse any honest discussion of these issues.

What happened to Oleg in his presentation just now is actually a case in point.  He’s not facing a felony charge for using the wrong kind of glue.  C’mon, we weren’t born yesterday.  We know that if he had been putting up posters for the Palestinians there would have been no problem at George Mason University, but because he was putting up pro-Israel posters from the David Horowitz Freedom Center suddenly all these rules about glue kick in and he goes to jail.  Now, peer pressure and shaming is essentially a strategy that makes it impossible for us to discuss these matters because of exactly that kind of bias and favoritism.  Only one point of view is acceptable and any other point of view is something that we’re going to be shamed out of.  You can just think about how many times Trump supporters were mocked, ridiculed.

I read a piece by Paul Berman from December 2015.  I re-read it a few months ago.  I recommend that you find it and read it.  It was in Tablet Magazine and he explains how Trump gives his poorly educated, redneck racist supporters permission to hate.  Now what is that but peer pressure and shaming?  People read that in Tablet and they think, “Oh, well, I don’t want to be one of those.  I don’t want to have permission to hate.  I don’t want to be a racist redneck yahoo,” and so they’re shamed out of it. The objective, the goal is — I would hope that nobody was foolish enough to read that and think, “Oh, I better not support Donald Trump” — but the goal of it was to shame his supporters out of it and this is something that goes on. It manifests itself in all kinds of forms.  Of course, the primary vehicles for this peer pressure and shaming is the whole concept of hate speech.  Now, hate speech is really pretty straightforward.  If somebody is speaking hatefully and saying that you’re a terrible person, you ought to be killed, you ought to be beaten up, that’s pretty hateful, but hate speech as a concept, hate speech as something that ought to be a consideration in determining who gets a platform and who doesn’t is an entirely spurious fiction, an invention of the left in order to silence those with whom it disagrees in order to silence us.  That’s what hate speech is all about.

I was speaking a couple years ago at Cal Poly University in San Luis Obispo, wonderful little town, and very nice crowd and some very good questions during the presentation.  At one point I said that there was actually restriction on the freedom of speech on the Cal Poly campus and people said, “What? What are you talking about you racist, bigoted Islamophobe That’s not true,” and I said, “Well, take me as a case in point.  I’ve written all these books.  I’ve written a biography of Mohammed.  I’ve written a guide to the Quran.  Several studies of Jihad from various angles.  I guarantee you,” I said to the students, “that the point of view that I represent is not discussed in your classes on Middle East studies or Islam and if it is it is only discussed in order to be dismissed if not reviled outright,” and a young lady said, “Oh no, you’re wrong.  We did discuss your books.  We did discuss your work in a class that I just took.” And I said “Oh that’s very interesting.  What was your conclusion?” And she said, “Hate speech is not free speech.” That was the first time I heard that. Have you ever heard that?  Hate speech is not free speech.  This is an increasingly common slogan that is going to be used and is being used right now to shut us down.  What the young lady at Cal Poly was saying was that she had supposedly read my work and decided that it was hate speech and that hate speech in and of itself does not enjoy the protection that the freedom of speech ought to be given, that hate speech is not speech that we ought to respect even to the extent of saying I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  And so I said, “Okay, that’s very interesting.”

I asked the young lady this following question.  Then who gets to decide because I don’t think what I’m doing is hate speech, unless the Quran is and I quote it, but you think it’s hate speech.  Now, which one of us has the right to determine what’s hate speech? What governing authority, to whom should be entrusted this governing authority so that we know what hate speech is and rule it out of free speech protection? And she said, “Well, the relevant governing authority. That’s not important for this discussion. That would be something that would be determined by Congress and the president.” And I asked her, “You really want to give them that kind of power?  Do you realize that to give anybody the right to determine what hate speech is and silence it on that basis is a tool of the powerful to silence the powerless and the tool of the tyrants to silence their critics?” And she said, “That’s just a Hobbesian argument against the powerful.” And I thought, “Oh, now I’m stretched because I had to remember okay who’s Hobbes and what does she mean by that?” I haven’t been to college in 30 years, but of course she meant Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan. I had to look it up and Leviathan is a political treaties from the 17th century that posits that the only thing that can save us, because we’re all sort of brutal and violent and selfish and vicious, the only thing that can save us from an all-out war of all against all is a strong government that keeps everybody in line. And there are some countries you can say that’s true about, but what she was saying was that I was manifesting an alarming lack of trust and that really I ought to just relax and let the relevant authorities determine what is hate speech and quietly go to jail with Oleg.

But the thing is, of course, that she only thinks that because her position is the dominant one that’s in power.  The problem that she manifests however, the problem of which she is an example, is the fact that there’s a whole generation of young people who are growing up with the idea that there is a concept of hate speech and that we are it and that we are way beyond the pale and ultimately to be criminalized and this is happening.  As a matter of fact, no less a constitutional authority that Chris Cuomo articulated this last year when we dared to try to stand up for the freedom of speech in Garland, Texas and, of course, in January 2015, 13 people who had dared to draw Mohammed were murdered by Islamic Jihadis in Paris and in response to that we thought we have two choices.  When they say we’re going to kill you for drawing Mohammed you either have to draw Mohammed or you have to submit and say yes you can get me to do what you want by threatening to kill me, and so you can manipulate me into silence and slavery. And so to stand up for freedom and for freedom of speech of course we had a Mohammed art exhibit and cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Jihadis attacked it and there was a great deal of media coverage there for a while about it at which time Chris Cuomo actually stated that the First Amendment does not apply to hate speech and what we were doing was hate speech and therefore it was ruled out.

Now, actually, if you read the First Amendment it doesn’t say anything about hate speech nor is there any legal thing in United States law called hate speech.  There is no such concept because of course what’s hateful to you is not hateful to me.  One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.  Everybody has a different evaluation of what is true and good right and what is evil and hateful for that matter, but just the advance of this idea, that Chris Cuomo could think that, a major commentator on a major network, that in itself indicates how deep the rot has gone and how far advanced this concept is, that there is an idea of hate speech and that we are it.  Now, the peer pressure and shaming advances of course by charging us with this hate speech and recently — there are so many examples of this I could talk all evening (I promise I won’t) — but there are so many examples of this where opinions that are perfectly valid and have a claim to truth and in an earlier and saner age would have been evaluated on their merits are instead dismissed as hate speech, labeled as such and that is all part of this overall initiative of peer pressure and shaming that Hillary Clinton told us they were going to do.

One example of course is our friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that actually did valid work in the ’60s for civil rights, but now has completely gone off the rails and become a tool for the left. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently, as you may know, issued a report on the 15 top anti-Muslim extremists in the United States, which included of course David Horowitz and me, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Gellar, many others, 10 or 12 others obviously and two of the people on the list of these anti-Muslim extremists were a reformist Muslim from the UK, Maajid Nawaz and the ex-Muslim from Somalia, the famous freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Now, this made this all very interesting because Frank, David and I and the others we’re used to being defamed in this way, although this was a new one.  To call us anti-Muslim extremists, if you think about that for a minute, what does the Obama Administration call terrorists?  Extremists.  Their whole program to fight Jihad terrorism doesn’t say “Jihad” or “Islam” because that’s forbidden in the Obama Administration and it’s called “countering violent extremism.”  So, to call us extremists the SPLC is saying we are terrorists.  We are the equivalent of Baghdadi, the ISIS Caliph and Osama Bin Laden and Al Laki and all the rest of them.  We are just the flipside of the coin.  Now actually it’s true.  David and I do plan to fly a plane into a high-rise building later on tonight, but in the meantime, I do think that that is an absurd categorization, but what happened in the wake of this was that Maajid Nawaz, in particular because he is very prominent on the left and particularly popular among the atheist critics of Islam and Jihad, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and so on, the atheists’ spokesmen who have actually spoken about Islam, there was a petition to get Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan off the list and of course the implication was it was perfectly fine for us racists and bigots to be on it, but now they had crossed the line.  Now, there was a certain touching naïveté to this.

You see, these supporters of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were thinking that those 13, those terrible deplorables, they belong on the list, but our friends, they don’t.  These people, no, they’re just unjustly maligning Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan.  They’re taking their statements out of context and misrepresenting them.  They are claiming guilt by association, indicating that they have associations with unsavory types and they’re questioning their motives and so on.  Well, what do you think happened to the rest of us?  This is just what the SPLC and its allied groups have been doing to us for years.  It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s all been a large-scale effort at peer pressure and shaming, making it so that we are toxic so that nobody else wants to speak out in the same way because they don’t want to be toxic and the whole idea of speaking out is stigmatized so that everybody is mute and silent as the Jihad advances.  It’s very well thought out.  I’ve really got to give them credit.  It’s a very skillful plan.  It’s very clever and very imaginative and deeply evil, but there’s always a silver lining, and the uproar about Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan being included among us anti-Muslim extremists it woke up a lot of people who I think had no idea that the SPLC is just a propaganda machine, but it is part of this propaganda machine that is working to extend the peer pressure and shaming to every honest critic who explores the motivating ideology of the Jihad terrorists and so we see it in all kinds of contexts.  Quite aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  We even see it at ESPN.

Now, ESPN is where I go when I want to not think about this, but it intruded even there.  Of course you probably know that Curt Schilling, the great baseball pitcher, after his pitching years were over he joined ESPN as a sports analyst of some kind.  I guess he probably talked about baseball and Curt Schilling actually is a conservative.  He now has a conservative talk show in the Boston area and he’s got very sound views on pretty much everything as far as I know and he actually dared to tweet out on his Twitter account some statements about Islam, most notoriously one where he said you say that only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Jihadis.  Well, only a tiny percentage of Germans were Nazis.  How did that work out?  For daring to say that he was suspended.  For saying other things that were outside the realm of what is acceptable he was ultimately fired by ESPN.  So, apparently, in order to talk about baseball on ESPN you have to have the right opinions or you will be shamed out of your job and the wrong opinions are of course the ones that probably most of us hear hold today.  It’s being taken for granted that we represent hate speech and it’s being extended into every aspect of society.

The ultimate goal of course is to make everyone afraid to hold these opinions because everyone will be afraid of losing their job, of being stigmatized as a racist and a bigot and so on and of course we’re so used to this we’ve heard ourselves called this for so many years, but it has never been so far advanced into the mainstream.  It is a tremendous blow to this whole initiative that Donald Trump was elected president.  Above all, because it shows that people don’t just buy this off hand.  I actually started to get some hope.  All summer and all fall the news was so bleak, the polls were so bad and Hillary was saying, “Why aren’t I ahead by 50 points?” And everything was so bleak, but I saw one thing that made me just dare to hope that things might turn out better and that was that trust in the media was at the lowest point it had ever been since anybody started keeping track of this sort of thing. And so while they are working to shame us and to apply peer pressure to silence us and while they are working to label what we do as hate speech, more and more people are waking up to it and 60 million of them did not buy it and voted for Donald Trump.  What we have now, however, is a president of the United States who commits hate speech and is subject to peer pressure and shaming and it’s an extraordinary position because after working so hard to delegitimize half of the American electorate and half of the spectrum of opinion that Americans legitimately hold, now that opinion is in power against their best efforts.

Now things are really going to get interesting and one of the best things actually that’s come about in this election cycle besides the election of Donald Trump was also the WikiLeaks exposure of just what the media really is and that’s one of the reasons why the trust in it is so very low because we grew up – I remember my father yelling at Walter Cronkite.  Walter was not in the room.  He was on the screen, but it was just what he was saying, and I remember Nixon, the first one, saying that he had faced bias from the press when he was running against John Kennedy in 1960.  Now that’s an awfully long time ago and that’s a lot of elections.  We’ve all grown up taking for granted media bias, but now we know that it’s far worse than that.  I took an online tour of the major news outlets in the early fall and the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, all the major names, and every last one of them had story after story after story about what a dangerous scoundrel Donald Trump was and stupid to boot.  There is an inherit self-contradiction in how they classify all conservatives.  They did this with George W. Bush, too.  He was a monkey, he was a marginal idiot, but he was also an evil genius who had somehow thwarted all their plans while being an idiot monkey.  Really astonishing talents. And of course Trump is the same way. And every last media outlet had anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump stories.  Not even the pretense of trying to be balanced news outlets anymore.  Not even pretending to have any objectivity.  It was just all wall-to-wall anti-Trump all the time and then it came out in WikiLeaks.

George Soros-funded organizations paid those august, trusted news outlets, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, you name it, they paid them for favorable coverage of the Iran nuclear deal.  They paid them for favorable coverage of the Muslim migrant influx into Europe.  They paid them for reports on the terrible Islamophobes.  They probably paid for that Southern Poverty Law Center anti-Muslim extremist list, but they certainly paid for other reports about how David Horowitz and I and others are these terrible, hateful, evil people who no decent person should have anything to do with.  And so we now know this is not news outlets at all.  These are bought and paid for propaganda outlets and their hegemony has been broken.  Even if Hillary Clinton had won, they would never have the hold that they had.  They will never have it again.  And so, we have every reason to be upbeat.  This is an ongoing initiative, as I said, and it’s not going to go away.  There are going to be continued efforts to stigmatize us, continued efforts to smear Trump as he becomes president, as he does anything, continued efforts to say that this is just some anomaly, sunspots, an accident of the Electoral College, something happened so that this maniac got to be president, but he’s still a maniac and any decent ordinary person will think he’s a maniac.  Nonetheless, the blades of grass have broken through the concrete, and it can’t be repaired, and so there’s every reason for hope.

But I will close with noting what exactly it is that we’re up against, what the effect of this stigmatization really is.  We have heard for decades now, and particularly after 9/11, that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the text and teachings of Islam, which you can see in my Guide to the Koran and biography of Mohammed, available now, any honest discussion of that is hateful in itself, bigoted, racist, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.  No.  This is how this works.  A few years back there was a Jihad plot against Fort Dix in New Jersey, and a group of Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed because the Koran promises paradise to those who kill and are killed for Allah.  It’s the only promise of paradise in the Koran.  It’s Chapter 9, Verse 111 if you want to look it up, and it says you’ll go straight to paradise if you kill and are killed.  These Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and kill and be killed and go straight to paradise.  But they were foiled.  Now, they were only foiled — it was on a shoestring.  As it happened, these guys were Islamic Jihadis.  Islamic Jihadis love death.  They always tell us that.  They love death, they love bloodshed, they love gore. And they went to a video store because they had their bloody Jihad videos, their beheading videos and their bombing videos, they had them on VHS tapes, and so they asked the young man at the video store, 17-year-old boy, they asked him to transfer their VHS Jihad tapes to DVD.  As he’s doing the job, he saw what was on the tapes and he got alarmed, and he went to his boss, and he said, “Dude, I’m seeing some very weird shit on these videos.  Should I call the police or would that be racist?”  Now, I should tell you, these Jihadis were Albanians; they were Albanian Muslims.  Albanians are blond-haired, blue-eyed white guys, so there was nothing remotely racist about what they were doing, not by any stretch of the imagination.  The idea that turning them into the cops would be racist was just something that had been drummed into this young man’s head all his life, that Muslims are victims and that any movement against Jihad terrorism, there’s something wrong with it.  And you think that that’s outlandish; it’s not.

A very successful program of surveillance in Muslim communities, a completely legal program that had been challenged in court and held up to the challenge, in New York City, was shut down by Mayor de Blasio on the grounds that it was hateful.  Now, what’s hateful about trying to defend ourselves against these people?  If you think about it, you know, how Trump is Hitler because he had proposed a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration.  Now, you may recall the real Hitler, in 1940, he banned the immigration of Jews so that he could kill them.  And Trump, not Hitler, wants to ban the immigration of Muslims so they won’t kill us.  Those two things are not exactly equivalent.  But the idea that it’s a terrible anti-Muslim thing completely obscures the fact that he doesn’t have something against Muslims.  He doesn’t have something against brown people.  That’s the way it’s always put.  He does not have some racist agenda here because, for one thing, he’s not saying let’s have a ban on Hindu or Buddhist or any other kind of immigration of people of the same brownness as supposedly the Muslims are.  The problem is that he’s trying to address in suggesting this ban is that there are going to be Islamic Jihadis among the Muslims who get into the country.  How do you keep them out?  You can’t tell the Jihadis from the peaceful Muslims.  They don’t carry membership cards in Al-Qaida.  So how are you going to tell?  There’s no way to tell to distinguish the one from the other, so you either have mass immigration of Muslims into the United States or more Jihad massacres or you have a ban on the immigration, but the idea that it’s racist and hateful is just more of this peer pressure and shaming that almost worked with that young man at Fort Dix.  He did turn them in.  He decided to go ahead and be racist, and so he saved a lot of people from being killed, but the stigma had already worked or he wouldn’t have hesitated, and the stigma is what they are trying to apply to any and every form of resistance to Jihad terror, that it’s anti-Muslim, it is hateful, and therefore, it must be ruled out of polite society.

Now, you understand, we still have the First Amendment.  We still have the freedom of speech.  But we now that there are certain things that can be said in the mainstream and certain things that will immediately be branded as hateful, and that is how Hillary Clinton’s program of peer pressure and shaming works just absolutely so well, and is going to continue to do so, unfortunately, despite her defeat.  The upshot is, however, that we do have every reason to be optimistic not just with Trump’s election, but with the breaking of the stranglehold of the mainstream and the possibility that truth might now actually even breakthrough somewhere like CNN.  I’m not counting on it.  I suspect that these great news conglomerate industries will go out of business before they would moderate what they’re doing, but the people have had enough and that is our hope.  What we have is an ongoing struggle that we have to be very aware of and resolute in whatever fashion that we can be in our own sphere in life to resist, and to identify this as an insidious attempt at the peer pressure and shaming to stigmatize what is a legitimate point of view and indeed a necessary one for our common defense.  And because, ultimately, we do have the truth on our side, we know that we will, in the final instance, be victorious.  Thank you very much.

Question and Answer Session

Audience member: Robert, could you tell us how do you undo Resolution 1618 that has been signed by Hillary Clinton?

Robert Spencer: Well, resolutions in the UN are not iron dogma, but they can be reversed. They can be repealed just like in any other parliamentary body, and one thing that I think the Trump administration ought to do is make sure that the United States is clearly and explicitly and defiantly on record defending the freedom of speech at the UN.  And –

Audience member: Because in fact, they’re going forward with this 1618 resolution and making it larger and bigger, all of the states at the United Nations, so it’s something perhaps –

Robert Spencer: Hillary probably would have tried to implement it.  All you needed was a ninth justice who was a foe of the freedom of speech.  The four leftist justices on the court right now have all gone on record saying they would be in favor of various kinds of restrictions on the freedom of speech. And so all you needed was one more.  We really dodged a bullet here.  All you needed was one more to say hate speech is not free speech and does not enjoy First Amendment protection and actually codify that in a Supreme Court decision and the First Amendment would have been dead.

Audience member: One more question.  There’s 1.7 billion Muslims according to your very, very thorough research.  What percentage would you say of that 1.7 billion are a threat to the world?

Robert Spencer: There’s no way to answer that question. The reason why is because the teachings about Jihad warfare against unbelievers and subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law, which denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and equality of rights of women and so many other things, all that is in Islamic law.  It is not negotiable.  It’s not some extremist opinion.  It’s basic mainstream ordinary Islam.  Those who tell you otherwise are lying.

Now, that said, does every Muslim believe that?  Is every Muslim bound to carry those things out?  No.  Absolutely not.  Just like in any other religious tradition, there’s some people who are very serious about it and some people who aren’t and every gradation in between.  So you have in the Catholic church, contraception is illegal, is immoral according to the Pope, but surveys show most Catholics practice contraception.  Does that mean that the Catholic church does not teach that?  No, it really does, but most Catholics don’t pay attention.

Now, in Islam, it’s the same thing.  Does Islam in all its various sects and forms teach Jihad warfare against unbelievers?  Yes.  Does that mean every Muslim is a Jihadi?  Absolutely not.  Many, many Muslims don’t know about that, don’t care about that, are never going to put it into practice.  They would rather live a comfortable life than go blow themselves up, but they’re not going to lift a finger to stop the guys who are blowing themselves up because they know that it’s in there.

Who has the mic?

Audience member: I do. This is a question I wanted to ask Anne Coulter and probably would have gotten a flip, funny answer, but I’d actually rather ask it to you, which is what would you like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  I’d appreciate your perspective on that.

Robert Spencer: What would I like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  Was that the question? Well, can you imagine the mushroom cloud?  Seriously, what I would like to see happen to the UN is that certainly the U.S. should withdraw all funding from it and evict it from the United States.  We can’t shut it down because there are a few other countries in it, but we can keep it out of New York and the United States in general.  They can go to Geneva and they can raise their own money.  It’s a propaganda arm for the global Jihad, for the OIC.  It’s a propaganda arm to hit Israel above all and so we have no business allowing our ally to be subjected to this or to continue with this pretense that it’s something that actually brings anything good to the world.  It doesn’t.

Audience member: Robert, thank you.  First of all I want to thank you profusely for all of your efforts in the cause of freedom. Your courageous efforts.  Now, could you kind or explain or expound upon and assess the following two assertions that we hear all too frequently?  One of them, we are not at war with Islam and the second one, the ideology of takfirism is an existential threat to the United States.

Robert Spencer: Well, the ideology of takfirism is kind of an incoherent thing to say because takfir is the practice of one Muslim group declaring that another Muslim group is not Muslim and can therefore be killed as heretics or apostates because heresy and apostasy carry the death penalty in Islam.  So many of the groups that are more entrenched in holding on to their wealth and power, like the Saudi government, the Iranians, they declared groups like Al Qaeda, they call groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS takfiris, which means these are the people who are saying that the rest of us are not Muslims and trying to kill us, but that doesn’t mean that, of course, the Saudis or the Iranians — the Iranians say it because they’re Shiites and the Al Qaeda and ISIS people are Sunnis, but in any case, nobody should get the idea that the takfiris or that is Al Qaeda and ISIS and the other Jihad groups are the only people who hold to the view that there should be warfare against unbelievers.

This is, as I said, standard Islam, kill them wherever you find them.  It’s three times in the Quran, Chapter 2:191, 489 and 95 if you want to look it up.  Chapter 9, Verse 29 says to wage war against the Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law, paying a special tax.  All these things are in basic Islam.

So if somebody says that it’s just these takfiri groups, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf and so on, that practice this, that’s just completely false on the face of it.  It’s taught by all the mainstream sects of Islam.

And the first question, we are not at war with Islam.  That also is sort of a false statement.  I mean, we’re not at war with Islam, but large portions of Islam are at war with us and the Muslims who are at war with us, they point to the Quran and Sunnah the example of Mohammed to justify what they’re doing and they recruit some unpeaceful Muslims and unless and until we recognize that, we’re never going to get anywhere.

The Obama administration in 2011 outlawed any honest discussion of the motivating ideology of the terrorists.  It actually is forbidden.  If you joined the FBI today, which I would not recommend, maybe when Trump is in, but not right now, if you joined the FBI today and you say I want to go into counterterror, you will not learn anything about Islam, anything about Jihad, even though that’s the largest global threat the U.S. faces.  You will hear about right-wing extremists and militias and constitution groups, but it is official policy of the Obama administration that there be no mention of Islam and Jihad in connection with terrorism.  The upshot is that our agents are completely unequipped to deal with what they are seeing with the Jihadis.  You can’t defeat an enemy you don’t understand and to get the intel about these people they don’t know what it means.

The Tsarnaev brothers who blew up the Boston Marathon, Russia reported them to the FBI.  They said these guys, actually Tamerlan the older one, he went to Jihad groups, he joined Jihad groups in Dagestan.  Now this was right around the time that the FBI under orders from John Brennan and Obama were erasing all mention of Islam and Jihad from counterterrorism.  So they get the intel from the Russians that says these guys joined Jihad groups right when the United States is blinding itself as official policy to the idea that Jihad is benign, nothing to worry about, nothing to be concerned with.  How could they possibly have followed through on that intel?  It went against the state policy of the administration and so the marathon blew up.

And so we have to understand that Islam, to a tremendous degree, is at war with us and that if we don’t realize that, it’s just going to get worse, but of course, Trump he made a big deal during the campaign of the fact that he would say that there was a threat from what he called radical Islam. It’s actually mainstream Orthodox ordinary Islam, but even saying radical Islam after these 8 years of denial and willful ignorance is refreshing and one would hope that he will change the institutional culture in the FBI and the CIA and Homeland Security and all the rest of them.  It’s drastically needed.

Who has the mic?  Yes, sir.

Audience member: Hi.  So I go to a high school where 99 percent of the students their parents are lobbyists or work in government.  I guess you could say I live in the swamp.  So I recently wrote something reflecting on the results of the election and as you can probably imagine it’s pretty positive and also as you can imagine I received a slew of peer pressuring shaming as you’d say.  I was told that Trump validates the KKK and white supremacy and I said no, the only reason they latched onto the campaign is because of the media’s lies and character assassination that told everybody that Trump was racist even though that’s not the case.

However, what other advice would you give to someone like me who lives in the midst of all those people to defend myself against such claims?

Robert Spencer: I think that mockery is awfully undervalued and that there’s a tremendous potential for it, particularly on college campuses.  I didn’t quite hear everything that you were saying.  Are you in a college right now or –

Audience member: No, high school.

Robert Spencer: High school, okay, even better.  Same thing really at this point.  The colleges are high schools and the high schools are middle schools and so on.  But the Muslim groups, I don’t actually know about high school, but I know that when you get to college you’ll see, the Muslim groups or the anti-Israel groups, the Students for Justice in Palestine and so on, they make a great show of their victimhood and their grievance theater is always featured on campuses.  So, for example, they have Israeli Apartheid Awareness week and they build a wall and have a checkpoint and you have to go through the mock IDF soldier to get to your class and it’s supposed to show you how terrible Israel is.

Well, we can have a lot of fun with that kind of thing if we turn it around on them and have, for example, they have Islam awareness week, well, why don’t we have Quran awareness week and put up “kill them wherever you find them” and “if you fear disobedience from your wife, beat her,” and all these things from the Quran. And they’ll say how could you have this terrible Islamophobia?  Well, it’s just the Quran.  I thought you wanted us to be aware of Islam.  And you play their contradictions back on them.

They talk about being feminists and being in favor of women’s rights and yet they are in bed with and in league with the most misogynistic and absolutely violent ideology toward women on earth.  So you have honor killing victim awareness week and put up the pictures of the unattractive women who have been killed by their fathers or their brothers for not wearing the hijab.  Actually, they have hijab week now on campuses and I’m seeing that all these non-Muslim girls are wearing the hijab to show solidarity with the poor Muslim girls who are yelled at for wearing hijab by racist, Islamophobic Trump supporters and, well, what about all the girls that have been killed for wearing hijab?  I can give you a long list and give you pictures of them.  And what about them?  Do they have any rights?  Can we have an awareness week for them?  What, you don’t care about these women?  It’s only those women?  And so on.

You see what I mean, that you have to in the first place have a very thick skin and be ready to be called everything that there is and understand that this is their tactic, to shame us out of doing what we’re doing, but you bring it back on them and shame them for their own contradictions and hypocrisy.

Audience member: Why are you so racist? No, that wasn’t my question.  My observation first of what you last said.  There are student groups working on colleges planning just that.  Saudi Arabia apartheid week. And planning to do street theater with gays hanging from – in Iran week.  But the question now, if I can remember, it was about changing the culture in our security services.  I know people from the intelligence and FBI community.  On a personal level, they are highly aware of this, but their investigations cannot be geared that way.  How long do you think it will take after 1:00 or 2:00 on January 20 for that to change? And how do we go about doing it?

Robert Spencer: You’re absolutely right.  I also know many people in the FBI and other agencies who are well aware of the nature and magnitude of the Jihad threat, but they’re keeping their head down, they’re doing their job, they’re biding their time and so things will get better very quickly.  But there’s also 8 years’ worth of agents who don’t have a clue and who have been completely misinformed.  I have a local FBI agent whenever I get death threats. He calls me or I call him and he says they’re on it and I say yes and then we go back to our business and nothing happens.

But I talk to him now and again and he was reassuring me the other day, last time I got a death threat and he’s saying, “I want you to know that I’m well aware of this problem with these guys that you’re tracking and also, we’re right on top of the other guys on the other side” and I said, “What do you mean, the other guys on the other side?”  And he said, “The people upstate, the right-wing militias, they’re just as dangerous as the guys you’re talking about,” and I thought, do they smoke opium now in the FBI as a matter of training?

Can you imagine, he thinks right-wing, when have you heard of right-wing militias, I mean, 30,000 terror attacks around the world by Islamic Jihadis acting explicitly in the name of the Quran, Islam, Mohammed since 9/11.  How many right-wing militias have done that?  And you can say, oh, yes, well, this fella or that fella or this guy had a Confederate flag, the psychopath with the bowl haircut in South Carolina.  This is hardly proportionate and hardly remotely the same magnitude of threat, but this is what they’re being taught nowadays and they can only explore the ideology of the one group and not the other.  So we can hope and I have every confidence now that that’s going to change and change quickly when the new administration comes in.

Thank you so much for being here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took “too many prayer breaks”

Reza Aslan: A Muslim “Will & Grace” will cure “Islamophobia”

Join the Heritage Study Program’s Israel Expedition from May 20 – 30, 2017

You are invited on Tom Trento’s Nation Security Mission to Israel, May 20-30, 2017. Along with Tom is Dan Gordon, Hollywood Screenwriter and current Israel Defense Force Reserve officer. No one knows Israel’s Military like Dan Gordon who has served there for over forty years.

After our incredible experience on the 2013, 2014 and 2015 trips, it is our pleasure to invite you to join us on the Fourth Fact Finding Expedition to Israel on May 20 – 30, 2017.

In conjunction with The United West and the Heritage Study Programs, we will be heading our third mission that will focus on and will offer most unique insights into the region’s current events. We heartily invite and welcome you to what will be a most informative and exciting expedition.

This trip incorporates visits to the Holy Land biblical and historic sites with a fact finding expedition that focuses on the region’s defense, security and intelligence. Area’s of special interest include the possible move of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and the Israeli border security system, as a possible model for the southern border of the United States.

FOR DETAILS GO HERE: http://tt.heritagestudyprograms.com/

The Ideological Litmus Test for Immigrants

There has been considerable and legitimate debate over the rightness and efficacy of profiling criminals. Where is the proper balance between good, proactive policing and infringing on Americans’ civil liberties?

But can the same two-sided case be made for profiling visitors and potential immigrants to our country? Not at all. Certainly no case can be made with the same arguments, starting with the fact that they are not American citizens.

Here’s why an ideological test is legitimate and responsible for immigrants and visitors.

  1. It is well accepted that nations have the right and responsibility to control their borders and control who comes and who goes.
  2. Two reasons they have a responsibility to do so are to ensure that people do not enter who want to foment insurrection and topple the legitimate government, or who are known criminals and pose a threat to the population. No one argues that latter, few would argue with the former.
  3. In the case of insurrection, that means that an ideological component must be at work for a nation protecting itself and citizenry. If a person is known to want to create a rebellion against the United States of America, for instance, there will be some sort of ideology driving that desire. And the government has not only a right, but a duty, to keep that person out of the country.
  4. Any ideology that seeks to replace the United States Constitution and its enumerated rights for citizens is by definition an ideology seeking to wholly replace the government of the United States that is derived from that Constitution, and is therefore an ideology of insurrection and subversion.
  5. Sharia law, just as a for instance, is a religious form of government. The Arabic term sharīʿah means a body of religious law derived from prophecy — as opposed to human legislation derived through democracy. Sharia law is set through religion and is governed by religious leaders. As such, it is antithetical to nearly every portion and amendment in the United State’s Constitution — the structure on which the legitimate government of the United States is built. Sharia law is therefore ideologically incompatible with the country and believes in the eventual overthrow of the government by some means.
  6. Therefore anyone who believes in Sharia law for the United States should not be allowed entrance to the country as a visitor or an immigrant.

The same reasoning can be applied to other ideological positions, such as being an anarchist or Mexican “Reconquistas” who believe that the entire Southwest United States should be conquered in some fashion by Hispanics.

This does not mean that if you disagree with an amendment of the U.S. Constitution or oppose with laws and policies you cannot come in — unless your ideology would lead you to criminally oppose them. And it would not apply to heads of state. But if any known or stated ideological belief leads to the overthrow of the United States government, then the government actually has a mandate to keep out people who hold those ideologies.

It is not bigotry. It is not a question of freedom of religion. It is not an affront to freedom of speech. And such ideological profiling does not apply to American citizens. But it is totally defensible as a required filter for visitors and potential immigrants for the sake of American citizens and visitors.

EDITORS NOTE: Here is the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America,

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: NYC Police looking for Burka clad Muslim woman taking photos of Jewish school

Relax, you greasy Islamophobe. She was just thinking about enrolling her children there and wanted to make sure they had adequate playground facilities.

“NYPD Seeking to Question Muslim Woman Caught On Video Taking Photos From Jewish School,” by Mark Hirshberg, JP Updates, October 1, 2016:

The NYPD Intelligence Division & Counter-Terrorism Bureau are seeking to speak with a woman that was caught on surveillance video taking pictures of a Jewish school in borough park.

The incident took place last week on Thursday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. The woman, dressed like a Muslim, showed up at the Yeshiva Imeri Yosef Spinka school located at 15th avenue and 58th street. She proceeded to take photos and look around all sides of the building as if to spy and stake out the place.

The school’s surveillance video was handed over to the NYPD.

Investigators from the Intelligence Division are now reviewing the video, NYPD officials told JP….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas: Abbas “by religious standards a Jew” for attending Peres funeral

California: Muslim plows vehicle into veteran’s car “in the name of Allah”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from FLICKER.

Film ‘The Enemies Within’ comes to Florida [+Videos]

Trevor Loudon the noted author and speaker has produced a film titled “The Enemies Within.” Floridians are hosting showings of his documentary across the Sunshine State.

CLICK HERE for “The Enemies Within” schedule of showings in Florida.

Loudon exposes how the Marxists and Islamists have taken control of the political apparatus in our nation to the highest levels and how over 60 legislators and others within our administrative government could not pass a background check due to these ties. Sharia Law is the goal.  This documentary names the names, gives the history and current events.

Islamic saying “First Comes Saturday; then Comes Sunday!” meaning:

“First we kill the Jews; then we kill the Christians”

To learn more visit EnemiesWithinMovie.com

First official trailer:

Second official trailer:

the_enemies_within_communists_socialists_and_progressives_in_the_u-s-_congressABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY FILM ENEMIES WITHIN

 The Enemies Within maps the socialist takeover and subsequent Marxist/Islamist Alliance within our nation and how these forces are working to subvert America from within.  Goal is Sharia Law and takeover of USA from within.

“The Enemies Within” zooms in on the best-kept secret of modern politics. Almost no one is aware of the fact that fewer than 20,000 U.S. communists, socialists and extreme “progressives” are able to influence the politicians and even write the laws that control the lives of over 300 million Americans.

At least 100 current members of the House of Representatives and 20 members of the U.S. Senate and others within our government could not qualify to obtain a basic security clearance. This documentary names the names. It is shocking to know that many U.S. Congressmen are sympathetically and politically aligned with groups who owe their allegiance to the non-liberty loving countries of Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela and even Iran and North Korea. See the interviews.

RELATED VIDEO: IPT’s Pete Hoekstra Testimony, “Defining the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror”