Pamela Geller “following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773″

/in , , , , /by

Brilliant piece, and no doubt provocative to the cowards who control the public discourse today — not that they will do anything but heap more opprobrium upon Pamela Geller and others who are fighting to defend freedom. Those who say “Yours was a gratuitous event that was needlessly provocative” don’t realize that Islamic supremacists are endlessly offended, endlessly provoked, and endlessly demanding, and those who think that if we just don’t draw cartoons of Muhammad, all will be well, are ignorant (willfully or not) of what Muslims are forcing non-Muslims to stop doing in other countries around the world today, because these actions offend them. Those new demands are coming, lemmings. Get ready to bow down again.

“In Defense of Pamela Geller,” by Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator, May 7, 2015:

The backlash has been considerable.

Pam Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative organized the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that sparked an armed assault by two self-appointed jihadis in Garland, Texas, has come under a withering assault for her actions. From Donald Trump to a crew at Fox that includes Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Susteren, Martha McCallum, Alan Colmes, ex-Bush aide and Fox contributor Brad Blakeman as well as liberal radio host Richard Fowler and doubtless more, Geller has been subjected to a firestorm of criticism.

I respectfully dissent.

According to Newsmax, Ms. Geller has now received an ISIS death threat. Or, as they say in the world of Islam, a “fatwa”:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy,” the message reads. “Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

Note well the word “khanzeer.” The translation is “swine” — as used in the Islamic world when Jews are called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Geller has been making the necessary media rounds to defend herself, including this post in Time magazine. Sean Hannity has come to her defense, saying: “You can’t draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad without expecting this violence? Is this how far we have sunk? That we’ve got to capitulate in this way?” Rush Limbaugh has leapt to her defense.

Megyn Kelly was blunt in her defense. “Even if you hate her message, she was promoting free speech,” Kelly said and told a guest critical of Geller that he was “fundamentally confused and wrong” and that “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in.”

Me too.

The notion that any American anywhere should restrict their own freedom of speech because to do otherwise would provoke violence is a certain path to ending freedom of speech. Let’s go with one of the favorite criticisms of Geller — that what Ms. Geller did holding that conference in Garland, Texas, was the work of a “provocateur.” OK. And?

American history is littered with “provocateurs” whose words or actions “provoked” violence. From the Boston Tea Partiers in 1773 to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, time after time after time words and actions provoked violence. The Declaration of Independence, in fact, didn’t just provoke a little violence — it provoked a seven-year-long war with Great Britain that was said to have produced 25,000 American casualties. That’s before one gets to the estimated 4,000 British soldiers who were killed. Not to mention that the mere election of Abraham Lincoln provoked a string of events which in turn launched the Civil War. Killing some 600,000-plus Americans. Now there’s a provocation.

Just two months ago President Obama and former President Bush joined together in Selma, Alabama, to celebrate the work of “provocateurs” who knew — and were warned — not to march across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge in support of black voting rights in 1965. As history records, Selma’s Sheriff Jim Clark faced the protesters at the head of a collection of billy-club wielding, horseback-riding troopers and used a bull horn to warn that the protesters “are ordered” to return to their homes or churches. Thus warned — quite specifically warned — that they were in danger of provoking violence, the marchers refused to turn back and kept coming. At Clark’s signal the troopers launched — and so ruthlessly inflicted violent beatings on the protesters that the event became known as “Bloody Sunday.”

In the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, a Geller-esque white Detroit housewife named Viola Liuzzo heard the call of Dr. Martin Luther King for Americans to come to Alabama and join the fight for voting rights. Liuzzo did so. And on the night of March 25, 1965, Liuzzo was driving a fellow marcher — a 19-year old black youth named Leroy Morton. Liuzzo’s car was spotted by the Ku Klux Klan. They were white racists who saw the fact of a white woman driving a black man as a provocation that violated the social mores of segregation and white supremacy. In response to this “provocation,” Liuzzo’s car was overtaken by a car filled with Klan members. They fired at Viola Liuzzo, shooting her twice in the head and killing her instantly. The car crashed, Morton played dead and once the Klan had departed went for help. This same white woman-black man combination was exactly the same social provocation cited in the killing of Emmett Till, the young black teenager who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Today Viola Liuzzo and the marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge are seen as heroes. In fact, during his visit to Selma for that fiftieth anniversary tribute the President specifically said: “If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done.” Really? Is the President saying he wants more racial provocations around America? Was he himself acting as a Geller-style “provocateur”?

Should Viola Liuzzo have not gone to Alabama? Should she not have protested for voting rights or had a black man in her car — because what she was doing was “provocative” to the white supremacist view of society and would provoke violence? To listen to today’s chorus of critics of Pamela Geller, apparently the answer is no, Viola Liuzzo should never have gone, and yes, in the end she provoked her own death.

The entirety of the civil rights movement and quite specifically the words and actions of its leaders — most prominently including Dr. King himself — were seen in the day as provocative of violence. In fact, King himself would pay for all those words and actions with his life, shot to death while in Memphis for a 1968 march. Should Dr. King never have marched, spoken, and protested? Should the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never been enacted because it was the result of provocative, violence-inciting Freedom Riders and marches across the South?

There’s another fact here that is ignored. Forget the threat of Islamic radicalism. Take the issue off the table entirely. The uncomfortable fact of life today in a 21st century America drenched in television, films, and social media is that people of prominence, whether they are candidates for office or simply media figures or celebrities, are all too frequently targeted by those who are provoked by their words and actions.

Bill O’Reilly — and I’m not picking on him here but since he has raised the subject himself — is a case in point. Mr. O’Reilly, famously, is the host of Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor, a show with a huge popular following. Five nights a week for 19 years O’Reilly has been delivering a show that is filled with controversial views and frequently controversial people. To his credit, he never holds back in saying what he thinks.

Is what Bill O’Reilly does every night “provocative”? Does Bill O’Reilly invite violence? Well, catch this 2008 CBS interview with O’Reilly himself, as reported by CBS:

“My life is dangerous now,” he said. “You know, I have bodyguards and security. I can’t go many places. I can’t be in certain crowd situations. When I do a book signing, I gotta have a phalanx of state troopers there because there are crazy people. And then there’re the Web sites and all of that, which are just totally out of control.

“They encourage these nuts. You know, I was thinking about John Lennon, you know, and John Lennon was tryin’ to be a nice guy, signing the guy’s thing and [Chapman] pops him. So, that is the worst part of the whole ‘Factor’ experience.”

Got that? What Bill O’Reilly does on his television show is so provocative to some people that his life “is dangerous now” and he has to have “bodyguards and security.” What O’Reilly is saying here is that yes, he too is a “provocateur” — just like Pam Geller. Should O’Reilly quit his show? Should he be seen not as a television host with an interesting show but rather condemned as a deliberately provocative public danger whose very presence anywhere in public could result in violence to innocent bystanders? Should he curtail his First Amendment right to say what he wants on his own television show? Should he be condemned for nightly doing something that is, to use O’Reilly’s description of Geller’s actions, “dumb”?

Absolutely not. That would be dumb.

The disturbing reality here is that, as mentioned, this “provocateur’ phenomenon isn’t limited to Bill O’Reilly or Pam Geller. All kinds of people in the public eye who are not the President of the United States with a retinue of Secret Service agents are targeted by someone Out There as a “provocateur.” As O’Reilly himself mentioned, former Beatle John Lennon’s celebrity alone was enough to provoke a killer. Just the other week, the news brought a recording of a 911 call from a frantic actress, Sandra Bullock. Bullock was locked in a closet in her own home — while a crazed stalker prowled though her home looking for her. Why? For no other reason than Bullock’s movie celebrity had provoked this nut into violently breaking into her home. Should Bullock halt her acting career because it has provoked violence?

What Pamela Geller is about — courageously and boldly — is standing up for freedom. That’s it. That’s all. “My country is in danger,” she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday — and she is right. When O’Reilly says “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid… It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,” he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isn’t Geller’s job to defeat ISIS. That’s the President’s job. It isn’t her job to provoke — or not provoke. It isn’t her job to be smart — or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech — and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny.

What concerns with all this criticism? In effect what the critics are saying is that we should start curtailing American freedoms — the Constitution — to avoid “provoking” or offending someone. Muslims today, gays yesterday, rioting Baltimoreans last week. And so on through some catechism of political correctness.

Where does this stop? Just as Islam forbids images of The Prophet, so too does it forbid homosexuality. If Americans are not supposed to “provoke” Muslims by doing something that offends their religion, does this mean the push that is on now for gay marriage should come to a screeching halt? Should the Supreme Court make gay marriage illegal because to recognize gay marriage would deliberately provoke Muslims across America and around the world? Indeed, isn’t an American approval of any gay “right” a deliberate provocation of Muslim sensibilities?

This is, I would suggest, an untenable place for conservatives to be. It’s an untenable place for liberals to be. It’s an untenable place for Americans to be. It isn’t enough to say some version of “oh sure Pam Geller has the right to do it but she’s provocative and what she did is dumb.” As Sean Hannity has said, Americans cannot slip into the habit of saying “I’m for free speech…but…”

What Pam Geller is doing is bravely standing where so many Americans celebrated today once stood. She is following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773 or the signers of the Declaration in 1776 Philadelphia or the civil rights marchers on that Edmund Pettus Bridge or Viola Liuzzo in 1965….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Geller, Wilders, Spencer “fighting the West’s battle for freedom”

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Blurred Lines: When Guns Become Speech by JEFFREY A. TUCKER

/in , , , /by

Suing the government is always risky. It’s mostly unsuccessful. But the inventor of the first 3-D-printed gun (“The Liberator”) is forging ahead anyway. He has filed suit against the U.S. Department of State for forcing him to take down his digital files from the Internet.

The New York Times quoted several constitutional attorneys who believe that Wilson case is non-trivial and could possibly be decided in his favor. First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams told the Times: “On the face of it, it seems to me like a serious claim.”

The grounds he has chosen are interesting and compelling. He says that by forcing his data offline, the government violated his free speech rights. He did nothing but post a file type with digital content, essentially just a series of 1s and 0s

The State Department scrambled to find some old regulation to use to force it down. They scrounged up Cold War-era regulations concerning “International Traffic in Arms” — legislation designed to control the flow of arms from the U.S. to Soviet-bloc territories in Eastern Europe.

But Wilson never trafficked in guns. He didn’t even manufacture any with an attempt to market them, much less transport them across national borders. He merely shared an idea through the medium that is the primary vehicle for the exercise of speech in our time. How can a law designed to prevent guns exports pertain to the sharing of an idea?

What is the difference between a real gun and a digital model of a gun? Guns are physical, weighty, take up space, and subject to the constraints of scarcity. To be transported, they have to be packed and shipped.

But what if you can take the model for printing a gun and render it in an infinitely malleable, portable, reproducible, weightless file that can shared like an email? Anyone who obtains that file can print a functioning gun.

Under those conditions, a gun leaves the physical world to become part of the realm of ideas. To invent it, change it, and share it is no different from inventing, changing, and sharing any other idea. It is a human right. And that is precisely what the First Amendment seeks to protect. For any government to forbid it is to muzzle the freedom to think and to speak.

Wilson publicly posted his computer-aided design (CAD) files on a distributed network. He did nothing more. It’s a form of speech. But the government said no. Over the following two years, Wilson tried his best to comply with the regulations to which the government claimed he was subject, but never did receive a green light.

Meanwhile, this being the Internet, his CAD files migrated to a thousand other places online. Wilson very cleverly assured that this would happen by releasing his file with a compelling video that garnered massive media attention. Millions of downloads took place. Just days after the files had been posted, crowd-sourced improvements to his 3-D gun were all over the Internet, and YouTube was hosting video tutorials in how to print and assemble them.

The case really pushes us to think about the implications of government regulation in the digital age.

Over the last 20 years, we’ve seen the acceleration of a great migration of the physical world to the digital world. It began with messaging, moved to images, and then onward to sound files and movies.

With 3-D printing, potentially any object can be digitized and ported peer-to-peer anywhere in the world, making a mockery of production controls, consumer regulations, trade barriers, patents, taxes, and a thousand other government restrictions. With the migration of money from physical to digital, and from national to global, as with Bitcoin, the same new reality presents itself.

The more this revolution progresses, the more we become aware of just how outmoded our systems of government control really are. They were created in an analog age where all sources of economic value seemed to be instantiated exclusively into scarce, physical goods. When government sought to control them, they were really controlling physical things and persons. This is what government does well, by use of its monopoly of coercive control in a particular geography. Government is a uniquely analog institution.

But what happens in a digital age when the physical inhabits a digital space in which “things” become infinitely portable (regardless of borders), infinitely malleable (regardless of regulations), and essentially indestructible (regardless of how much coercion is used)?

Government experiences a loss of control. It becomes ineffective, outmoded, and obsolete. Inner contradictions begin to reveal themselves.

In a digital world, government attempts to control really amount to an intervention in fundamental civil liberties such as speech that nearly everyone believes must be protected.

The American left — which has long believed it could heavily regulate the “economy,” while leaving civil liberties intact — will have trouble making sense of this one. The American right — with its belief that free enterprise can live happily alongside censorship — faces a similar cognitive dissonance.

What’s beautiful in this case is that Cody Wilson knew of this tension all along, and his gun was designed to underscore the point: If you try to control the Internet, you are really attempting to control people in ways that are unconscionable. He is a student of the libertarian tradition, and his passions are fundamentally with the cause of human liberty. He is not a “gun nut” so much as a “human rights nut”; now he can fairly be said to be a free speech nut. Matters are playing out exactly as he had hoped.

Regulating in the world was much easier when we are talking about land, heavy machinery, and other things that take up space. It all comes down to who has the most manpower and firepower.

But when the truly valuable things in the world cross that great divide between material and merely intellectual, the balance of power shifts too. The cause of freedom has the advantage. This is the single most salient feature of the politics and economics of our time.

I truly hope that Wilson wins his case. But even if he loses, he has made his point: Either we shut down the progress of the world toward ever more sharing of information, or we stop trying to impose atavistic forms of coercion and control.

Meanwhile, I just Googled for CAD files of printable guns. In a fraction of second, 2,000 different models filled my screen. In some ways, Wilson has already won. You can’t stop the signal.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.

Trojan House: U.S. State Dept. Program Brings Refugee Jihadis to America costing Billion $

/in , , , , , /by

Refugee Resettlement and Hijra jpgMike Bates and I interviewed Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  blog on 1330 AM WEBY’s “Your Turn’ program, Tuesday, May 12, 2015. Corcoran is the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America .“ We noted  early in the interview the importance of Hijra (immigration in Arabic) as a doctrinal imperative for Muslims in one of the Hadith (sayings of Mohammed) according to a reliable commentator, Bukhari:

There can be no Hijra (migration) after the conquest but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle then spread out.

For more see: Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  By Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi.

The focus of our discussion was on  rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement  under the billion dollar secretive US Refugee Admission Program that has operated under the virtual radar screen for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President  Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Based on the interview, Corcoran believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting thousands of  potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Watch Corcoran’s Center for Security Policy You Tube video which has gone viral since its posting on April 20, 2015 with  236,748 hits at last count.

Here are some takeaways from the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Corcoran:

  • The UN High Commissioner for Refugees  “calls the shots”  on the annual allotment of 70,000 refugees that the State Department sends a Presidential Directive  to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC to be ‘rubber stamped’ by Senate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and Border Security.
  • The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions program through hearings and recommendations leading to changes in countries of origin under UN allotments.
  • The Refugee Admissions Program has been used punitively against  political critics. One example is the assignment  of  large  numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota
  • Nearly 400,000 refugees admitted to the US under this State Department program funded by taxpayers came from “countries that hate us”: Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and soon, Syria;
  • Hundreds of terrorists have entered the US as refugees, many fraudulently, whose backgrounds are impossible  to run background checks as their countries of origin are virtual failed states;
  • Among examples of refugee Jihads caught are:

Dozens of Somaliémigré youths arrested and charged with material support for terrorism by attempting or leaving to join Al Shabaab in war torn Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria;

Iraqi Al Qaeda operatives admitted because of fraudulent representations who were convicted of trying to attemptingto ship weapons and funds to Al Qaeda and only caught when fingerprints were found on shards of an IED that killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in Iraq;

The Brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three and one MIT police officer, injuring over 263, some maimed for life.

  • Rampant fraud was detected  from DNA samples among Somali applicants under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program  resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years.  20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued to eject them.
  • Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department  Refugee program let in to the US  thousands of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.
  • Endangered Middle East Christians are effectively discriminated against for refugee status, because  they do not reside in UNHCR camps, dominated by Sunni Muslims. Of  the initial group of  Syrian refugees brought into the US, 92 percent were Muslims, with the balance Christian.
  • There are upwards of  17,000 Syrians refugees  in the UNHCR pipeline awaiting processing for admission to the US.
  • The State Department contracts with 9 religious and special interest NGOs who place refugees through a network of 350 contractors and compete for significant processing fees and grants for obtaining citizenship.
  • Refugees are legal immigrants and thus have access to a smorgasbord of cash assistance, Medicaid, educational support that run into billions of costs all funded by US taxpayers.
  • The  Federal  Office of Refugee Resettlement  has a contract with a Soros-backed immigration advocacy group, “Welcoming America,” to go into ‘pockets of resistance’ in local communities targeted for refugee allotments.
  • Local communities have virtually no say or review of refugee placements to assess local burden on schools, medical facilities or assisted housing. That has led Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to write Secretary Kerry to put a hold on refugees slated for his district until resettlement questions are answered.

For more, listen to the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.  An article based on this interview will appear in the June edition of the NER.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Is Already Here—and It’s Called ‘ISIS’ by Raymond Ibrahim

/in , , , , /by

The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.  While Hirsi Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform—and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures she suggests to do so—many of her critics offer a plethora of opposing claims, including that Islam need not reform at all.

The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below—namely, that Islam has already “reformed.”  And violence, intolerance, and extremism—typified by the Islamic State (“ISIS”)—are the net result of this “reformation.”

Such a claim only sounds absurd due to our understanding of the word “reform.”  Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations.

Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view.

In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points.  “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word.

Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible.  With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching.  So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s current reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”
In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet—including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses—is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white teachings of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it exclusively with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it” (Bernard Lewis,The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).  This is an important point to be revisited later.  Muslims who do not become disaffected after becoming better acquainted with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures, and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another.   This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

  • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike.  Instead of combating and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic).  Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
  • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity.  Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
  • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman.  The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves.  More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
  • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9).  The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

The Islamic Reformation Is Here—and It’s ISIS

Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different.

Put differently, those in the West calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.  That is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing.  Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran—the very two foundations of Islam.

That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.

Habitually overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.

Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state.  Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar [temporal] and unto God the things of God [spiritual]” (Matt. 22:21).  For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36).  Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state.   Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36).   Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).

Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and the example of Muhammad as laid out in the Hadith—in a word, Sharia.

And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).

Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).

Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.”  Submit to what?  Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith—the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting.

The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.

Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UCLA Prof Khaled Abou El Fadl Condemns ISIS, But Does He Condemn Stealth Jihad?

Virginia Muslima, Islamic State supporter, gets 4 1/2 years prison for lying to FBI

Obama’s Middle East Debacle

/in , , , /by

Saudi Arabia's King SalmanI had to laugh when I heard that the new King of Saudi Arabia, Salmon, told the White House he wasn’t going to attend Thursday’s photo-op get together of Arab leaders. Some lesser Saudi officials will attend. The message is clear enough, so long as Obama continues to make nice with Iran, the center of the problems in the Middle East, the Saudis and the others are going to be wary of any proposal that comes out of the White House.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, Obama seems to have no idea of the history or the dynamics that affect all the actions there. His Secretary of State, Kerry, is no better. He met with Arab officials last Friday and they told him they want a defense treaty in the event they were attacked by “external forces”, something that the Congress will not approve so long as Obama is in the White House.

One would think that any President at this point would have concluded that the Palestinians have no intention of signing onto a peace treaty with the Israelis.

Writing in The New York Times on May 8, Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, put it bluntly, “It doesn’t matter what these politicians think now or have said in in the past. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not happening in the next two years.” That’s how long we all have to wait until Obama leaves office.

David P.Goldman, a Senior Fellow of the Middle East Forum, writing in Asia Times Online on May 10, spelled it out. “It is inconvenient for diplomats to say so, but the Palestinian Authority collapsed quite some time ago,” noting that “President Mahmoud Abbas’ term in office began in 2005 and ended six years ago, and he has not called new elections for the simple reason that Hamas—the Palestinian branch of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood—would win those elections.” These days the Egyptians label Hamas a terrorist organization and have taken steps to eliminate the Brotherhood. At least they know who the enemy is.

Obama has been antagonistic to Israel from before he was elected and has made little effort to hide it. Consider this, as Goldman notes, “Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israel in 2014, prompting Israeli counterstrikes during the summer.” Its declared intention and the reason for its existence is to eliminate the State of Israel. Why are we surprised to hear that Obama wants to take the statehood issue to the United Nations, a hotbed of anti-Semitism, and has little to say of the Palestinian Authority’s assertion that it wants to drag Israel in front of the International Criminal Court for having defended itself against the attacks by Hamas!

Not only has the Saudi King sent Obama a message, but so did the Israelis when they overwhelmingly reelected Benjamin Netanyahu as their Prime Minister. “The Israelis look around the Middle East and see nothing but conflict, carnage, instability and danger,” said Schanzer. “The Obama doctrine—which includes a deliberate contraction of American power in the Middle East—has undeniably made Israel less safe.”

It has made the U.S. and the world less safe too.

One of the most obscene aspects of the Obama obsession with Iran is that, in return for any deal—which Iran would ignore and cheat—they are ready “to provide as much as $120 billion in sanctions relief to satisfy the narrow technical parameters of a nuclear deal, which would legitimize Iran as a threshold nuclear state. These funds,” said Schanzer, “will flow to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Iran terror proxies dedicated to Israel’s demise.”

To put all this in perspective, as Goldman reminds us, “From Israel’s standpoint, the Palestinian Authority was offered 95% of Judea and Samaria in return for a final peace agreement, and both times (at Camp David in 1999 under Ehud Barack and in 2008 under Ehud Olmert) the offer was rejected.”

“The U.N. Security Council,” said Goldman, “will punish Israel for the failure of negotiations that were meaningless to begin with, and establish a Hamas-controlled state within nine miles of the Mediterranean coast. Iran has already promised to arm West Bank Arabs, just as it armed Hezbollah and Hamas.”

Israel which has enjoyed the support of the United States since it declared its independence in 1948 is now put at risk by the first administration to deliberately turn its back on it in preference for a deal with the leading terror-sponsor, Iran, in the Middle East.

You cannot make a greater mess of the mess that already exists in the Middle East, but Obama is doing his best to add to it. What else should we expect from a President who refuses to utter words like “Islamic terrorism”?

© Alan Caruba, 2015

You’re on the Front Line of the Islamic War

/in , , , , /by

Does anyone remember what happened on September 11, 2001? Or is it just “ancient history” at this point? Some three thousand totally innocent Americans were murdered by a sneak attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Who did it? The same murderous Islamists who attacked an event in Garland, Texas to focus attention on the insanity that passes for one of the world’s great “religions.”

Islam is not a religion. It is a cult around the so-called prophet Mohammad and his assertion that the Koran was the word of Allah. The name Islam means “submission” and the purpose of Islam is the tyrannical control over the entire world’s population. Within this alleged holy faith, two sects, Shiites and Sunnis, have been at war almost from its inception, never failing to kill one another.

The turmoil in the Middle East is the direct result of this murderous cult and those Muslims who oppose the killing that flows from Islam must keep their silence or become its victims. Jews and Christians can speak out and debate about aspects of their faiths, but Muslim risk death when they do so. For those Jews and Christians living in Middle Eastern nations, death is always a prospect for no other reason than not being Muslim.

Americans have not yet fully embraced the fact that they are on the front lines along with other Western nations in a global war with Islam.

Will it take another 9/11? Surely the recent attack by two Islamists on May 3rd in Garland, Texas, was another wake up call. They arrived intent on killing as many of those attending the American Freedom Defense Initiative event. A Garland police officer killed both before anyone had to die in the name of the Bill of Rights.

AA - Garland TX and IslamBut why Garland, Texas? Because, as my friend Amil Imani noted in a recent commentary, “The venue was chosen as a defiant response to a Muslim group that had held a conference entitled ‘Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate.”’ Ironic, eh? Their response to the event that invited cartoons of Muhammed as to want to kill the participants. If that is not war, I do not know what is.

If Muslims feel hatred, they have earned it here in the United States and elsewhere they have attacked any criticism or defiance, from Charlie Hebdo in France to the countless attacks around the world from Mumbai, India to Bali. A website, the Religion of Peace, com, posts news of the daily assaults by Muslim on both other Muslims and those they call “infidels”, unbelievers.

Pamela Geller who leads the American Freedom Defense Initiative has been widely assailed for her event that was intended to respond to the earlier one in Garland that Amil Amani noted “was convened to eliminate free speech or any expression, verbal and/or artwork depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammad in a negative light.”

“As a life-long expert on the subject of Islam, I felt that this event—more than anything else Pamela could have done—would be the target of a violence terrorist attack in the name of the religion of peace, either real and explosive or on social media at the very least.” It was real.

The Garland police were taking it seriously. Amani said “I was astonished at the large police presence already there. Some of the cops were dressed in tactical gear and carrying AR-15s. The security was ubiquitous, almost as if something untoward had already happened.”

Speaking in an interview with Sean Hannity on May 6, Geller noted that neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security has yet to have contacted her about the thwarted attack. “This is a serious threat” said Hannity. “Basically a Fatwah, a death threat, has now been issued.” Geller noted the lack of interest or concern expressed by those in our government one might expect to at the least make an inquiry, adding that “I have a team now, private security, and NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me.”

Now I call that a level of courage for which Pamela Geller should be praised, but I heard too many criticisms that she was being “provocative.”

“Provocative”?????

When are Americans going to realize that the Islamists do not need any provocation? When are we going to start acting like we are at war? A good first step would be to stop inviting Muslims to immigrate to America. The Obama administration has been importing as many as possible. The next step is to understand that it is Obama and his administration that are part of the Islamic war.

It is the Pamela Geller’s that are crying out to us. We need to listen. We need to support them. We need to arm ourselves if we have not done so already. Then we need to secure “concealed carry” laws in every State of the Union. We are at war.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Rising Concerns over Muslim Refugee Resettlement in U.S. [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

Ann Corcoran’s brief video on Muslim Refugee Resettlement in the U.S. has gone viral since being put up on YouTube on April 20, 2015 by the Center for Security Policy. It has had over 200,735 hits to date climbing every day. Clearly, Corcoran’s message has resonated among concerned Americans. Watch it on YouTube:

Refugee Resettlement and Hijra jpgThe CSP YouTube video is a complement to her recently published book on the problems confronting America over the threat of mass Muslim migration that has transformed Europe and now troubles grass roots America, “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America” .

Corcoran and her team chronicle news and developments about this issue on the blog where she is editor, Refugee Resettlement Watch. You may have read our interview with Erick Stakelbeck, ISIS Threat to America  in the current edition of the NER where he drew attention to the Somali refugee communities in the American heartland sending jihadi terrorists in Somali and Syria.  He spoke of young Somali émigré men who have joined up with, first Al Shabaab in Somalia, and now increasingly, join the Islamic State to fight for the self-declared Caliphate in Syria and Iraq.   We have drawn attention to the problems of Somali refugee resettlement in NER articles and Iconoclast posts over the past eight years.  They have  covered  severe cultural and integration problems in the American heartland  in places like Shelbyville, Tennessee, Emporia, Kansas, Greeley , Colorado, Minneapolis, Minnesota,  Columbus, Ohio, and Lewiston, Maine.

The Somali émigré jihadis aren’t the only terrorists among admitted refugees. Think of the brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013. See our NER article, “Refugee Jihad Terror in Boston.”  An ABC investigation reported that dozens of terrorists have been admitted fraudulently under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program.

 One example was two Iraqi refugees, al Qaeda operatives, arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2011 convicted in 2013. They were charged with sending weapons and cash to Al Qaeda. They lied on their Federal Refugee Admission forms about their prior terrorist involvements in Iraq. One had constructed IEDs, involved in killing four members of a Pennsylvania National guard unit in 2006 in Iraq. A check of fingerprints on the shards of the IED caught the perpetrator. Watch this 2013 ABC Report. Recently, one of those convicted, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction because his counsel said he wouldn’t get life.  That episode briefly raised the criticism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

In excess of 250,000 Somali and Iraqis have been admitted to the U.S. as refugees.  An estimated one million have immigrated to the U.S. from Muslim lands. Through births and admittance of relatives under the problematic P-3 Family Reunification Visa program the impact could mean millions of additional Muslim émigrés in the U.S.  Virtually all of the Somali and Iraqi refugees were Muslim.  Endangered Christians and other minority religion accounted for less than 8 percent of Syrian Refugees admitted under the State Department administered U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Eleven Christian, Jewish and special interest NGOs or voluntary agencies (VOLAGS) are paid by the billion dollar State Department refugee program to process and place refugees in American communities. VOLAGS like Catholic Charities, Lutheran World Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the International Rescue Committee. The total annual federal and state program costs of refugee resettlement are estimated to range in excess of $12 to $20 billion annually.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees  establishes priorities for U.S. Admissions under the Refugee Act of 1980. An Act co-sponsored by the late Edward Kennedy and then Senator, now Vice President in the Obama Administration, Joe Biden. The U.S. may be poised to accept another wave of over 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years.   Doubtless they and growing number of  Muslim refugees from  elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia will be “seeded”  in American cities under the Fostering Community Engagement  and Welcoming Communities Project of  the Office of Refugee  Resettlement with the Soros-backed  NGO, “Welcoming America“.

 But now there is pushback by American cities, as witnessed by concerns expressed in letters to Secretary of State Kerry by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Judiciary Sub Committee on Immigration and Border Security. Both The House Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) hold annual hearings over refugee allotments. Gowdy’s letter of April 13, 2015 was prompted by constituent complaints in Spartanburg, South Carolina of the establishment of a VOLAG office to processing Muslim refugees. He wrote Secretary Kerry seeking answers as to why the office was being established and had not been reviewed with state and local agencies. He ended his letter:

I request that any plans to resettle refugees in the Spartanburg, South Carolina, area be placed on hold until my constituents and I receive your substantive responses to the questions and information requested in this letter. Additionally, before moving forward, both the Spartanburg community and I should have time to substantively review the information and be comfortable with the information provided.

As previously stated, I am troubled by the lack of notice and coordination with my office and the Spartanburg community, particularly local officials, regarding the plans to resettle refugees in the area. In that vein, I request at least one month’s notice prior to the arrival of the first refugee[s] in the Spartanburg area.

To find out more about what could become an important issue for evaluation of 2016 Presidential candidates, be sure to listen to an interview with Ann Corcoran of RRW by Jerry Gordon and Mike Bates on 1330am WEBY “Your Turn.” The program will air at 5:30 PM CDT (6:30 PM EDT), Tuesday, May 12th.  You may Listen Live here. The recorded program will be archived and posted following the broadcast.  A transcript of the interview may appear in the June edition of the NER.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Welcomes Millions of Aliens ‘Sight Unseen’

“A Growing Threat”: You’ll be Amazed at the Number of Immigrants Who Have Come to America From Muslim Countries Since 9/11

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

6 Reasons Pamela Geller’s Muhammad Cartoon Contest Is No Different From Selma

/in , , , , /by

“In 1965, defying racist Democrats posed a legitimate threat to your life. In 2015, defying jihadists poses a legitimate threat to your life. Martin Luther King knowingly risked his life. Pamela Geller knowingly risks her life.”

This piece is brilliant in its clarity. Leftists and Islamic supremacists have, of course, reduced it to “Nolte likens Pamela Geller to Martin Luther King!” but that is not the point at all, although there really isn’t any problem with the comparison anyway. The point is that both “provoked” an oppressor to expose him as such, at risk to their lives. One is revered, one is excoriated. Both are heroes.

“6 Reasons Pamela Geller’s Muhammad Cartoon Contest Is No Different From Selma,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, May 9, 2015:

When you are dealing with the mainstream media, it is always difficult to tell if you are dealing with willful ignorance or just plain old ignorance-ignorance. There are plenty of moronic savants in the national media who have cracked the “hot take” code to please their left-wing masters but have no fundamental grasp of history, or much of anything much of else.

The act of willful ignorance in the media manifests itself through bias, and lies of omission conjured up to serve that bias. These dishonest liars know they are dishonest liars, and willfully choose to not tell the world pertinent facts like, say, Baltimore has been run by Democrats for a half-century, Hillary Clinton is in favor of legally aborting infants born alive, Ted Kennedy abandoned a drowning woman, and George Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Anyone who knows anything about history understands that tactically and morally, Geller’s provocative Muhammad Cartoon Contest was no different than Dr. Martin Luther King’s landmark march from Selma to Montgomery.

The first thing the spittle-flecked will scream upon reading the above is that I am comparing Geller to King. I did not know King. I do not know Geller. I am not comparing anyone to anyone. What I’m comparing is one righteous cause to another.

The second thing the spittle-flecked will scream is that King never would have held a Draw Muhammad Cartoon Contest … which brings me to the first reason there is no moral or tactical difference between Garland and Selma:

The Oppressor Chooses the Form of Protest, Not the Protester

Whether it is a bully stealing lunch money, an abusive husband “keeping the little woman in line,” a government passing unjust laws, or religious zealots demanding fealty from all, oppressors come in all shapes and sizes.

Oppressors do, however, share three important things in common: 1) The use of the threats of everything from shaming to instituting unjust laws to violence. 2) The goal of stripping others of their rights. 3) The choosing of the design and structure of whatever defiant protest might take place against them.

The protester has absolutely no say in this matter.

The only way to defy and protest against the bully who takes your lunch money, is to not give him your lunch money. Through his own actions the bully has designed the form of protest. The same is true for the abusive husband. If he is using the threat of violence to keep you “in line,” a defiant protest can only come in one form: doing the exact opposite of what he tells you to do or not to do.

If an unjust government passes a law making it illegal to sit in the front of the bus, the only way to protest the unjust government is to sit in the front of the bus.

Martin Luther King did not choose his form of protest in Selma. Racist Southern Democrats did.

Pamela Geller did not choose her form of protest in Garland. The jihadists did.

The day that changed America is called “Bloody Sunday.” On March 7, 1965, five-hundred-plus civil rights activists provoked violence from their oppressors by defiantly gathering on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

It was the oppressor who chose this form of protest, not the protestors. Racist Democrats who ran Selma and the state of Alabama refused to authorize the march and pledged to stop it. Therefore the only righteous way to defy these racist Democrats who refused to allow Americans to exercise their God-given right to protest for their God-given rights, was to go ahead with the march.

What was true in Selma 50 years ago also was true in Garland 5 days ago.

It was the jihadists who told us they would oppress us with violence if we exercised our God-given rights to draw and satirize Muhammad. Therefore, to righteously defy this oppression, Pam Geller and the 200 others had no other choice but to draw and satirize Muhammad (more details on this below).

The Deliberatively Provocative Symbolism of the Site of the Protest

The launch point of the historic 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery was no accident. To poke a finger deep in the eye of their racist Democrat oppressors, civil rights organizers deliberately chose the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The bridge is named after a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, a confederate Civil War general, and a Democrat U.S. Senator.

Starting their civil rights crusade in such a place was an intentional taunt, an open insult to a diseased culture, and an obvious act of cultural blasphemy.

For the same righteous reasons, Geller chose the site of The Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, to hold her defiant cartoon protest. Just two weeks after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France, a Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect event was held at the Curtis Calwell Center. The Islamic event was a horror show of extremism.

An unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings was invited to the conference — a barbarian who has declared the F.B.I. a terrorist group and preaches, “This so-called democracy of America, will crumble and there will be nothing. The only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

The organizer of the event, Malik Muhammad, has advocated for Sharia Law here in America.

The entire event was premised on “defeating” those who disrespect Muhammad. This was all couched under the politically correct term of “Islamophobia,” but here is the rub:

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. … “Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

Like I said: it is the oppressor who chooses the form of protest.

A Righteous Cause for Civil Rights

In the face of a very real danger, Martin Luther King, his fellow organizers and hundreds of free Americans, stood up and defied their savage oppressors in defense of their God-given rights.

They provoked violence, taunted, and broke the law, all in furtherance of a righteous cause.

In the face of a very real danger, Pam Geller, her fellow organizers and hundreds of free Americans, stood up and defied their violent oppressors in defense of their God-given rights.

They provoked violence, taunted, and obeyed the law, all in furtherance of a righteous cause.

I Come In Peace

The Selma protesters defying their violent oppressors, did so peacefully. Their only provocation was exercising their rights.

The Garland protestors defying their violent oppressors, did so peacefully. Their only provocation was exercising their rights.

Democrat Bigots Victim-Blame

While much of the national media sided with the Selma protestors, local Democrats in the media and the political establishment blamed and demonized King, and his followers, for rocking the boat, provoking violence, insulting the local culture, and causing the violence to happen.

Last week, Democrats in the media (New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, and even some sorry corners of Fox News) and the political establishment blamed and demonized Geller, and her followers, for rocking the boat, provoking violence, insulting a culture, and causing the violence to happen.

The 1965 Democrats and today’s Democrats are also bigots. The same CNN that protects Islam from offense by blurring the Muhammad cartoons, does not blur the Piss Christ.

The same New York Times that blasts those who offend Islam, profits from Mormon bashing.

Every one of these present-day media Democrats are silent in the defense of satire and mockery directed Christianity, or they enjoy and defend it. The opposite is true of satire and mockery directed at Islam. And that is the very definition of bigotry.

For the Righteous Cause of Freedom, People Risk Their Lives

In 1965, defying racist Democrats posed a legitimate threat to your life.

In 2015, defying jihadists poses a legitimate threat to your life.

Martin Luther King knowingly risked his life. Pamela Geller knowingly risks her life.

In both good and evil ways, Sunday in Garland, Texas, history repeated itself.

The national media is hiding that fact because they are either too bigoted, cowardly, and biased to tell the truth, or too ignorant to see the truth.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Malaysia: Muslim leader forbids Mother’s Day, says it honors Virgin Mary

SNL skit depicts fear of drawing Muhammad

Iran Holds Holocaust Cartoon Contest, Draws Nearly a Thousand Entries

Court: NSA’s Mass Surveillance Is Illegal: The 2nd Circuit strikes down bulk collection of U.S. phone records by JULIAN SANCHEZ

/in , , , , , /by

In a ruling certain to profoundly shape the ongoing debate over surveillance reform in Congress, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today held that the National Security Agency’s indiscriminate collection of Americans’ telephone calling records exceeds the legal authority granted by the Patriot Act’s controversial section 215, which is set to expire at the end of this month.

Legislation to reform and constrain that authority, the USA Freedom Act, has drawn broad bipartisan support, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stubbornly pressed ahead with a bill to reauthorize §215 without any changes. But the Second Circuit ruling gives even defenders of the NSA program powerful reasons to support reform.

McConnell and other reform opponents have consistently insisted, in defiance of overwhelming evidence, that the NSA program is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, and that any reform would hinder efforts to keep Americans safe — a claim rejected even by the leaders of the intelligence community. (Talk about being more Catholic than the Pope!) . . .

A few notable points from the ruling itself: Echoing the reasoning of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s extremely thorough report on §215, the Second Circuit rejected the tortured legal logic underpinning both the NSA telephone program and a now-defunct program that gathered international Internet metadata in bulk.

The government had persuaded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to interpret an authority to get records “relevant to an authorized investigation” as permitting collection of entire vast databases of information, the overwhelming majority of which are clearly not relevant to any investigation, on the premise that this allows NSA to later search for specific records that arerelevant.

As the court noted, this not only defies common sense, but it is wildly inconsistent with the way the standard of “relevance” — which governs subpoenas and court orders used in routine criminal investigations — has been interpreted for decades.

If every American’s phone records are “relevant” to counterterrorism investigations, after all, why wouldn’t those and other records be similarly “relevant” to investigations aiming to ferret out narcotics traffickers or fraudsters or tax cheats?

Past cases invoked by the government, in which courts have blessed relatively broad subpoenas under a standard of “relevance” only underscore how unprecedented the NSA’s interpretation of that standard truly is — since even the broadest such subpoenas fall dramatically short of the indiscriminate, indefinite hoovering the agency is now engaged in.

The court also quickly dispatched arguments that the plaintiffs here lacked standing to challenge the NSA program.

In general, parties seeking to challenge government action must demonstrate they’ve been harmed in some concrete way — which presents a significant hurdle when the government operates behind a thick veil of secrecy. Since documents disclosed to press by Edward Snowden — and the government’s own subsequent admissions — leave little question that the plaintiffs’ phone records are indeed being obtained, however, there’s no need for a further showing that those records were subsequently reviewed or used against the plaintiffs.

That’s critical because advocates of broad surveillance powers have often sought to argue that the mere collection of information, even on a massive scale, does not raise privacy concerns — and the focus should instead be on whether the information is used appropriately.

The court here makes plain that the unauthorized collection of data — placing it in the control and discretion of the government — is itself a privacy harm.

Finally, the court repudiated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s strained use of the doctrine of legislative ratification to bless the NSA program.

Under this theory — reasonable enough in most cases — when courts have interpreted some statutory language in a particular way, legislatures are presumed to incorporate that interpretation when they use similar language in subsequent laws.

The FISC reasoned that Congress had therefore effectively “ratified” the NSA telephone program, and the sweeping legal theory behind it, by repeatedly reauthorizing §215.

But as the court pointed out — somewhat more diplomatically — it’s absurd to apply that doctrine to surveillance programs and legal interpretations that were (until the Snowden leaks) secret, even from many members of Congress, let alone the general public.

While the court didn’t reach the crucial question of whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment, the ruling gives civil libertarians good reason to hope that a massive and egregious violation of every American’s privacy will finally come to an end.

Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, studying technology, privacy, and civil liberties, with a focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. Julian Sanchez is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, where a version of this post first appeared.

Has Vatican newspaper converted to Islam?

/in , , /by

The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano ran a piece with the subtitle, “Shooting in Texas at an exhibition of blasphemous cartoons.”

Blasphemous? They’re blasphemous according to Islamic law, because Islam asserts that Muhammad is a prophet. So is the Vatican now submitting to Islamic law? Merriam-Webster defines “blasphemy” as “great disrespect shown to God or to something holy.” So does the Vatican now think Muhammad is holy? Has L’Osservatore Romano converted to Islam? Is Muhammad now considered a prophet by the Catholic Church, like Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel? Will he get a feast day on the Roman Catholic calendar?

They could have used any other word — offensive, tasteless, odious, whatever. But using the word “blasphemous” sends a hugely misleading message.

Meanwhile, here is an excellent evisceration of the idea that L’Osservatore Romano also puts forward — that our free speech event was needlessly provocative, throwing gasoline on the fire: “Do I Have to Draw You a Picture? The Cartoon Wars Come to America,” by William Kilpatrick, Catholic World Report, May 6, 2015:

…That brings us back to the L’Osservatore Romano article. Its authors decry provocation—“wanting to throw gasoline on the fire”—but have they paused to consider that many Catholic beliefs and practices are also provocative to Muslims? In Saudi Arabia, Bibles and rosaries are considered provocative and no churches are allowed. In some Muslim countries, ringing church bells is considered provocative. In other places it is provocative to rebuild a church that is falling down—so provocative that Christians have lost their lives for the offense. In still other Muslim areas it is considered provocative if a Christian won’t pay the jizya tax, and he can be killed in consequence. In some parts of the Muslim world, simply being a Christian is sufficient provocation for murder.

A large part of the “provocative intent” of the Garland exhibit is to prevent such things from ever happening here. It’s a reminder that the sharia ban on blasphemy is meant to apply not just in Iran and Arabia, but everywhere. Everyone is expected to submit. The event and its aftermath also serves to remind us that it’s not a good idea to let the most violent among us determine the limits of free speech. If the Muhammad Art Exhibit is dismissed as incendiary and needlessly provocative, it means that Muslim extremists get to call the shots about what is and is not a permissible form of expression in America. Today it will be Muhammad cartoons that offend. And tomorrow? Well, it could be anything, because Muslim radicals seem to have an unlimited capacity for being offended. It could even be church bells or rosaries.

Some will say that Geller and Spencer are needlessly stirring up trouble. In reality, they are saving us from much greater trouble down the road by flushing out the danger we face while there is still time to face it down. If Americans don’t pay attention to wake-up calls of the drive-by-jihadist variety, they will wake up someday to find that the time for defending their freedoms has already passed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes & Hamas-linked CAIR rep agree Pamela Geller is “odious”

Media shares same goal as jihadis: they want to silence Pamela Geller

“Victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ aggression”

Watch Video: Pamela Geller Spars with Judge Jeanine Pirro Over Free Speech

Saturday Night Cinema: Out of the Past

The Real Hero of Garland

“Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong”

Florida event featuring Geert Wilders canceled for fear of Islamic jihadists

Syrian Archbishop: “We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not”

/in , , , /by

Why don’t the Christians in the West help them? Because it might harm the dialogue: “Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims.” —Robert McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, February 8, 2013

“Syrian Archbishop: ‘We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not,’” by David Gibson, Religion News Service, May 4, 2015:

NEW YORK (RNS) Archbishop Jean-Clement Jeanbart of Aleppo is returning to the front line of the real war on Christians, which he calls home — that is, Aleppo in war-torn Syria, where his ancient church faces the threat of extinction.

I wrote here about Jeanbart, who was in the U.S. last week in an effort to raise awareness about the plight of Christians in Syria — they include his Eastern-rite Melkite Catholics as well or Eastern Orthodox and other churches — and to raise money for their survival.

The archbishop is a remarkable figure, facing the personal danger while trying to protect an entire community and tradition and way of life. He had controversial things to say (at least in the U.S. political context) about supporting Syrian president Assad; when faced with ISIS as the alternative, you understand his “devil-you-know” choice.

But Assad may be at risk of falling. Americans are not likely to shed a tear for him, and many have been pushing the administration to aid the Islamist rebels, who could wind up slaughtering what’s left of the Christians in Aleppo and elsewhere.

And American Christians know so little about their fellow believers in the region, or even that such Christians exist, that Middle East church leaders like Jeanbart face an uphill battle:

“We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not,” as Jeanbart told Cardinal Timothy Dolan during the New York archbishop’s weekly radio show.

I couldn’t include all of the interview in the first version, so wanted to pick it up here with the question:
What does Archbishop Jeanbart want?

In short, he thinks the West, led by the U.S., should work to stop the flow of arms into the country. He does not want Western military intervention in terms of boots on the ground – just a ceasefire so that Syrians themselves have a chance to work out their problems in a way that respects each community. That’s how it was for centuries, and he says that’s how it can be again.

Most immediately, he wants material support for Syrian Christians.

A chief problem, church officials say, is that Christians who are among the nearly 8 million internally displaced people in Syria are afraid to go to refugee camps that receive the bulk of international humanitarian aid because they would have to register to enter and could then be pegged as Christians – and would be targets all over again.

So Christians wind up trying to stay put in war zones, or seek refuge in churches, Catholic hospitals or schools, or the homes of relatives. (Aid to the Church in Need has pledged $2.8 in emergency aid for Christians in Syria.)

“The church will support us in a way, morally and spiritually. But the church has very little material means,” Jeanbart said. “It doesn’t have armies. It doesn’t have budgets to help. Nobody has ever taken care of us.”

“We expect Christians in the West to help us. They do not,” Jeanbart, his voice rising in frustration, told Cardinal Timothy Dolan during the New York archbishop’s weekly radio show.

Jeanbart said that on the other hand, his Muslim neighbors and religious leaders in the city have often offered him a place to live or hold services….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer, PJM: Our Cartoon Contest Provoked Jihadis? Here’s News: They Were Already Provoked

Hamas-linked CAIR urges Michigan Muslims to take precautions after Islamic State threatens Pamela Geller and non-Muslims in U.S.

Celebrating Mothers

/in , , /by

AA - Mother's Day TitleAs someone who had the great good fortune to have had a remarkable mother, a woman who embraced being my Mother by providing unconditional love and support for my various activities and decisions over the course of my life, I approach the subject of motherhood with the knowledge that this does not apply to everyone.

I have friends whose mothers were true horror stories. One wonders how they survived theirs. And, of course, I can only approach the topic from a son’s point of view. A mother’s relationship with a daughter may differ, but I cannot speak to it. Daughters, too, have benefitted or paid a price for their mothers.

What struck me as I contemplated the forthcoming Mother’s Day was the way my Mother, born in the early 1900’s both loved being a mother and, well before the woman’s movement that demanded equality, was in the adult school workplace teaching the art of gourmet cuisine for some three decades.

Rebecca acquired a great following and her classes were always sold old. Mother, who occasionally expressed regret she had not attended college, had an encyclopedic knowledge, not only of food, but of wines. Not only would she author two cookbooks, she would become the first woman board member of the Sommelier Society of America.

Need it be said that dinner was the highlight of our days together, Mother, my Father Robert, and myself. An older brother was largely gone out of our lives as the result of service in the Army and marriage shortly thereafter.

Mother brought to her classes the philosophy she lived at home. My Father adored her. Their marriage exceeded sixty years together. He delighted in her success. That was reflected in an atmosphere of love that imbued our lives together.

Mother lived to age 98, passing away in 2002. A day never passes without thoughts of her. I was truly blessed in the same way my Father, her friends, and countless students felt. She imparted a philosophy that saw life as a constant opportunity to learn about one’s passions and to pursue them.

The modern American holiday of Mother’s Day was first celebrated in 1908 when Anna Jarvis held a memorial for her mother in Grafton, West Virginia. She had begun her campaign to have Mother’s Day become a recognized holiday in 1905, the year her mother passed away. As she put it, your mother is “the person who has done more for you than anyone in the world.” Several states officially recognized Mother’s Day and in 1914 President Wilson signed a proclamation creating Mother’s Day on the second Sunday in May as a national holiday.

There have been men whose mother’s contributed in significant ways to the success they achieved. To call them Mama’s Boys is to realize that the relationship had both a good and not so good effect on them. Elvis Presley began his rise when he went to Sun Records in Memphis to record some songs as a birthday present for his mother, Gladys. He was her only child and had a very close, loving relationship. She was living with him at Graceland until she passed away in 1958.

Another Mama’s Boy was General Douglas MacArthur. The youngest of her three sons, when he went off to West Point, she followed, taking up residence at a hotel where she could keep an eye on him. Reportedly they got together for an hour after he dined with his fellow students. He, of course, grew up to lead America to victory in the Pacific Theatre of World War Two. There was nothing about him that suggested his mother’s close attention and love did anything but prepare with a great sense of self-confidence.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only son of Sara and she was as controlling a mother as one could imagine. After he married Eleanor without Sara’s approval, she gave them a townhouse in Manhattan which connected to her own! Reportedly, Franklin latter admitted he had been terrified of her mother his entire life. That, however, did not interfere with his rising to become President and one of the great leaders of his times.

One might speculate that, for good or ill, being a Mama’s Boy, loved and/or controlled applies in some fashion to the sons of all the mothers.

The fortunate ones like myself can grow up to bask in the love of their mothers and look back on their lives together with memories that guide our present lives.

To me, motherhood, along with fatherhood, has surely got to be the most important job any woman or man can undertake.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Texas and Kansas File Amicus Briefs Supporting Florida’s Lawsuit Against Expansion Of Obamacare

/in , , , , /by

AUSTIN – Governor Greg Abbott today filed an amicus brief in support of Governor Rick Scott and the State of Florida’s lawsuit against the Obama administration’s unlawful attempt to coerce the State of Florida into a massive expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Governor Abbott released the following statement:

“The federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority and ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, where the Court held that Congress could not coerce States into accepting a massive expansion of an already broken and bloated Medicaid program. The State of Texas will exercise its constitutional right to refuse Medicaid expansion, and we support the State of Florida’s effort to do the same.”

“[The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] has threatened to withhold from Florida billions of dollars in Medicaid payments, and it has issued similar threats to Texas, Kansas, and others,” wrote Governor Abbott in the amicus brief. “These threats are surely just the beginning of a nationwide campaign to hold hostage federal waiver dollars in those States who are standing firm on their constitutional right to refuse the new Medicaid.

“No litigant should be put to the choice of surrendering its day in court against an agency that is violating the constitution, or facing unjustifiable retaliation by the same agency in the future. HHS’s public reasons for harassing Florida do not withstand scrutiny. The agency picked this fight with Florida in an unlawful attempt to isolate, intimidate, and coerce, [and] the court should grant Florida’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief.”

To view the amicus brief in its entirety, click here.

UK Elections: Conservatives Win, Israel-hating MP George Galloway Defeated

/in , , , /by

The results of  the Westminster Parliament  elections in the UK appear to be a victory, Prime Minister, David Cameron and his  Conservative Party trouncing Labor’s Ed Milliband. Milliband may  have been done in by the resurgent Scottish National Party copping all but one of the 59 seats in the Westminster Parliament, previously a Labor bastion in the north.  But no less important was the defeat by the Labor Candidate Naz Shah of George Galloway,  the notorious  Israel hating  Respect Party MP in the  predominately South Asian Muslim  Bradford West riding, parliamentary district.

George Galloway 2

Former MP George Galloway

The Bradford West riding is emblematic of  rising presence of the largely clan dominated South Asian Muslim Pakistani émigré  community in the UK. Galloway was defeated by Naz Shah , a  Muslim woman and Labor candidate by a resounding plurality of 11, 420 votes.  Galloway had won a surprise election in 2012 and believed his contest might have been an easy romp. Festooned with a black fedora riding around his riding during campaigning in an double decker bus with Pakistani and Palestinian flags flying,  one would have thought it was a proverbial shoo in, as we say here in the U.S. Not.  He ran a divisive campaign  and mean spirited campaign. The Guardian reported one example of  Galloway’s  campaign against Shah:

He repeatedly insinuated that Shah was pro-Israel, despite her insistence that she had attended marches for Gaza and Palestine. At one point he tweeted a picture of Jews waving Israeli flags with the caption: “Thank you for electing Naz Shah”, juxtaposed with flag-waving Palestinians and the caption: “Thank you for electing George Galloway.”

The Independent noted Shah’s  victory remarks :

I thank all my opponents, with the exception of one, who all convicted themselves really deeply to, and fought to be elected on, issues and in the spirit of friendly rivalry. To Mr.  Galloway I say that your campaign demeaned our democracy but personal attacks on me have not worked. The people of Bradford West have seen through this and you have been sent on your way.

During the campaign someone had deposited a dead crow on Ms. Khan’s doorstep stuffed with grass.

The Jerusalem Post reported an angry Galloway’s concession speech:

Galloway emphasized that this is not the end of his political career, adding that “The venal and the vile, the racists and the Zionists will all be celebrating.”

“The hyena can dance on the lion’s grave, but it can never be a lion. In any case, I’m not in my grave. As a matter of fact,  I’m going off now to plan my next campaign,” he said.

Galloway may have been done in by  his incessant trolling for dollars for Hamas in Mosques across  the UK and  this country for  his personal charity  Viva Palestina.  The United West video team  led by Tom Trento here in Florida had compiled a video record  of Galloway’s violations of US fund raising  that gave rise to Congressional calls for investigations.  We had written about  Galloway’s  frequent trips to  the U.S. to raise funds for Hamas in a September 2010 NER, expose, Coming to a Mosque Near You, Pimping for Terrorists.

 Apparently, the leopard hadn’t changed his spots as evidenced by a parliamentary office  aide, spilling the beans about his abuse of public office and misappropriation of  public funds to run the Viva Palestina  ‘charity’ fund raising. The UK charity authority has apparently  impounded  funds in Viva  Palestina  Galloway’s private charity. The Jerusalem Post reported:

His former parliamentary assistant Aisha Ali-Khan lodged a legal complaint against Galloway, filed on her behalf by Asserson Law Offices, over allegations that she was paid during her work hours to organize Viva Palestina’s fundraising events, organize its media coverage, organize and promote a “Women’s Convoy” to Gaza, recruited Viva Palestina volunteers and prepare promotional material.

“During her employment, Ms Ali-Khan was instructed to carry out a number of activities which were clearly not parliamentary and some of which were expressly prohibited…except when on leave,” according to the legal statement. Ali-Khan also alleged in the statement that she was charged with helping to plan Galloway’s wedding and assisting his soon-to-be bride.

In the six months that she worked as Galloway’s assistant, she claims that 75 percent of her work time was spent on non-Parliamentary matters. British law puts the onus on parliament members for making sure that funds, such as salaries for assistants, are used only in relation to governmental matters.

Last year, standing in front of a Palestinian flag Galloway declared the northern city of Bradford, an “Israel-free zone.” “We have declared Bradford an Israel-free zone. We don’t want any Israeli goods. We don’t want any Israeli services. We don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or college. We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford, even if any of them had thought of doing so. We reject this illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel,” he said.

In August of 2014, when asked about alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria, Galloway said that if it was true, Israel was the one supplying al-Qaida with the sarin gas used. “If there has been use of chemical weapons, it was al-Qaida,” he said. “Who gave al-Qaida chemical weapons? Here’s my theory. Israel gave them the chemical weapons.”

How anti-Semitic and anti-Israel is Galloway and the Respect Party South Asian organization was vividly documented in a Politico UK chronicle by the author Ben Judah who had the chutzpah to go into the lion’s den during the waning stages of Galloway’s campaign, “A Jew in Bradford”.  Note what occurred:

A few months ago I had reported from the city for a Jewish online publication, and had been critical of Galloway’s anti-Zionist rhetoric. I reported that he has inflamed a hissing conspiracy theory where Jews were blamed for 9/11, for all wars all over the world, and were seen as the new Nazis

The woman from Respect does not approve.

I inform her that Respect’s Bradford HQ has given me the address and told me I can come. She then disappears, makes calls, and talks to several of the Asian men at the doorway. She returns saying I have to leave.

The press officer — whose name I miss — says she has called Bradford HQ and they now “know who I am”: I must leave immediately.

I walk out and onto the sidewalk, and take a picture of the Respect activists and the seven Asian men milling about outside the Church. They have come to see Galloway: The event is described on social media as a rally for supporters.

A burly Asian man in a black suit and sunglasses rushes up and grabs me round the neck, pinning me to a low perimeter wall. “Get out, you fucking Jew,” he shouts. I am being throttled as around ten Asian men surround me. My teeth chatter as a man in a tracksuit punches me in the head.

“Delete, delete,” they shout at me, “delete the photos.”

An older man in a shiny crooner’s suit is shouting. “Let’s call the police. Let’s get him arrested.”

Galloway is like the proverbial cat with nine lives. We can only hope that the abuse of public office and misappropriation of funds  charges against Galloway  for  raising money for Hamas out of his riding office can be brought to trial and  result in his conviction. Perhaps he might spend a term in a British prison commiserating with a Muslim cell mate about how those  damnable Jews have done him in.  Small hopes.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

FBI chief: Potentially ‘thousands’ of Islamic State followers in U.S.

/in , , , /by

So don’t draw any Muhammad cartoons, people, and maybe they won’t hurt us.

Anyway, why are there potentially thousands of followers of the Islamic State in the U.S.? The FBI shows a remarkable lack of curiosity about that. Of course, Bureau policy is to ignore the ideology, motives and goals of the jihadis. Muslims are streaming into this Islamic group that the Obama Administration insists is not Islamic, and nary an Administration official stops even for a second to ponder how this strange phenomenon came to be.

“FBI Chief: Potentially ‘thousands’ of online ISIS followers in U.S.,” ABC News, May 7, 2015:

There may be as many as thousands of people inside the United States consuming online “poison” from ISIS alone, and, “I know there are other Elton Simpsons out there,” FBI director James Comey warned today, referring to one of the men who opened fire outside of an event in Texas earlier this week celebrating artists’ portrayals of the Prophet Mohammad.

“We have a very hard task” in trying to identify and stop anyone inspired to launch an attack inside the U.S. homeland, Comey told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas and a small group of reporters.

Such efforts have become particularly challenging because ISIS has reconfigured and redefined terrorist recruitment, according to Comey. In fact, while the FBI is trying to find that so-called needle in a haystack, “increasingly the needles are invisible to us,” he said.

As recently as two years ago, someone in the United States who wanted to consume “radical poisonous propaganda” would have to seek that out on the Internet, most likely on a jihadist web forum. So the FBI focused its investigative efforts on those jihadist web forums, Comey said.

But “that has changed dramatically, especially with [ISIS] and their use of social media,” where on phones in people’s pockets they ask Americans and other foreigners “to travel to the so-called caliphate to fight” but simultaneously say, “If you can’t travel, kill where you are,” according to Comey.

“It’s almost as if there is a devil sitting on the shoulder saying, ‘Kill, kill, kill, kill’ all day long,” he said. “[They are] recruiting and tasking at the same time. … In a way, the old paradigm between ‘inspired’ and ‘directed’ breaks down here.”…

Comey, meanwhile, warned that even when the FBI finds someone who has in fact connected with ISIS, keeping track of that person is becoming increasingly difficult.…

Especially since the FBI is bound as a matter of policy not to study or understand the motivating ideology of these people.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jihadis encouraged Texas cartoon jihadi to launch a jihad attack

FBI alerted Garland Police about jihad attacker 3 hours before shooting

Jihad Attacks in Texas, While Obama Keeps U.S. Safe From Iraqi Nuns