Attempted Assassination of Iranian Dissident in New York

If confirmed, this is the first time since 1981 that the Iranian regime has targeted a defector on U.S. soil.

Iranian dissident Mansoor Osanloo, the exiled former head of the bus driver’s union in Tehran, was savagely attacked on Tuesday, May 1, while traveling on a PATH train into New York City, and left for dead.

Multiple assailants sprayed him with a corrosive chemical, then clubbed him in the back of the neck with what appears to have been a tire iron. He lay in a coma for several days and required 17 stitches in his neck.

I spoke with Osanloo on Monday, not long after he awoke from a coma.

Mansoor Osanloo

“I don’t remember anything,” he said. “But you can see from the pictures that I was sprayed with some kind of a chemical weapon and smashed in the head.This was a terrorist attack.”

Photographs taken at the hospital show a horribly-disfugured Osanloo. The burns to his skin are reminiscent of mustard gas attacks.

Osanloo has been instrumental in planning mass protests across Iran in recent months, and is the most prominent Iranian labor leader, in Iran or in exile. He was traveling to the New York studio of Iran International Television for an interview at the invitation of broadcaster Askar Ramazanzadi.

It remains unclear who funds the new “exile” TV based in London. But it has attracted many former broadcasters from Voice of America, such as Mohammad Manzapour, who were forced to resign from VOA because of alleged ties to the Islamic State of Iran authorities.

“They knew what time I was supposed to go to their studio,” Osanloo told me. “They knew what route I had to take. And then their studio published lies about what happened, claiming it was a car accident.”

An initial report on the Telegram channel of Amadnews, a website that boasts of close ties to “dissidents” within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Tehran, cited a U.S.-based “associate” who claimed that Oslanloo had been the victim of an “attempted assassination.”

That report appeared on May 2nd at 2:54 pm, before any public information had been released on the attack and while Osanloo himself was still in a coma. It begs the question of whether Ahmadnews had inside information from the attackers themselves.

Amadnews next claimed that its initial information of an assassination attempt had been “confirmed” by Iran International TV, the same channel that had invited Osanloo for the interview in New York. That report appeared at 5:09 PM.

Later, Ahmadnews cited the television as claiming that Osanloo had been injured in a car accident and had hit his head on the steering wheel.

That later Iran International TV report quoted Osanloo’s wife as saying he had been injured in a car accident.

“That is absurd,” Osanloo told me. “I don’t even drive. Everybody knows this. I always take public transit.”

The obvious chemical wounds Osanloo suffered attracted the attention of the FBI, who visited him in the New York hospital where he was taken after he was found by transit police.

“They took my clothes, my vomit, and my blood for testing in the FBI lab,” Osanloo told me.

The FBI had warned Osanloo prior to the attack that he was at risk in the United States from an attack by Iranian-regime agents. Once he was admitted to the hospital, they made sure his name was not entered into the hospital registry, so Iranian government agents couldn’t find him.

So far, the FBI has refrained from making any public statement. Osanloo was not robbed, nor was there any apparent motive for the attack other than a political assassination.

This apparent assassination attempt against a prominent Iranian dissident living in the United States, if confirmed, would be the first time the Iranian regime has targeted an Iranian dissident on U.S. soil since the July 22, 1981 assassination of Ali Akbar Tabatabai, a former press spokesman for the Iranian embassy in Washington, DC under the shah.

Tabatabai was killed by an American convert to Islam, David Belfield, who was associated with the Islamic Center in Potomac, Maryland, owned and controlled by the Alavi Foundation, an Iranian government entity whose assets have been forfeited to the U.S. government on money-laundering charges.

Until 1996, the Iranian regime regularly sent hit teams around the globe who killed more than 200 prominent dissidents in gangland-style killings. It wasn’t until the German government prosecuted the killers of Kurdish dissidents at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin that the Iranians called off their killers in Europe.

“This was an attack not on me, but on the United States,” Osanloo told me. “I am a green card holder, so I am an American first, then an Iranian. I am just like you.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Alienage Discrimination Is Now A Thing. And It’s Really Bad

“Alienage discrimination” is exactly what is sounds like; the discrimination against people specifically based on them being in the country illegally. It’s little known, but it is fatally dangerous for America.

Right up front, the threat here is that if alienage discrimination gains the same legal civil rights protections as, say, racial discrimination, then we can shut down ICE and any deportations. Once someone slips into the United States they will have essentially the full legal protections of any legal resident. Which is approximating insanity.

But traveling the remaining distance into the nationally insane, there would be standing and precedent to ultimately require “undocumented residents” the actual right to vote. If you are looking for the signs of America’s ultimate downfall from within, this would be in flashing neon.

Not surprisingly perhaps, this affront to legal, rational reasoning and national sovereignty comes courtesy of President’s Obama’s pen when he created DACA after Congress would not do what he wanted. Also not surprising, it is finding some foothold with Obama-appointed judges who act solely as policymakers, not arbitrators of law. (If political leaders are seeking appropriate places to use impeachment, these judges are prime targets.)

This is not a one-off.

Twice now in the past few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants have legal standing to sue American employers that won’t hire them because they are here illegally. The companies require their workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents such as green card holders. Not that long ago, this was seen as the responsible way to limit illegal immigration; by businesses not hiring them.

The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in South Florida, who handed an open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a giant U.S. company of alienage discrimination against an illegal immigrant by not hiring him because he was in the country illegally.

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a radically leftist, anti-American group that launches lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants. MALDEF has an extensive political agenda, including pushing for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new illegal immigrants. MALDEF officially labels American immigration enforcement as racist and xenophobic, going so far as to charge that it is racist for English to be the country’s official national language. And naturally, it violates civil rights to wall off the southern border.

Judicial Watch has been following these cases. It reports:

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

In 2014, MALDEF filed a lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual insurance company in New York because the company required a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA to have a green card. MALDEF claimed that requiring Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national, to provide proof of legal residency resulted in “alienage discrimination.” The judge ruled in favor of Juarez.

In the most recent case, Judge Kathleen Williams, a 2011 Obama appointee, cited that 2014 ruling in her ruling in favor of Venezuelan Rodriguez. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams ruled the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to Juarez’s.

What this means is that DACA is clearly not seen as a temporary measure to help the “kids” — although Rodriguez is 34 years old, meaning he was nearly an adult when he slipped illegally into the United States. It’s obviously being used to create a pathway for permanent, legally-protected status and citizenship-level rights for people who came here illegally. And it’s being accomplished without any elected official ever taking a vote or making a decision. It’s all through activist judges.

But this alienage discrimination method/precedent has vaster implications. First, it could — and will with legal successes — turn into class action lawsuits against every major U.S. corporation that has policies in place for only hiring people in America legally. That would likely include all Fortune 500 companies plus thousands of others who have high training costs for new employees. It’s unknown what the total financial costs of that would be, but unarguably deep into the billions of dollars that American companies following American laws might be required to transfer to people who are in America illegally.

Second and most serious, establishing the concept of alienage discrimination would cripple America’s efforts to maintain internal order among its citizens. A nation that cannot regulate or deport people who come to the country illegally, or overstay illegally, is a country that is quickly enroute losing its sovereignty.

If “undocumented residents” are given special civil rights discrimination protections currently afforded to certain minorities — which is what MALDEF is asking for and these rulings are beginning to confer — then they have a case for proportional representation in employment, university acceptance and so on; againstalienage profiling by law enforcement; and ultimately a case for voting rights. If it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, for instance, in voting rights and illegal aliens are protected by the same civil rights, then voting must follow.

If that sounds absurd and extreme, please see the history of the past few years.

This is not how the United States continues as a functioning, sovereign nation. Many have long said that America will not fall from without, but from within. This would be a pathway in accomplishing that fall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please subscribe to our Revolutionary YouTube channel.

Trump to Iran: No Deal

“The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” That was President Trump’s frank assessment of what may have been Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy mistake. Today, the White House did something about it — finally pulling the United States out of the deal that’s been a disaster for U.S. and global security.

Starting today, America will be on a 90-day track to re-impose sanctions on a regime that continues to fund terrorist activities and secretly pursue a nuclear program. It also goes a long way to dismantling another one of the Left’s proudest accomplishments: cozying up to a nation that has neither the interest nor the intention of operating on the world’s terms.

Unfortunately, some of the damage has already been done. Obama’s failure gave the Iranians a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment. Until President Hassan Rouhani agrees to several conditions — including ending its public quest to destroy Israel and its alliance with terrorists — this White House isn’t giving Iran an inch.

In a press conference announcing the administration’s decision, President Trump wanted the world to know: “The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises I keep them. Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”

FRC’s Lt. General Jerry Boykin wasn’t surprised that President Trump was withdrawing from the deal, since he campaigned on it. And if there’s one thing this president does, it’s keep his word. “It’s disgraceful that the U.S. lead the effort to get the Iran deal in the first place,” he said, “and now it’s just as significant that the U.S. is leading the movement to abandon what this very bad agreement.” It also sets an important tone heading into talks with North Korea. President Trump couldn’t meet with Kim Jung Un and expect any sort of real progress if America was still a part of this deal. “It would be contradictory and counterproductive to do so,” General Boykin insists.

We’re grateful for the administration’s courage in righting the wrongs of the last administration. It’s a relief to have bold leaders who are willing to stand up for America’s best interest — even if it means standing alone.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Return to Spender, Address Known…

‘The Worst Humanitarian Crisis No One’s Talking about’

Trump Ends Iran Nuclear Deal, Leaving Ball in Iran’s Court

A Government Loan Program for Auto Manufacturers on Road to Repeal

Among programs on the chopping block in the White House’s new plan to cut more than $15 billion in wasteful government spending is the Department of Energy’s loan program for certain automakers. Congress should drop the guillotine and rescind the $4.3 billion remaining in this Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 authorizes the president to rescind funding previously enacted into law.

Established by Congress under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program illustrates why the federal government should not finance energy investments.

In handing out only five loans, the program has wasted taxpayer dollars by subsidizing economic losers, promoted corporate welfare by subsidizing well-off companies, and distorted market decisions by steering private capital toward politically proffered projects.

One loan recipient and failure of the program is Fisker Automotive, an electric car company that received $529 million in April 2010 to develop and produce two lines of hybrid plug-in vehicles at a plant in Delaware.

Fisker’s inability to meet performance targets prompted the Energy Department to cap the money lent at $192 million. Fisker filed for bankruptcy in November 2013. The federal government recovered $28 million, and then recovered another $25 million by selling the loan at auction, leaving a loss of $139 million.

Red flags should have made it apparent that Fisker was not credit-worthy for a government loan. Fisker spent $600,000 per car, which was sold to auto dealers for an average of $70,000, and had a CCC+ credit rating.

After the Fisker failure, the head of the loan program office, Peter Davidson, explained why the government sank money into the project, writing: “Early on, Fisker Automotive looked very promising—raising more than $1.2 billion from leading private sector investors who believed in the company and its business plan, and also attracting strong support from both Republicans and Democrats.”

If a company can attract $1.2 billion from the private sector, it should not need help from the federal government. The question is, would Fisker have generated that much investment absent the government’s loan?

The Energy Department loan artificially made this dubious investment appear more attractive and lowered the risk of private investment. For instance, private investors sank $1.1 billion into Fisker, but much of the private financing came after the department approved and closed the loan.

Another company, Vehicle Production Group LLC, received a $50 million direct loan through the program in March 2011 to develop and produce vehicles that were powered by natural gas and wheelchair-accessible. The company failed to make loan payments, the Energy Department discontinued the project, and the company ceased operations in May 2013.

The government recovered $3 million by selling the loan and recovered $5 million from an escrow payment, leaving a loss of $42 million.

In addition to picking losers, the federal government doled out billions in what is blatant corporate welfare and effectively an auto bailout by another name.

The DOE also issued the loans to both Ford Motor Co. and Nissan North America to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

In September 2009, the department loaned $5.9 billion to Ford to upgrade facilities in Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. In January 2010, it loaned Nissan a $1.45 billion loan to build a battery manufacturing plant and retool existing factories to expand development of its electric vehicle, the Nissan LEAF.

Ford and Nissan are well-established companies. Drivers value energy efficiency and saving on fuel costs. If Ford and Nissan thought these investments and retooling of manufacturing plants were a way to meet market demand, they should have been completely privately financed outside the government.

The real economic question mark of the loan portfolio, however, is Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc., the California-based company that specializes in electric vehicles, energy storage, and solar panel manufacturing.

The Energy Department and proponents of government-backed loans and loan guarantees advertise Tesla as a success of the loan program. The department loaned Tesla $465 million in January 2010 to reopen a former plant in California to produce electric vehicles and to develop a manufacturing plant to produce battery packs.

Tesla fully paid back the loan in May 2013. But whether Tesla continues to be profitable remains to be seen. Both federal and state governments are doing a lot to help—using taxpayers’ money to subsidize consumption of electric vehicles, which disproportionately benefits the rich.

A recent Bloomberg article headlined “Tesla Doesn’t Burn Fuel, It Burns Cash” warns that the company could run out of money this year. The article notes that Tesla spends $7,430 every minute and features a nifty little calculator that shows you how much money Tesla has spent since you started reading the story.

Regardless, if companies like Tesla promise to be the wave of the future, they should secure investment and loans through the private sector. A system that privatizes the profits and socializes the losses does much more damage than put hard-earned taxpayers’ money at risk.

Government interventions distort free enterprise and allow Washington to direct the flow of private-sector investments. This is not a recipe for more innovation and economic growth. It’s a recipe for ever-expanding cronyism.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House Rolls Out Agenda for More Deregulation to Boost Business

Podcast: Trump Becomes First President in Nearly 20 Years to Ask Congress to Cut Spending This Way

The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

I Didn’t Grow Up Around Guns. Here Are My 4 Observations From the NRA Convention.

I am a conservative. I did not grow up around guns. I can’t recall hearing my parents talk about guns in our home. My dad didn’t hunt and I never lived in an area prone to high crime or gun violence. Guns were never on my radar until I witnessed firsthand the debate over gun control in the U.S. Senate in 2013.

Since then I have come to understand the importance of the Second Amendment and that understanding grew even stronger this past weekend at the National Rifle Association convention in Dallas. Here a few of my observations and takeaways from the gathering that drew more than 87,000 people.

1. The NRA convention was a family affair.

The NRA convention was a place for families. Observing the thousands of families that attended the convention made me wish I had grown up around guns.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

It was impressive to walk the floor of the exhibit hall and see dads and moms teaching their daughters and sons how to properly hold a gun. I overheard explanations of what different guns were used for and why this ammo was better than that ammo. For many of these kids, guns aren’t toys or just hobbies. Instead, gun ownership is a way of life.

2. The NRA convention was full of well-informed individuals.

As an exhibitor, I had the opportunity of shaking hands with and talking with many individuals. One of the biggest takeaways that I came back to Washington, D.C., with is that gun owners are well-informed. Gun owners even seem to have their own language, one that I need to learn. Some of these folks hunt to feed their families. Some shoot guns for fun. Others are members of gun clubs or belong to professional shooting teams.

These gun owners know exactly what they shoot and why they shoot. They are well-versed in the Constitution and the politics surrounding the debate over gun rights. They are also very interested in school safety and took over 3,000 school safety products from The Heritage Foundation’s booth. Anyone who claims that NRA members are uninformed or “sheep” needs to attend next year’s convention.

3. The NRA convention was a place of diversity.

Individuals and families came to Dallas from all corners of the nation. I personally met folks from Washington, Idaho, New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, and Missouri. The NRA convention attracted people of all races, religions, social classes, and ages.

The NRA moms and women of the NRA were out in full force. After attending the convention, I was not surprised at all to find out that women are one of the fastest-growing segments of the shooting sports business. These women and moms are passionate about protecting themselves and their families.

4. The NRA convention attracted the salt of the Earth.

The NRA convention was a peaceful place that attracted people who simply love freedom. I saw many a T-shirt that said: “Family, Faith, Friends, Flag, and Firearms: The 5 Things You Don’t Mess With.” These T-shirts paint a great picture of the type of people I interacted with for four days.

When the national anthem came over the loud speaker, every person in sight stopped, put their hand over their heart, and sang along. These are people who love their country, love the military, and love the sacrifices made by those who have fought to preserve freedom and liberty from the days of the Revolution down to today.

It’s true, many of these attendees fear for the future of the country and that is why they are involved in protecting their rights. I am grateful that so many of our neighbors, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, and family members are part of the NRA.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jordan Hess

Jordan Hess is director of coalition relations at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

They Lost Meadow in Parkland. Now Her Family Hopes to Prevent More School Massacres.

The Case for the AR-15

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a convention attendee inspecting a virtual reality gun on the floor of the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association meeting. (Photo: Sergio Flores/UPI/Newscom)

Trump Is Right: Gun Free Zones Make Schools More Deadly

In the wake of the shooting in Florida and now another in Maryland, President Trump has triggered a healthy debate about so-called “gun-free zones” in schools – schools which more and more appear to be anything but gun-free.

Trump argued after Parkland a gun-free zone “is like target practice” for school shooters such as the alleged Florida killer, Nikolas Cruz.

“They see that and that’s what they want,” he opined. “Gun-free zones are very dangerous. The bad guys love gun-free zones.”

The next day, Trump pointed out to a room full of Governors at the White House, “You have a gun-free zone, it’s like an invitation for these very sick people to go there.”

Critics pounced.

“He is just utterly missing the point of the law,” said a former staffer for then-Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who led the charge on gun-free-school zones in 1990.

Leaving mass shootings entirely to one side, she said, communities confronted “the very serious danger posed by a variety of criminal actors around schools and involving guns.”

Let’s rewind.

On May 16, 1986, a shooting in Wyoming’s Cokeville Elementary School left two dead and a towering 74 injured.

Then, on January 17, 1989, another shooting at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif. left six dead and 32 injured.

Around this time, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 135,000 guns were brought to school each day.

An alarming one in five urban high school students reported having a gun fired at them at school, and a 1993 survey found 40% of students in central cities said they knew someone personally who had been killed or injured by gunfire.

Democrats’ response? Why, gun control, of course.

Sen. Kohl introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) in February, 1990. The measure was rolled into the Crime Control Act of 1990 and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush – granted, a Republican president – on November 29, 1990.

What happened?

First, between 1992 (note: not 1990 or 1991) and 2015, the percentage of students who reported carrying a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days decreased from 12% to 4%.

Second, GFSZA advocates argue students at least felt safer at school: “From 1995 (note: not 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, or 1994) to 2015, the percentage of students who reported being ‘afraid of attack or harm’ at school dropped substantially, from 12% to 3%.”

Third, the law’s cheerleaders argueCDC statistics show school-associated violent deaths dropped from 57 in the 1992-93 school year (note: neither 1990-1991 nor 1991-92) to 33 in 2009-10. However, the figure actually peaked in 2006-2007 at 63, and is up substantially since 2009-2010.

Fourth, another rah-rah data point: a 2017 report found the number of crimes against students has plummeted more than 80% since 1992 (note: not 1990 or 1991). Problem solved!

Unfortunately, while it’s true the crime victimization rate at school declined 82%, the rate away from school declined 88%.

Worse, the serious violent victimization rate at school declined only 50%, while the rate away from school plunged 91%.

So after the GFSZA, schools actually got safer more slowly than the rest of the community, which during the period was exiting the crack wave.

Regardless, none of these statistics compares the period before Bush signed the GFSZA to after it.

So I crunched the numbers on school shootings per year, number killed per year, and number wounded per year before the GFSZA (1968-1990) and after it was put in place (1991-2018).

Get ready.

In the period after enactment of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, school shootings more than doubled from 2.7 per year to 6.9 per year, an increase of 155% from the period before enactment.

Those wounded in school shootings nearly doubled from 8.8 to 13.9 per year, an increase of 58%.

And killings in school shootings nearly tripled, from 2.7 per year to 7.9 per year, an increase of 192%.

Figure 1: Number of school shootings per year, number killed in schools per year, and number wounded in schools per year before the GFSZA (1968-1990) and after it was put in place (1991-2018). Data source: http://triblive.com/news/education/safety/13313060-74/heres-a-list-of-every-school-shooting-over-the-past-50-years.

A closer look at the data bears out that the number of school shootings has increased over time, and generally accelerated after the GFSZA was signed into law in 1990. That said, there is an exception that may prove the rule: The Supreme Court declared the GFSZA law unconstitutional in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Only later did then-Attorney General Janet Reno for Bill Clinton propose changes that conformed it to the Constitution. Those changes were signed into law in 1996, but doubts remained at least until 2000 about the measure’s ability to withstand a court challenge. During that period, school shootings declined, then rose again afterwards.

Figure 2: Number of School Shootings By Year, 1968-2018. Data source: http://triblive.com/news/education/safety/13313060-74/heres-a-list-of-every-school-shooting-over-the-past-50-years.

*Note: 2018 figure only through February 14, 2018.

An obvious question this raises is whether homicide rates increased more generally at the same pace and with the same timing. Does the spike in school shootings just track a spike in killings?

The answer? No. The homicide rate actually dropped steeply in this period. The crack wave was ending, sending murder rates back to levels not seen since the early 1960s.

Figure 3: U.S. Homicide Rates, 1885-2010. Source: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/foghorn/guns-violence-united-states-numbers/

More specifically, the firearm-related deaths for youths ages 15-19 in particular followed an almost identical pattern, spiking from 1970 to the early 1990s, then plunging back to prior levels – nearly the opposite of the school shooting pattern.

Figure 4: Firearm-Related Death Rate Among Youth Ages 15-19, 1970-2014. Source: https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/70_tablescharts.xlsx.

Thus the increase in number and lethality of school shootings can be explained neither by homicide rates in general nor firearm-related death rates among youth.

Another counter-argument would be that mass shootings have increased more generally over that period, which is true. Is the increase in school shootings before and after the US declared them off limits to law-abiding gun owners merely an artifact of an increase in mass shootings more generally?

The answer again is no.

Now, according to data compiled by the far-left Mother Jones, it’s true the percentage of those wounded in mass shootings who were shot in schools was cut in half after the Gun-Free School Zones Act passed, from 32% of mass shooting injuries between 1982 and 1990 to 14% from 1991 to today.

Also, this drop took place despite the percentage of mass shootings that took place in schools growing from 11% to 17% of all mass shootings at the same time.

But the apparently positive change appears to be because schools shootings became so much more lethal. The percentage of mass shooting fatalities that took place in schools tripled, from 7% before the Gun-Free School Zones Act to 21% afterwards.

So: Half as many injuries in schools among mass shootings, but only because three times as many died in a greater number of mass shootings there.

Figure 5: Percentage of mass shooting injuries, attacks, and fatalities that took place in schools before the GFSZA (1968-1990) and after it was put in place (1991-2018). Data source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/.

This is a problem.

It is true that the largest spikes in school shootings followed far on the heels of the GFSZA’s enactment.

To explain that, Second Amendment opponents might point to the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004.

In response, Second Amendment supporters might point instead to the bonkers Obama Administration’s Promotion of Random Offenses and Misdemeanors by Insane Students Escaping justice (PROMISE) program which paid schools to persuade law enforcement agencies to let youth get away with criminal activity, especially if they were “of color,” which may (or may notexplain why the Broward County Sheriff’s office deliberately ignored what they admit was 23 and may have been 45 warnings of Cruz’ criminal insanity.

Regardless, the numbers bear out the horrific impression to which Trump is giving voice: After America declared schools gun free zones, school shootings increased and became more deadly.

By these measures at least, Trump is right, and his critics are wrong.

RELATED ARTICLE: Student Journalist Digs Up Bombshell that Exposes Broward County Officials in Parkland Shooting

Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention

Through the Looking Glass’ – An Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 1, 2017 Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention

Where ever you came from, you came to America. And you came for one reason – for one reason only – to establish Allah’s deen [a complete way of life, governed by a system of law]. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991

As long as you remember that if you get involved with politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah. You don’t get in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in politics because politics can be a weapon to use in the cause of Islam. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991

Before beginning an analysis of Linda Sarsour’s speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention, I’d like to thank Ms. Sarsour for doing all of us here in America (and the West) an invaluable favor.

What favor, you may ask?

Linda Sarsour has graciously accompanied us right up to the shore of the Great Sea of Islam, and allowed us to capture a rare glimpse into its impressive breadth and depth.

However, this thoughtful gesture comes with caveat, because even though Ms. Sarsour has granted us this unique opportunity to see Islam more clearly, we must still overcome the strong temptation to either hide our eyes (and ears), or to simply walk away entirely.

Perhaps now, thanks to you, Ms. Sarsour, we’ll all be delivered from the powerful grip of ignorance and delusion about Islam, and we’ll finally be able to gain a better, correct understanding of The Religion of Peace ®.

More specifically, Thank You, Linda Sarsour, for so graciously showing us:

*how to use social media to blatantly distort and mischaracterize the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in real time

*how to lie (and distract) with a straight face about the deliberate and intentional efforts of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), to impose (“normalize”) the malevolent statutes of Islamic Shariah on our Constitution, and our unalienable, endowed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

*how to criticize women with more vindictive obscenity and cynical sarcasm than anyone on the alt-right could ever imagine

*that female genital mutilation (FGM) is barbaric, but NOT an Islamic practice, that “has no place in Detroit or anywhere else in the world,” (while ignoring the well-established fact that it is considered obligatory according to Shariah law)

*how to skillfully use ad hominem attacks on your opponents (your “oppressors”), whenever facts (such as previous public statements) get in your way

*how to enthusiastically endorse your special roster of convicted murderers

*how to extend heartwarming, sincere praise to your chosen mentor, motivator and encourager (your “favorite person in this room”), who was himself an dedicated protégé of the murderous Blind Sheikh

*that since the Muslim terrorists who massacred the Charlie Hebdo staff had “avenged the Prophet,” you would not stand with the victims, especially since the magazine was “a bigot and a racist” for publishing Muhammad cartoons, which served to “vilify my faith, dehumanize my community [and] demoralize my prophet.”

*that advocating violence against right wing Zionist media outlets, Israel and Israelis=Jews, while insisting that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” is now considered acceptable in the red-green alliance you so passionately represent

*that support of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement (BDS), under the banner of true feminism and social justice, has become so obviously avant-garde and progressive

*that for all those Islam-bashers out there who “spout anti-Muslim, xenophobic and white-supremacist beliefs” (along with “right-wing Zionists, and Islamophobes”), you are our self-proclaimed worst nightmare

Yes, Linda Sarsour, Thank You, for showing us the best possible reflection of what a first-generation, native born Palestinian-American Champion of Change really should look like.

Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017 Speech At The 54th Annual ISNA Convention

His announcements and his talk have made an incredible measure of mischief [to] the American Muslim people group.

ISNA President Azhar Azeez, June 30, 2017 (referring to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reform immigration)

This is a “through the looking glass” analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017, speech at the 54th Annual Islamic Society of North America Convention, entitled Hope & Guidance Through the Quran, which was held in Chicago, IL from June 30 through July 3, 2017.

Just above, I summarized several years of opinions and public statements that have made Linda Sarsour a highly visible media figure. This is the “looking glass” (mirror) that the general public gets to see.

Meanwhile, as we’ll see in the following phrase-by-phrase analysis of Linda Sarsour’s ISNA speech, there is an entirely different dimension of meaning that lies camouflaged behind the everyday words and phrases she used during her presentation.

Let us now walk through this looking glass, into Sarsour’s ISNA-endorsed world of the Quran, Hadith and Shariah, as we examine the deeper Islamic meanings that lie hidden behind the veil of common American English.

Also, we should keep in mind that the federal government has already proven that the ISNA is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, and that for nearly 10 years, the ISNA has remained listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, still the largest terrorist financing trial in American history.

It should also be noted that the ISNA is prominently listed in a May 5, 1991 document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-described “organizations of our friends.”

The same Muslim Brotherhood strategic document, which was drafted for internal review as early as 1987, also lists the ISNA Fiqh Committee, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, and the ISNA+Dr. Jamal Badawi Foundation (Islamic Information Foundation), as friends of the “Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America.”

In addition, Jamal Badawi, who also remains listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial, has been an ISNA member since its inception on July 14, 1981. Dr. Badawi joined the ISNA Board of Directors (Majlis Ash-Shura) in 1988 and also served on the board of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) from 1991 until 1993. Along with the ISNA and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the NAIT was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trail.

With all this in mind, we might ask: Who was the real target audience for Linda Sarsour’s speech? Was it the American general public, or was it the ISNA’s core leadership (Majlis Ash-Shura), who were assembled there at the annual conference?

A partial answer to this question will be found in a particular phrase on Page 1, Paragraph 1, of the Explanatory Memorandum. In Arabic, the phrase is Al-Qaeda Al-Islamia Al-Moltzema, while in English, it is translated as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as “Base,” is the very same word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world. However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually an important socio-political concept, i.e., a “base of operations,” rather than a violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

In the context of her ISNA-endorsed speech, this is the “Base,” (audience), i.e., the ISNA Board of Directors, or Majlis Ash-Shura, that Ms. Sarsour was specifically addressing.

Ms. Sarsour’s calls to socio-political tactical action are actually based on well-established Islamic strategic principles, and were closely parallel to the call(s) to action (and Quranic warnings) found in a carefully-written document entitled AMJA Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap, which was published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) on November 28, 2016.

A careful analysis of this 14-paragraph document, which regards the election of Donald Trump as President a disruptive calamity and source of oppression (see Sarsour’s comments on oppression below) for the Muslim community, can be found here. Officially known in Arabic as the Majama Fuqaha Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Group of Shariah Specialists in America), the AMJA is openly promoting the implementation of Islamic Shariah, right here in America.

This is in direct violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.

To put this all in context, Sarsour’s speech before the ISNA leadership echoes the strategic and tactical plans of both the “Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America,” as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, drafted thirty years ago, and in the AMJA Roadmap, published just two weeks after the November 2016 election.

Note: This analysis is presented in a chronological time sequence. Specific comments or phrases are cited by marking the time they occurred in Ms. Sarsour’s speech, e.g., (3:01)

Honoring Imam Siraj Wahhaj as “My favorite person in the room” (1:50-2:33)

Much has already been written about Siraj Wahhaj, Imam of Masjid At-Taqwa in Brooklyn, NY, who was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and stated that the bombing was a terrorist attack staged by the U.S. government and possibly Israel as a “conspiracy” against Islam.

What does it say about Ms. Sarsour, who considers Imam Wahhaj to be her mentor, when Wahhaj supported Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was charged with the attempted assassination of Egyptian leader Anwar Al-Sadat, and said while leading the Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn that, “We must terrorize the enemies of Islam and…shake the earth under their feet.”

In fact, what does endorsing and supporting Siraj Wahhaj say about the leadership of the ISNA?

To be fair, we should also ask why the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC would feature Siraj Wahhaj as their ‘Grand Imam’ at its first ever “Jumah [Gathering] At The DNC”?

Allah is the Best of Protectors (3:01)

This phrase is taken directly from Quran 3.150 and Quran 12.64Allah is the Best of Protectors (Al-Hafiz in Arabic).

For more on this concept from an Islamic perspective, especially the severe admonition not to take non-Muslims as helpers or protectors, or against obeying disbelievers and hypocrites, because such obedience leads to utter destruction in this life and the Hereafter, see herehere and also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.150.

In America, Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism (5:32-5:45)

Patriotism in your home country is different than patriotism in these United States of America. In this country, in the land of freedom of speech, in the land of democracy, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Is Linda Sarsour correct? Is dissent really the highest form of patriotism in America?

Apparently, the earliest documented use of this phrase is found in a 1961 Friends Peace Committee publication entitledThe Use of Force in International Affairs: “If what your country is doing seems to you practically and morally wrong, is dissent the highest form of patriotism?” The Friends Peace Committee is a Quaker anti-war group that was founded in the 1880’s.

It was also used repeatedly during the Vietnam era, as when New York Mayor John Lindsay declared during an October 15, 1969, speech at Columbia University, “We cannot rest content with the charge from Washington that this peaceful protest is unpatriotic…The fact is that this dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

In a July 3, 2002 interview, Howard Zinn said, “While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act. ”

While dissent may truly be a form of patriotism (depending on the circumstances), so is defending the freedoms and liberties that our Creator endowed us with, as documented in the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

Whether or not dissent is a higher form of patriotism than defense of our Constitutional freedoms depends entirely on motive, i.e., is it designed to undermine or supplant the Constitution, or strengthen and support it?

Sorry, Ms. Sarsour, but according to Article 6, Islamic Shariah will never be compatible with the Constitution, which means that, here in America, dissent for the sake of Islam cannot possibly be the highest form of patriotism.

Policies that Oppress the communities that they came from…(5:45-5:55)

This is the moment when Ms. Sarsour introduces the central theme of her speech, which is the volatile Islamic concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah فِتْنَةَ, which occurs at least 60 times in the Quran). Fitnah is also translated as Affliction, Confusion, Disbelief (Shirk), Discord, Dissention, Distress, Domination, Mischief, Sedition, Strife, Testing, Trials, Tumult, Opposition, Persecution and Punishments.

To further build her case, Ms. Sarsour goes on to say that if you [the ISNA audience] maintain the current status quo that not only oppresses Muslims…you, my dear sisters and brothers, you are aligned with the oppressor…if you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country…you are not a patriot, you are aiding and abetting the oppressors in these United States of America (6:09-6:35)

The concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah) is a 1,400 year old doctrine, deeply embedded within the founding ideology of Islam. From such a Quranic perspective, the consequences of transgressing the statutes and commandments of Shariah law, or of oppressing (opposing or preventing ) the Islamic community from following the laws of Allah, warrants a Shariah-authorized violent response toward all such ‘rulers and tyrants.’

For example, in 2014, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, wrote to President Barack Obama about his views on the situation in Iraq, Gaza and Palestine, while also commenting about “Muslim oppression at the hands of the West in general and the United States in particular.”

For three explicit Quranic examples, see Quran 2.190Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressorsQuran 21.9Then We fulfilled for them the promise, and We saved them and whom We willed and destroyed the transgressors, and Quran 2.193 Fight them until there is no [more] Fitnah [oppression] and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression, except against the oppressors.

The concept of Oppression is also discussed in extensive detail in the Hadith (Bukhari), Volume 4, Section 43, and in Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.73

What is the Best Form of Jihad, or Struggle? (7:02-7:04)

After introducing the concept of Oppression (Fitnah), Ms. Sarsour segues into a discussion of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression, by recounting a passage from the Hadith: “What is the best form of Jihad”?

Paraphrasing the Hadith, Ms. Sarsour then provides the answer, which is, “A word of truth, truth in front of a tyrant, ruler or leader, that is the best form of Jihad.”

At this point, it is also important to note that the phrase “The best Jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler” also occurs in Chapter Q1.2(3) of Reliance of the Traveller, which is the world’s most authoritative English translation of Islamic Shariah.

Also, Chapter Q2.4(4) of Reliance begins a section entitled Being Able To Censure, which includes the following incredible endorsement of what we call lone-wolf terrorists, or lone-wolf Jihadists:

There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed…Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.

The phrase eliminate the wrong in Chapter Q2.4(4) is just the theological equivalent for what we call Socio-Political Activism in the secular (non-Islamic) arena.

All of Book Q in Reliance is under the main heading of THE OBLIGATION TO COMMAND THE RIGHT (AND FORBID THE WRONG), which is derived from Quran 3.104.

For additional detail on the concept of enjoining Al-Maruf (all that Islam orders) and forbidding Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.104.

It is disingenuous, at best, for Ms. Sarsour to claim that she wasn’t talking about violence, or that she is being persecuted by the alt-right, for her statements about the Best Form of Jihad, when she is well aware (and so is her ISNA audience), of the deeper, inflammatory, theological connotations of her remarks.

A Note on Linda Sarsour’s use of the phrase “A Word of Truth” (7:10-7:18)

In his July 11, 2017 article entitled Linda Sarsour Defends Her Call for Jihad Against President Donald Trump, writer Neil Munro made the following observation:

Sarsour’s “word of truth” phrase seems like a Western-style appeal for debate, but for Muslim activists, truth is only found in the Koran’s transcribed instructions from Allah, which include his frequent calls for warfare against his enemies.

That ‘word of truth’ phrase also evokes the dramatic courtroom defense strategy adopted by the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Shortly after Sadat was murdered, Rahman was accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Sadat in prior religious tracts. But Rahman pressured the Egyptian government and judges to declare him innocent by portraying himself as merely a blameless messenger of the Koran’s denunciations against oppressors.

This is what “A Word of Truth” looks like, when you go through the looking glass, and look at the world through the eyes of Islam.

And I hope…that Allah accepts from us that as a form of Jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers…but here in these United States of America (7:23-7:29)

This is the part of Ms. Sarsour’s speech that received the most attention (and criticism) in the media. In an attempt to defend her comments, she posted a July 09, 2017 editorial in the Washington Post, entitled Islamophobes Are Attacking Me Because I’m Their Worst Nightmare.

In her editorial, Ms. Sarsour made the following assertions:

Most disturbing about this recent defamation campaign is how it is focused on demonizing the legitimate yet widely misunderstood Islamic term I used, “jihad,” which to majority of Muslims and according to religious scholars means “struggle” or “to strive for.” This term has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike, leaving ordinary Muslims to defend our faith and in some cases silenced. It sets a dangerous precedent when people of faith are policed and when practicing their religion peacefully comes with consequences.

At this point, an obvious question arises: Is Linda Sarsour correct that the term Jihad “has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike”?

Let’s start with Chapter O9.0 of Reliance, which defines Jihad in the following manner:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word Mujahadasignifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser Jihad. As for the greater Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (Nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.

Then, in Chapter H8.17 of Reliance, in a section entitled Those Fighting for Allah, we find the following discussion of Jihad:

The seventh category [of giving charity] is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

In addition to what is found in Reliance, it is also important to note that variants of the root word Jihad occur about 40 times in the Quran. In virtually every case, it is obvious from the plain Arabic meaning of the text, that Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims.

It seems pretty obvious that the leaders of Turkey recognize the full meaning of Jihad, too. On July 22, 2017, Ahmet Hamdi Çamlı, a deputy of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), participated in a debate about the introduction of the concept of jihad, or holy war, into the national school curriculum. During the debate, Çamlı said it is useless to teach math to a child who does not know the concept of jihad, while also asserting that jihad is one of the main pillars of Islam. The previous week, Ankara Minister of Education İsmet Yılmaz said, “Jihad is an element in our religion; it is in our religion…”

Fascists, and White Supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House (7:30-7:38)

This is another subject that is discussed extensively in the Quran (for example, see verses 10.8328.19 and 40.35), and in Reliance. Chapter P13.0 of Reliance is entitled The Leader Who Misleads His Following, the Tyrant and Oppressor. Section P13.1 refers to Quran 42.42, which says: “The dispute (lit. ‘way against’) is only with those who oppress people and wrongfully commit aggression in the land; these will have a painful torment.”

In Section Q1.2(4) of Reliance, it is written: The Prophet said, “When you see my Community too intimidated by an oppressor to tell him, ‘You are a tyrant,’ then you may as well say goodbye to them.”

The Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 40.35 says, “[Tyrants] who attempt to refute truth with falsehood and who dispute the proof without evidence or proof from Allah, Allah will hate them with the utmost loathing. It is greatly hateful and disgusting to Allah, and to those who believe…”

From an Islamic perspective, Ms. Sarsour is well aware of the volatile implications of calling President Trump a tyrant, fascist, white supremacist or Islamophobe.

Islamophobia Industry…if those who choose to vandalize our masjids [mosques]…if they are treating us like we are one community, why are we not acting like one community…(8:42-9:06)

According to Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry,

Fear sells and the Islamophobia Industry – a right-wing cadre of intellectual hucksters, bloggers, politicians, pundits, and religious leaders – knows that all too well. For years they have labored behind the scenes to convince their compatriots that Muslims are the enemy, exhuming the ghosts of 9/11 and dangling them before the eyes of horrified populations for great fortune and fame.

Their plan has worked. The tide of Islamophobia that is sweeping through Europe and the United States is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is their design.

June 24, 2016 Al Jazeera article entitled Report: Islamophobia Is A Multimillion-Dollar Industry claims that,

More than $200m was spent towards promoting “fear and hatred” of Muslims in the United States by various organisations between 2008 and 2013, according to a fresh joint report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the University of California, Berkeley.

Released on Monday , the report [Confronting Fear] identifies 74 groups, including feminist, Christian, Zionist and prominent news organisations, which either funded or fostered Islamophobia. “It is an entire industry of itself. There are people making millions of dollars per year from promoting Islamophobia. They often present themselves as experts on Islamic affairs when they are not,” Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, a spokesman for CAIR, told Al Jazeera.

At least 32 states have introduced and debated anti-sharia or anti-foreign law bills. And, according to our research, 80 percent of legislators who sponsor this type of legislation also sponsor bills restricting the rights of other minorities and vulnerable groups.

If Ms. Sarsour wants to put an end to the Islamophobia Industry, she should simply stand up for the Constitution, and stop promoting the normalization of Shariah in America.

Potentially horrific time that could come (9:20)

This is a direct parallel to Paragraph 8 of the AMJA Roadmap, which states:

Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations is unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change…A Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in which one is required to flee with one’s faith, or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.

Note on the phrase Flee With One’s Faith’: This refers to the Hijrah (Migration), another fundamental concept in Islam, with connotations going back 1,400 years, to the founding history of Islam. At this point, the Roadmap introduces the possibility that Muslims in America may have to flee to a safer location, for the sake of their faith. Socially, this is a very provocative (and potentially inflammatory) statement by the AMJA. It engenders immediate animosity and tension, and serves to further alienate and marginalize the Muslim community in America.

Notice also that in this time of crisis, the AMJA is not encouraging Muslims to assimilate into American mainstream culture, but instead advises them to further distance themselves from it, while surrounding themselves with the protective wall of Shariah law, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

We need to build coalitions; we need allies…in communities who are marginalized and oppressed in this country (10:23-10:32)

Ms. Sarsour also refers to building coalitions as “creating intersectional alliances within communities of color, and other oppressed minorities,” while her biography says she is “most known for her intersectional coalition work and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities.”

Remarkably, building coalitions is also specifically called for in Paragraph 11 of the AMJA Roadmap:

Among the most important of obligations during these days is to open our doors to all sectors of our society and to reach out to the other ethnic and religious groups as well as political movements on both the left and right of the political spectrum. This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate.

This is AMJA’s call (and official authorization) for American Muslims to form coalitions with a diversity of ethnic and religious groups, as well as movements on the left and right of the political spectrum. In other words, to start forming new alliances, in as many different arenas as possible, to build a wall of resistance.

Some of the organizations involved in this AMJA-authorized effort to develop common-cause alliances include the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the Black Lives Matter movement, ANSWER Coalition, the Tides Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

In Islamic terms, phrases like creating intersectional alliances and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities are socio-political substitutes for what is known as Dawah, which means to invite or summon someone, in order to teach them more about Islam.

Quran 16:125 calls Muslims to, “Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.” Dawah is mentioned at least 19 times in the Explanatory Memorandum. In fact, Mohamed Akram Adlouni, the author of the memo, signs the Foreword with the salutation, May God reward you good and keep you for His Daw’a, Your brother, Mohamed Akram.

Paragraph 12 of the AMJA Roadmap reinforces this premise:

From among the most important obligations during this stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and relief, and those dedicated to Dawah, religious instruction and providing religious rulings. It is most unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray for them or give them a kind word. But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.

U.S.-based Shariah-promoting organizations include the AMJA itself, as well as the Fatwa Center of America, the North American Imam’s Federation (NAIT), and the Institute of Islamic Education (IIE), which is part of a network of Islamic schools (Madrassas) operating across America.

So, when we go through the looking glass, we find out that Linda Sarsour is channeling (mainstreaming) the strategic goals of the Muslim Brotherhood here in America, as found in both the Explanatory Memorandum, and in the AMJA Roadmap.

We also discover that creating intersectional alliances is really just the cynical use of American style politics and social activism for the promotion of Islam, and, ultimately, to push us toward acceptance (normalization) of Islamic Shariah.

Giving support to ICNA Relief, ISNA, CAIR, MAS (13:43-13:48)

All four of these organizations are known front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR and ISNA remain unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, while ICNA Relief and the Muslim American Society (MAS), have also been linked to support of terrorism (specifically, to the support of Hamas).

What does it say about Linda Sarsour, that she would encourage (exhort) Muslims in America to increase their financial support of these known pro-Shariah, pro-Jihad Muslim Brotherhood organizations?

And we still as a community find ourselves unprepared, in so many moments…Why, sisters and brothers, why are we so unprepared, Why are we so afraid of this administration, and the potential chaos, that they will ensue on our community…? (14:10-14:45)

At this point, Ms. Sarsour reinforces her basic theme, which is to resist the tyrannical, racist, relentlessly Islamophobic Trump administration. She also uses the word ‘chaos,’ which is just another adjective for the Islamic concept of Fitnah.

From an Islamic (Quranic) perspective, she is now calling for the Muslim community in America to Prepare themselves fight Jihad against the Fitnah of the Islamophobic Trump administration.

The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is Wa’a’idu (وَأَعِدُّو), which is translated “Be Prepared,” or “Make Ready.” Make ready for what, exactly?

The answer is found in Quran 8.60 (Al-Anfal – The Spoils of War), which says:

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

Also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.60, which makes it very plain that this entire verse (in fact, the entire Chapter) is about preparing to wage war against unbelievers.

Once again, the Explanatory Memorandum has already laid the groundwork for the path that Ms. Sarsour (and the ISNA) are now following. In a section entitled Understanding The Role Of The Muslim Brother In North America, the following emphatic declarations are made:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

Page 8 of the Memo also addresses the theme of being prepared:

And in order for the process of settlement to be completed, we must plan and work from now to equip and prepare ourselves, our brothers, our apparatuses, our sections and our committees in order to turn into comprehensive organizations in a gradual and balanced way that is suitable with the need and the reality

All of this sounds remarkably similar to the major themes that Linda Sarsour emphasized during her ISNA speech. In fact, Ms. Sarsour was obviously warning her ISNA audience, as well as the wider Muslim community, not be caught unprepared, or to be numbered among those who are counted as ‘slackers’ by Allah.

Now that we’ve gone through this part of the looking glass, we can finally get beyond the outward persona, and the social media hype, and the cultural barriers, and the gender sensitivities, and just listen to the actual words that Ms. Sarsour is saying.

When we do that, we soon discover that she is speaking a dialect of English that is 100 percent pure Muslim Brotherhood.

When I think about building power, I think about brothers like Abdul Sayed, who is in this room today, who is running to become the first Muslim Governor of the state of Michigan (14:49-16:07)

To set an example of taking direct action (i.e., political Jihad), Ms. Sarsour now endorses Abdul Sayed [Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed], who was seated in the audience, while urging the audience to donate to his political campaign (cue the applause).

At the same time, Ms. Sarsour also criticized “establishment Democrats” who have blocked Muslims from succeeding within the Democratic Party in the past, and declared that brother Sayed would change that.

On February 25, 2017, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed announced his bid to become the Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan. Dr. Sayed graduated from the University of Michigan on June 11, 2007, where he served as Vice President of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and was also chosen for a [Paul & Daisy] Soros “New American” Fellowship.

With nearly 600 chapters located in the United States and Canada, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America. The MSA was incorporated in January of 1963 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America,” and for the specific purpose of Dawah (promoting Islam, as discussed above).

Dr. Sayed has grown up in an environment saturated with Muslim Brotherhood ideology. If he is selected to run as the first Muslim Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan, it will likely draw national (and international) interest.

We have to stay outraged…We as a Muslim community in these United States of America have to be Perpetually Outraged every single [day] (18:52-19:01)

Even this concept – Staying Perpetually Outraged – is alluded to in Reliance. The title of Book Q is COMMANDING THE RIGHT AND FORBIDDING THE WRONG, which is based on a passage from the Hadith, “Command the right and forbid the wrong, or Allah will put the worst of you in charge of the best of you, and the best will supplicate Allah and be left unanswered.”

To add further context, Book Q of Reliance specifically discusses how Muslims should actively oppose the unjust leader (the tyrant, the oppressor), who does not rule his people according to Islamic Shariah. Perhaps now, we can better understand why Ms. Sarsour’s determination to stay perpetually outraged is actually authorized by Islamic law.

Then, Chapter Q5.0 of Book Q, which is entitled THE ACT OF CENSURING, provides eight ‘degrees’ (levels) of authorized response when a Muslim encounters a non-Islamic ‘wrong act.’ Each one of these progressively more violent eight levels of response has ‘various degrees of severity and rules.’

For brevity, I will just include the main title of each one of the eight authorized degrees of response to a wrong act (i.e., Fitnah).

Q5.2: Knowledge of the Wrong Act

Q5.3: Explaining that Something is Wrong

Q5.4: Forbidding the Act Verbally

Q5.5: Censuring with Harsh Words

Q5.6: Fighting the Wrong By Hand

Q5.7: Intimidation

Q5.8: Assault

Q5.9: Force of Arms

Ms. Sarsour, haven’t we been told repeatedly that Islam is a benign, harmless religion of peace?

Do not ever be those citizens that normalize this administration, because when the day comes that something horrific happens to us, or to another community…you will be responsible for normalizing this administration…(19:18)

Once again, we can turn to the Quran, and to Reliance to find the deeper source of what Ms. Sarsour refers to as “normalization” of a corrupt, tyrannical regime.

For example, Quran 4.89 warns Muslims that:

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Quran 5.51 gives an even more specific warning:

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

Section R7.1 of also Reliance reiterates this theme:

It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience. Allah Most High says, “Do not assist one another in sin and aggression” (Quran 5.2).

Once again, as we go through another part of the looking glass, we find that Ms. Sarsour’s use of the term “normalization” is just a secular (political) equivalent of the well-established Islamic concept of opposing (“striving against” = Jihad) tyrants and unjust rulers.

Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community; it is not to assimilate and to please any other people in authority…(19:32-19:36)

The admonition to avoid assimilation into non-Muslim cultures is found in multiple places in the Quran (as in verse 5.51, cited above), as well as in the fundamental Islamic doctrine known as Al-Wala’ Wa’l-Bara (Loyalty and Enmity; see here and here), and in the Explanatory Memorandum, as stated here in paragraph 7 of the section entitled The Process of Settlement:

The success of the [Islamic] Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global Movement project…the global Movement has not succeeded yet in “distributing roles” to its branches, stating what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani [Brotherhood] branch will have far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.

In other words, more than thirty years ago, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in North America was already looking ahead, to the time when an entire generation of American children would be raised under the influence of orthodox Ikhwan ideology, with the hope that this future American Muslim generation would play a central role in the establishment of a Shariah-compliant, global Islamic state (= Caliphate).

Nor is this strategic goal of non-assimilation and separation unique to North America. Islamic communities in many western countries are in the process of balkanizing, as they rapidly transform into Shariah-compliant “no-go zones.”

Finally, if we refer one last time to the AMJA Roadmap, we find that in this time of calamity, chaos and crisis (i.e., the tyrannical Trump Administration), the AMJA scholars are not encouraging American Muslims to assimilate into mainstream culture, but instead advising them to further distance themselves from it, while building a protective barrier of Shariah, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

No wonder, then, that Linda Sarsour would feel compelled remind the audience of the ISNA, the premier Muslim Brotherhood organization in America, that their top priority is to “defend and protect our community; it is not to assimilate.”

Our top priority…even higher than all those [other] priorities, is to please Allah, and only Allah (19:52)

The concept of pleasing only Allah is found in at least 110 verses in the Quran, such as this example from Quran 5.55:

Your Guardian [Friend, Helper or Protector] can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer).

As Linda Sarsour has said, we must be prepared.

Even if you don’t believe me (yet), then at least take a look at the world around you.

It remains my hope that America will never succumb to the temptation to hide our eyes (and ears) from the threat(s) we face.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s Ominous Post-Election Statement

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to decipher the ominous, but heavily camouflaged language embedded within the English text of a recent scholarly document, published on the website of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which is entitled Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap (aka the Roadmap).

As a 40-year specialist in the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM) and founding member of the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (retired), my intention is to ‘pull out the threads’ of references in the Shariah-compliant Roadmap that are derived from the Quran and Hadith (and other academic sources), so that the general public sees more clearly that the AMJA is more than a simple ‘home-grown’ American Islamic organization.

Other ‘threads’ (fundamental Islamic doctrines) that are tightly woven into the fabric of the AMJA Roadmap include explicit religious Obligations (Paragraph 3), the Shariah-authorized response to the Oppression of Islamic civil rights (Paragraph 6), Loyalty & Enmity (Paragraph 10), the doctrine of Unity & Brotherhood within the global Islamic community (Paragraph 10), and allusions to the Islamic Revival Movement (Paragraph 13).

Why is the AMJA Roadmap even important? Could a scholarly article written by the leaders of a harmless-sounding American Islamic organization possibly have a corrosive influence on our Constitutionally protected values of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness?

The answer is: Yes.

With the unexpected election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President, America has reached an historic crossroads vis-à-vis our domestic and foreign counter-terrorism and immigration policies. As will be seen as we walk through the Roadmap’s text, the AMJA regards the election of President Trump as a disruptive calamity – a potentially devastating setback – in its multi-generational strategy to promote Islam, and relentlessly integrate (not assimilate) the core principles of Shariah law into mainstream American society.

As we work our way through the Roadmap, we will soon discover that it is actually laid on the solid foundation of a crucially important strategic concept that supports the GIM (as authorized by the Muslim Brotherhood). In Arabic, this strategic approach is known as Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia, while in English, it is known as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as ‘base,’ is the same word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world. However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually a concept, i.e., a ‘base of operations,’ rather than a subversive, violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

To continue, in order for the GIM to integrate Shariah into a non-Islamic societies (like America), it is essential that an obedient, well-organized Islamic Al-Qaeda (base) first be established, with each member of the community striving to his or her utmost to promote Islam, which in Arabic is called Dawah.

For at least three generations, right here in America, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) have been building up the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia.

During this process, what organization has provided the gravitational force – acting as the sun in the center of the Islamic solar system – to the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia here in America? Or, what unifying force holds these Muslim Brotherhood planets (organizations) in their respective orbits?

The answer is the AMJA, which maintains an archive of reliable, Shariah-compliant Fatwas needed to assure the Muslim community (and their leaders) that they are all following the correct, straight path of Allah.

Note: For several additional examples of AMJA Fatwas, please see Appendix I – AMJA Fatwasbelow.

AMJA Background

In English, the AMJA is known as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. However, this benign-sounding title is dramatically different, and much more ominous, when translated directly from the Arabic, i.e., the Majama Fuqaha Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Group of Shariah Specialists in America).

More specifically, the covert use of the term Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Shariah in America) should send up an immediate ‘red flag.’ After all, haven’t we been reassured repeatedly that Muslims have no intention of implementing Shariah law here in America, and that Shariah poses no threat to our constitutionally protected freedoms? Aren’t those who raise concerns about Shariah routinely branded as bigots, raving conspiracy theorists and dubious Islamophobes?

If there is no intention of implementing Shariah law here in America, then why does the AMJA include the Arabic term Al-Shariah B’Amrikia in its official title and logo? And, if these reassurances are really true, then why are Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR so consistently and vehemently opposed to efforts to pass legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC)?

In fact, Shariah law does pose a threat to American (and Western) freedoms and values. According to Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, “Islamic civilization, since the time of Prophet Muhammad until now, is firmly founded on the concept of ‘rule of law’ For that reason, the law is published and known, and citizens and courts are expected to uphold it. In addition, Muslim citizens must adhere to Islamic law – Shariah…the disciplines and principles that govern the behavior of a Muslim individual towards his or herself, family, neighbors, community, city, nation and the Muslim polity as a whole, the Ummah.”

The current AMJA leadership structure includes six members of the Leadership Council (aka Majlis Al-Shura, or the Shura Council), nearly all of whom are graduates of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, plus eight Scholars, 46 Experts and 41 Members. Combined together, this roster of 100 Islamic scholars is a Who’s Who of prominent Muslim Brotherhood leaders and Salafi Muslims affiliated with the Global Islamic Movement.

It is also important to recognize that the AMJA is much more than a simple ‘home-grown’ group of American Muslim clergymen. Instead, it is part of a constellation of influential Islamic organizations, such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), and the Islamic Research Foundation International (IRFI).

Together, such groups form a global coalition of tightly integrated Muslim scholars known as the Ulema, which gather together periodically for Ijtimah (Consensus) Conferences, where problems that Muslims face in non-Islamic countries are reviewed (more about Ijtimah / Ijtihad is also discussed in Paragraph 10 of the Roadmap).

In turn, these scholars are authorized to issue legal rulings (Fatwa), and to provide guidance to the global Islamic community (Ummah), which are based exclusively on the unalterable authority of Islamic Shariah law – never on the ‘man-made’ U.S. Constitution, let alone state or federal civil law.

Analysis of AMJA Roadmap Text

Note: I use the Sahih International translation of the Quran, which is often (but not always) used by the AMJA scholars. Also, since many words in the Quran (for example, Alamina) can be translated several different ways, I may include additional synonyms. For example, in the case of Alamina, it can be accurately translated as either animals, beasts, created beings, creatures, mankind or men.

Each one of the original 14 paragraphs in the Roadmap has been numbered for clarity and quoted in italics below. After each paragraph is quoted, I provide commentary with highlighted phrasestaken from that paragraph of the Roadmap text, along with hyperlinks to the sources.

(1) “In the name of Allah, the Ever-Compassionate, the Ever-Merciful.”

This comes directly from Quran 1.1: “In the name of Allah , the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.”

(2) “All praise be to Allah alone and may blessings and peace be upon he who was sent as a mercy for all of humanity.”

Also taken directly from Quran 1.2: “[All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds”; it is combined with a phrase from Quran 21.107: “And We have not sent you, except as a mercy to created beings/creatures/humanity/man/mankind/people/worlds.”

In addition, Mohammed is also well known within the Islamic world as ‘the mercy for all humanity,’ as discussed extensively in Prophet Muhammad: A Mercy to Humanity, Part I & Part II.

(3) “No one could possibly be unaware of the political storm that has recently overtaken this country. Some see it as a real threat to the principles of security, freedom, equality, well-being and social justice that form the basis of the American Dream which millions from various ethnic and religious backgrounds seek to achieve. As Muslims are one slice of this society, national and religious obligations demand that they deal with these news events in a way that will protect the nation and its people from any evils, in a manner benefitting all citizens. For this reason, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America is addressing the Imams, Islamic workers and the entire Muslim community with permanent values that must be emphasized during this stage as well as a number of principles to be used in dealing with these events, what has happened as well as what is expected to happen.”

Political Storm: It is intriguing that no mention is made here of the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring, or of the current storms of violence raging across the Middle East and in the Far East. Instead, the election of Donald Trump as President is seen here as a test, or as a trial, storm, and even as a calamity (as in Paragraph 5 below).

Religious Obligations: This is a direct reference to Articles 1(a), 8 & 9 of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which was drafted and ratified by all 57 members nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which was renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on June 28, 2011. Article 24 of the Declaration states “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah,” while Article 25 states “The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

Religious Obligation (Obligatory Duty) in Arabic is Fard, i.e., “what the Islamic Lawgiver [Mohammed] strictly requires to be done, and whose obligatory character is proved by definitive evidence. Someone who denies the Fard is considered a disbeliever (Kafir), as he or she is denying what has been ordained by clear-cut and decisive texts.”

Fard is separated in to groups: [1] “Fard Al-Ayn (Individual duty): The group of tasks that are every Muslim is required to perform individually as a duty, such as Salah (Daily Prayer), Hijab (Covering) or the Hajj (Pilgrimage) to Mecca at least once in a lifetime,” and [2] “Fard Al-Kifaya(Sufficiency/Communal duty): The duty which is imposed on the whole Ummah. One is not required to perform it as long as a sufficient number of community members fulfill it.”

Religious Obligation (Fard) is also discussed extensively in the definitive, authorized English translation of Shariah law, known as The Reliance of the Traveller (Umdat Al-Salik).

Entire Muslim Community: This refers to the global Islamic community, i.e., the Ummah aka Nation (as in Nation of Islam)

Permanent Values: This concept is derived from Quran 3.110: You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. The concept of permanent values is also based on Quran 2.41: And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs for a small price, and fear [only] Me.

Permanent Values: For a detailed discussion of this subject, see article by G. A. Parwez entitled Quranic Permanent Values

What Is Expected To Happen: This is a plain and direct call to the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia (the Observant Muslim Base) to maintain a heightened state of awareness and engagement, for the purpose of defending Islam from disbelievers.

(4) “Muslims of America are neither guests nor strangers here. Muslims, due to them being descended from humanity’s parents, Adam and Eve, and being created from this earth, are part of the greater family of humanity. They are also citizens here like the other citizens with both rightsand responsibilities. This land is ruled by a constitution and the rule of law that protects the rights of all its minorities with due respect at all levels, even though the visceral speech of the recent heated election may have seemed to deny this. We shall adhere to our rights and the rights of other Americans and shall strengthen our bonds with the civil rights organizations, Muslim or non-Muslim. We shall work with them and defend them whenever needed. However, at the same time, we must always fulfill our obligations completely and be active participants in society working to protect the security and well-being of its inhabitants.”

Humanity’s Parents, Adam and Eve: Another allusion derived from Article 1 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which reads: All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, color, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.

This is also a direct allusion to Quran 49.13: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.”

Quran Rights And Responsibilities: It is important to reiterate here that the AMJA’s definitions of ‘rights and responsibilities’ are not drawn from the U.S. Constitution & American civil law, but solely from Shariah, and from the Cairo Declaration.

Muslim or non-Muslim: It is intriguing that while the AMJA strictly prohibits American Muslims from working for the FBI, the military, or for U.S. security (and law enforcement) services, because such work could possibly involve “spying on Muslims” (see Appendix I below), it grants specific permission the American Muslim community to work with non-Muslim civil rights organizations, presumably with such ‘allies’ as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), or the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Fulfill Our Obligations: In the last sentence of this paragraph, the Roadmap adds a caveat, reminding Muslims who chose to work with such secular, non-Muslim groups, that “we must always fulfill our obligations completely.” Such obligations would no doubt include Dawah (as discussed above).

Obligations: Also discussed in Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 11

(5) “It is known that patience, perseverance, prudence and discernment are among the most important tools for success and happiness, especially during times of calamities. These are needed to establish one’s position on certainty or, at the very least, the preponderance of the evidence. One’s stance cannot be simply a matter of making proclamations in front of cameras or under the pressure of provocations. The Messenger of Allah told Ashaj Abdul-Qais, ‘You have two qualities that Allah loves: forbearance and deliberateness.’ The Muslim Community must proceed with calmness and clarity and must refer matters to the knowledgeable people who are specialists in the relevant fields. Allah has said, ‘But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it.’”

During Times Of Calamities: This paragraph introduces a founding concept in Islam, that the Muslim community should always defer to trained scholars whenever calamities arise. This practice is followed to prevent individual Muslims (and entire communities) from violating any provisions of Shariah law.

Calamities: Although the Arabic word for calamity (Sawaba) may also be translated as an affliction, disaster or misfortune, it always implies a direct assault on the community, or the faith, of Islam. Variants of Sawaba occur about 77 times in the Quran, including verse 2.156, which says: “Who, when affliction/disaster/misfortune strikes them, say, ‘Indeed we belong to Allah , and indeed to Him we will return.’”

This very passage was cited in the January 05, 2017 CAIR Texas Executive Director’s Message, which is entitled A New Year For Civil Rights And Political Empowerment.

You Have Two Qualities: This reference is from Al-Bukhari and Muslim, two Hadith sources (the sayings of Mohammed): “The Prophet, praised the delegation of ‘Abd Al-Qays from the Hajar region for their deliberation and tolerance, as he said to Ashajj ‘Abd Al-Qays: ‘You have two characteristics that Allah and His Messenger like: forbearance and deliberation.’”

But If They Had Referred It / Those Of Authority: This passage is found in Quran 4.83: “And when there comes to them information about [public] security or fear, they spread it around. But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who [can] draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it. And if not for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have followed Satan, except for a few.”

Note: The subject of submitting (deferring) to ‘those in authority’ is also reiterated in Paragraph 8and Paragraph 9.

As also discussed in Paragraph 3, this submission to authority also the Fard (Obligatory Duty) of the Al-Qaeda Al-Motzema Al-Islamia, i.e., the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

(6) “There is no blame upon a country if it does what is needed to protect its interests and security as long as it does not transgress or oppress by denying or violating rights. America, even given its excesses, is still one of the best nations when it comes to protecting human rights and the sanctity of humanity. It is a must upon us that we not over generalize or spread fear. Our dealings with the current events must be wise and objective.”

Transgress Or Oppress: The concepts of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Transgression and Oppression are deeply embedded within the ideology of Islam. The consequences of transgressing the statutes and commandments of Shariah law, or of oppressing (opposing) the efforts of the Islamic community, are severe. For three examples, see Quran 2.190: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors,” Quran 21.9: “Then We fulfilled for them the promise, and We saved them and whom We willed and destroyed the transgressors,” and Quran 2.193: “Fight them until there is no [more] Fitnah [oppression] and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression, except against the oppressors.”

Oppression is also discussed in extensive detail in the Hadith (Bukhari), Volume 4, Section 43.

In 2014, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, wrote to President Barack Obama about his views on the situation in Iraq, Gaza and Palestine, while also commenting about “Muslim oppression at the hands of the West in general and the United States in particular.”

Human Rights: Discussed specifically in Article 23 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, and in the preamble of the Cairo Declaration, which states: “Agrees to issue the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human rights,” and “In contribution to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shariah.”

On January 13, 2016, the Dearborn, MI based American Human Rights Council (AHRC) announced that it had co-signed a petition asking President Obama to commute the sentence of the five Holy Land Foundation (HLF) defendants to time served. The AHRC website states that “Five well- regarded members of the Muslim American community, Mufid Abdulqader, Shukri Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El-Mezain, and Abdulrahman Odeh, were given unusually lengthy sentences that shocked the American Muslim community for their harshness,” adding that “The Holy Land Foundation case if one of the most traumatic experiences of the American Muslim community. The case sent shock waves through the humanitarian sector worldwide,” said Imad Hamad, AHRC Executive director. “We believe that given the equities, it is in the interest of justice to commute their sentences to time served,” concluded Hamad.

From an Islamic perspective, it appears that sentencing five individuals to prison for material support of Hamas, a globally designated terrorist organization, is a violation of their civil and human rights, which is another form of Fitnah.

(7) Testing humans with good or evil is how Allah deals with His servants. Whoever sells his faith for this world has suffered a clear loss. The Muslim believes that his religion is the dearest of all things. Any time in which the worldly goods will be accepted in exchange for one’s faith will be a time of ignobility and treachery. The trials and punishments that can come from humans cannot possibly be like that which will come from Allah – and it is only the people of hypocrisy that could ever equate those two. Allah has said, ‘And of the people is he who worships Allah on an edge. If he is touched by good, he is reassured by it; but if he is struck by trial he turns on his face [to the other direction]. He has lost [this] world and the Hereafter. That is what is the manifest loss.’”

Testing / Trials And Punishments: In Arabic, this is known as Fitnah فِتْنَةَ, which occurs 60 times in the Quran. Fitnah is another powerful concept that is woven tightly into the theological fabric of Islam. In fact, Fitnah is the catalyst that leads to outbreaks of violence and chronic terrorism throughout the world. For example, Quran 2.191 says: “And kill [slaughter] them wherever you overtake them and expel them [violently] from wherever they have expelled you, and Fitnah is worse than killing [slaughter]. And do not fight them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram [the Great Mosque in Mecca] until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill [slaughter] them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

The concept of Fitnah is a powerful catalyst, leading directly to Jihad, as illustrated in sections Q 1.2(3) and 2.4(4) of Reliance of the Traveller: “The best Jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler.” The word unjust used here is yet another adjective used to describe Fitnah.

Reliance (page 615) also makes the following ominous declaration of Ijtimah (Consensus), effectively shattering the concept of what is known in the West as the self-radicalized ‘Lone Wolf’ (or ‘Known Wolf’, as per Patrick Poole): There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed. But if one knows it will not hurt them at all, such as if a blind man were to hurl himself against them, then it is unlawful. Likewise, if someone who is alone sees a corrupt person with a bottle of wine beside him and a sword in his hand, and he knows that the person will chop his neck if he censures him for drinking, it is not permissible for him to do so, as it would not entail any religious advantage worth giving one’s life for. Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.

Sells His Faith / Suffered A Clear Loss are derived from Quran 2.207: “And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking means to the approval of Allah. And Allah is kind to [His] servants,” and from Quran 4.119: “And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah. And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss.”

And Of The People: This is taken directly from Quran 22.11: “And of the people is he who worships Allah on an edge. If he is touched by good, he is reassured by it; but if he is struck by trial [Fitnah], he turns on his face [to the other direction]. He has lost [this] world and the Hereafter. That is what is the manifest loss.”

(8) “Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations is unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change. With its branches and rulings, though, it can accommodate people under any time or place. By its legal principles, it is able to absorb changes of time and places and circumstances of necessity and need. However, the law of necessity has its specific legal parameters that one must adhere to. One must refer to the people of knowledge to ensure that the principle is being applied properly. A Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in which one is required to flee with one’s faith, or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.”

Legal Foundations / Legal Principles / Legal Parameters: This is a direct reference to Shariahlaw. As found in section A1.1 of Reliance of the Traveller, “There is no disagreement among the scholars of the Muslims that the source of legal rulings for all the acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah Most Glorious.”

Muslim Brotherhood founder Syed Qutb stated:

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.”

Jamaat-e-Islami founder Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi wrote:

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.”

Is there any room here for the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence?

Unalterably Fixed / Any Replacement For Change: These two phrases touch the heart of the looming conflict between the certain unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness that have been endowed by our Creator, versus the emphatic declaration that the legal foundations of Islam (Shariah law) are unalterably fixed, and that no replacement for change can ever be accepted.

This is not just AMJA’s position. An August 09, 2012 Pew Research Center survey entitled The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity asked Muslims whether they believe there is only one true way to understand Islam’s teachings, or if multiple interpretations are possible. In 32 of the 39 countries surveyed, well more than half of all Muslims agreed there is only one correct way to understand the teachings of Islam.

Must Comply With His Faith: Alluded to in Quran 2.207: “And of the people is he who sells himself, seeking means to the approval of Allah. And Allah is kind to [His] servants.”

Well-Grounded Scholars: Reinforcing a principle that was first introduced in Paragraph 5, and reiterated in Paragraphs 9 and Paragraph 10 below, section A1.2 of Reliance of the Traveller states: Unaided Intellect Cannot Know Allah’s Rules. The question arises. Is it possible for the mind alone, unaided by Allah’s messengers and revealed scriptures, to know rulings, such that someone not reached by a prophet’s invitation would be able through his own reason to know Allah’s rule concerning his actions? Or is this impossible?

Flee With One’s Faith: This refers to the Hijrah (Migration), another fundamental concept in Islam, with connotations going back 1,400 years, to the founding history of Islam. At this point, the Roadmap introduces the possibility that Muslims in America may have to flee to a safer location, for the sake of their faith. Socially, this is a very provocative (and potentially inflammatory) statement by the AMJA. It engenders immediate animosity and tension, and serves to further alienate and marginalize the Muslim community in America.

Notice also that in this time of crisis, the AMJA is not encouraging Muslims to assimilate into American mainstream culture, but instead advises them to further distance themselves from it, while surrounding themselves with the protective wall of Shariah law, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

For example, in a January 14, 2017 Huffington Post article about a mosque fire in Seattle, CAIR representative Joseph Shoji Lachman included this statement: “Even in a city with as liberal a reputation as Seattle, people of Middle Eastern descent fear for their lives simply because of their appearance and religion.” As discussed in Paragraph 7 above, this is an example of Fitnah, i.e., Muslims living in a hostile, oppressive, non-Islamic culture, where fear becomes a way of life.

Quoting directly from The Significance of the Hijrah by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph.D., President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc: The significance of Hijrah…is not limited to the Islamic history or to the Muslims. The Hijrah not only reshaped – socially and politically – the Arab Peninsula, but also had its impact on worldwide civilizations. Throughout the history of Islam, the migration was a transitional line between the two major eras, regarding to the message of Islam; the era of Makkah [Mecca] and the era of Madinah. In its essence, this signified a transition from one phase to another, as follows:

Transition from the position of weakness, where the non-believers of Makkah – particularly the people of Quraish – humiliated, tortured and killed Muslims, to the position of strength. This is where Muslims were allowed to defend themselves and were able to defeat their adversaries. Transition, which is most significantly for early Muslims, to the phase in which Islam was not only the act of worship, but a way of life. This was encompassing (surrounding) politics, economy, social interactions and every other aspect of life. This was the first time when Islam was looked upon as a comprehensive religion.

(9) “Both Muslims and non-Muslims bring harm to Islam and Muslims. Muslims do so via ignorance, taking knowledge from the unqualified, blind zealotry, extremism or by betraying Allah, His Messenger and the believers. The non-Muslims harm Islam and Muslims via enmity and hatred, which is also built upon ignorance and intolerance. You should eagerly learn your faith and its regulations. You should fortify your knowledge and understanding via learning from the well-grounded, pious scholars. Then you should be a Muslim whose deeds, above and beyond his speech, are truthful and sincere. You should be an excellent ambassador for your faith. Representing Islam well and displaying its realities is of great importance during these times.”

Well-Grounded, Pious Scholars: First introduced in Paragraph 5 and reiterated in Paragraph 8and Paragraph 10.

Truthful And Sincere: This concept is derived from Quran 9.119: “O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed).” For more on this subject from a Quranic perspective, see article entitled The Importance and Reward For The One Who Is Honest.

(10) “The time has come to leave off calling to groups and sectarianism and to stop the divisionand differences. Truly, togetherness is mercy and division is a form of punishment. It is obligatory upon us now, O Muslims, to spread the feelings of mutual love, mercy and compassion in all dealings with all believers, regardless of their divisions that they align with or the paths that they follow in their Dawah efforts. We must leave behind us all forms of fanaticism and bigotry. Instead, we must form the bond of brotherhood upon the Quran and Sunnah. Those two, and nothing else are the basis of our allegiance or disavowing. We should also avoid delving into those heated discussions of matters of Ijtihad (juristic reasoning) and details of the law. The issues concerning which scholars differ based on juristic reasoning or policy are numerous and if every time two Muslims differed with another over such issues they would flee from one another, there would be no sanctity or brotherhood left between any Muslims. We must not drive away and make enemies out of anyone that we could join our hearts with upon the religion and agree with them on the basics of righteousness and piety. This is especially true during this cautious time. Since this principle of understanding is accepted when dealing with people of other faiths, it must even more so be accepted when dealing with people of one’s own faith.”

Division / Bond of Brotherhood: The subject of Division vs. a Unified Brotherhood (thus the name Muslim Brotherhood) is frequently discussed in Islamic theology (Quran & Hadith), as in Quran 3.103: And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers.

This is also another example of the insidious, kaleidoscopic nature of Fitnah, as discussed in more detail under the heading Testing And Trials in Paragraph 7 above.

Those Two, And Nothing Else: Once again, net even the U.S. Constitution and/or Western values of freedom and liberty, are exempt for the dominating influence of Shariah law, as derived from the Quran and Hadith.

Allegiance Or Disavowing: Code words for another deeply embedded Islamic doctrine, known as Al-Wala Wa’l Bara, or the doctrine of Loyalty & Enmity. Other adjectives used as synonyms of Loyalty & Enmity include Enjoin & Forbid, or, as found here in the AMJA Roadmap, Allegiance & Disavowal.

The basis for Loyalty and Enmity, which calls on Muslims to be loyal to one another (even if they dislike each other), is found in Quran 9.71: “The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give Zakah [Charity] and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those, Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” The same concept is reiterated in Quran 8.73: “And those who disbelieved are allies of one another. If you do not do so, there will be Fitnah on earth and great corruption.”

In other words, those who oppose the global (and local) unity of the Islamic brotherhood, and who refuse to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, are guilty of Fitnah, a serious crime against Islam.

For two additional detailed discussions of this extremely significant topic, see Part 1 & Part 2 of Al‐Wala Wa’l‐Bara, According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf by Shaykh Muhammad Saeed al‐Qahtan. Also see The Doctrine of Loyalty and Disavowal, by Mahmud Dwaikat.

Matters Of Ijtihad: Unified Reasoning, which is derived from the same root verb as Ijtimah(Consensus), is synonymous with a firm reliance on the scholars. This is a major theme of the Roadmap, as already seen in Paragraphs 5, 8 and 9.

(11) “Among the most important of obligations during these days is to open our doors to all sectors of our society and to reach out to the other ethnic and religious groups as well as political movements on both the left and right of the political spectrum. This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate. The majority of Americans are the best when it comes to dealing with ‘the other.’ We must not allow the ugliness of a few in this society to prevent us from seeing its goodness. The recent election ended in the way that it did for a number of reasons, perhaps most importantly the economic conditions that a large slice of the population is facing. It is not true that racism or rejection of foreigners alone decided this election. Even for those who are afflicted with racist attitudes, the best cure for them is found in Allah’s instruction, ‘Repel [evil] by that [deed]which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.’”

Most Important Of Obligations: Also discussed in Paragraph 3, 4 and 12.

This is a call (and official authorization) for American Muslims to form coalitions with a diversity of ethnic and religious groups, as well as movements on the left and right of the political spectrum. In other words, to start forming new alliances, in as many different arenas as possible, to build a wall of resistance.

Some of the organizations involved in this AMJA-authorized effort to develop common-cause alliances include the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the Black Lives Matter movement, ANSWER Coalition, the Tides Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

What overlapping goals does the religion of Islam have with left-wing, progressive groups like these? A concise answer is provided by the anti-Trump protest group #DisruptJ20, which “rejects all forms of domination and oppression [i.e., Fitnah], particularly those based on racism, poverty, gender & sexuality, organizes by consensus, and embraces a diversity of tactics.”

Repel [Evil] By That [Deed]: This is from Quran 41:34: And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity [will become] as though he was a devoted friend.

(12) “From among the most important obligations during this stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and relief, and those dedicated to Dawah, religious instruction and providing religious rulings. It is most unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray for them or give them a kind word. But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.”

Most Important Of Obligations: Discussed earlier in Paragraph 3, 4 and 11.

During This Stage: We’re now coming to the key take-away messages of the AMJA Roadmap, which is actually describing the Shariah-approved course of action that Muslims in America (or anywhere else) should take whenever calamities, oppression and/or resistance to the ultimate implementation of Shariah law are encountered. This concept – of an allegorical journey (Roadmap) – was first discussed by Sayyid Qutb, one of the founding fathers of the Muslim Brotherhood, in his famous book entitled Milestones.

It is also important to notice the continuity of language used in the AMJA Roadmap, from similar concepts (‘stages’ and ‘oppression’) addressed in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, to the terms used in the HLF’s formal name (‘Relief’), while also reflecting language used in the Reliance of the Traveller.

Support Those Institutions And Organizations: Who are these institutions and organizations? The list would include groups such as the American Human Rights Council (AHRC), the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA), Islamic Shura Council of Southern California (ISCSC), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), and the dozens of affiliated organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 federal criminal trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), which proved irrefutably that American Muslim organizations were providing direct financial support to Hamas, twice designated as a Global Terrorist Organization (also see US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, TX).

Defending Freedoms, Civil Rights And Political Activism: On January 13, 2017, Executive Director Imad Hamad stated that AHRC “joins its voice to the voices of many in the nongovernmental community who have called on President Obama to commute the sentence of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) defendants to time served.” Mr. Hamad also characterized the five defendants (Mufid Abdulqader, Shukri Baker, Ghassan Elashi, Mohammad El-Mezain and Abdulrahman Odeh) as “well-regarded members of the Muslim American community, [who] were given unusually lengthy sentences that shocked the American Muslim community for their harshness.” This is just the most recent salvo in an long-term barrage of disinformation after the five HLF defendants were indicted on July 26, 2004 for financial support of Hamas. For a few other examples, see here (2006), here (2009), here (2010), here (2010), here (2011) and here (2011).

Social Services And Relief: Islamic organizations that are dedicated to social services and relief include are created to comply with Shariah law, as found in Reliancesection H8.7 (page 226): It is obligatory to distribute one’s among eight categories of recipients (meaning that Zakat goes to none besides them), one-eighth of the Zakat to each category. (in the Hanafi school [of Shariah law], it is valid for the giver to distribute his Zakat to all of the categories, some of them, or to confine himself to just one of them).

The eight categories include [1] the Poor, [2] Someone separated from his money, or short of money, [3] Zakat workers dispatched by the Imam, [4] Those whose hearts are to be reconciled, [5] Those purchasing their freedom, [6] Those in debt, [7] Those fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah and [8] Those traveling for the sake of Allah.

Yes, one-eighth of all Zakat must be given directly to those are fighting Jihad, which is the reason why HLF leaders had no problem giving financial aid to Hamas.

Dawah, Religious Instruction And Providing Religious Rulings: This category would include Shariah-promoting organizations such as the AMJA itself, as well as the Fatwa Center of America, the North American Imam’s Federation (NAIT), and the Institute of Islamic Education (IIE), which is part of a network of Islamic schools (Madrassas) operating across America.

The Worst Of All: This critical Islamic concept, i.e., that those who opposes or resist the cause of Islam are the worst of all, is also derived directly from the Quran. For example, see Quran 8.55: Indeed, the worst of all animals/beasts/created beings/creatures/mankind/men in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe, and Quran 98.6: Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of all animals/beasts/created beings/creatures/mankind/men.

For more on this subject, see the 2008 QuranicTopics.com article entitled Disbelievers Are The Worst of Creatures.

According to several sources, President Donald Trump intends to support legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. If the effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization actually proves successful, America would be following the lead of several other countries who have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, including EgyptSaudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Also, during his August 15, 2016 speech on fighting terrorism, President Trump said: “[O]ne of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam, which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions. The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.”

On January 10, 2017, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) reintroduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017 (also see H.R. 3892, which was introduced November 03, 2015). During his January 15, 2017 Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson stated that “The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.” This signals that Mr. Tillerson is aware of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he will seriously consider implementing the 2017 Terrorist Designation Act.

(13) “No one knows the unseen except Allah. It is possible that an individual hates somethingwhile Allah has placed a lot of good for him in it. We must prepare for any possibility while hoping for the best outcomes. Before all of the above, and with all of the above, and after all of the above, one must know that there is no bringer of harm and no bringer of benefit except Allah. Nothing can guard an individual from what he fears greater than the protection of his Lord. Therefore, come with us to revive true piety and renew the spirit of repenting to Allah. Certainly, trials and tribulations are not to be repelled simply by material means alone. Instead, they will be overcome by a sincere turning to Allah, submitting to Him, having good expectations of Him and trusting Him in a beautiful manner. Be mindful of Allah’s commands and He will protect you. Be mindful of Allah’s commands and you will find Him in front of you, guiding you. Increase your remembrance of Allah and you will find Allah with you every step of the way, leading you through fear and to security.”

This concluding paragraph of the Roadmap reiterates all of the key points made throughout the document, and ends with a series of Quranic emphatic exhortations for Muslims in America to put their hope and trust fully in Allah, and in his commands (Shariah).

Knows The UnseenQuran 6.59: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record.”

Also see a study from the Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir, entitled The One Who Knows The Unseen Is Allah.

An Individual Hates Something / Placed A Lot Of Good: This statement is derived from Quran 2.216: “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.”

An Individual Hates Something: For further insight, see the July 07, 2010 AbdurRachman.org article by Imam Ibn al Qayyim, entitled And It May Be That You Dislike A Thing Which Is Good For You.

Revive True Piety And Renew The Spirit: This is an allusion to what is known as the Islamic Revival (Renaissance) Movement, which is a worldwide effort to encourage Muslims to return to Salafi Islam, i.e., the original, pure version of Islam practiced by Mohammed and his early followers. Also see this link to Reviving The Islamic Spirit Conventions worldwide, including a major North American venue in Toronto, Canada.

Trials And Tribulations: Another reference to Fitnah, which is also discussed in Paragraph 6, 7 and 8.

Trusting Him In A Beautiful Manner: Derived from Quran 16.125: “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful/good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.”

Be Mindful Of Allah’s Commands: The entire last sentence derived from a Hadith, which states: “Young man, I will teach you some words. Be mindful of Allah, and He will take care of you. Be mindful of Him, and you shall find Him at your side. If you ask, ask of God. If you need help, seek it from God. Know that if the whole world were to gather together in order to help you, they would not be able to help you except if God had written so.”

In turn, this Hadith is linked to Quran 2.156-157: “Who, when disaster strikes them, say, ‘Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we will return.’ Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided.”

(14) “O Allah, be gentle with Your servants. All praise is due to Allah alone.”

Be Gentle: Derived from Al-Latif, one of the 99 Names of Allah, and from Quran 42.19: “Allah is Gentle/Gracious/Kind/Subtle with His servants; He gives provisions to whom He wills. And He is the Powerful, the Exalted in Might.”

All Praise: Part of the Aqidah (Authentic Creed): All praise is due to Allah, and Allah’s Peace and Blessings be upon His Final Messenger, his pure family, his noble Companions, and all those who follow them with righteousness until the Day of Judgment. Why is this important to a Muslim? Because, according to a publication also entitled The Authentic Creed, “It is evident from texts of the Noble Quran and the Sunnah that a person’s words and deeds will not be accepted unless they emanate from a true creed. If the creed is not authentic, all words and deeds emanating there from are bound to be rejected.”

Conclusion

Much like a storm siren, fire alarm or warning signal, the AMJA Roadmap is meant to be not only a warning of impending danger, but a call to deliberate, responsive action. The concept of sounding a warning is also emphasized many times in the Quran, as in verse 7.63: “Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you and that you may fear Allah, so you might receive mercy.”

Thus, if the AMJA expects the American Muslim community not only to take this warning seriously, but to also take appropriate action(s), then perhaps those of us who are not Muslim would be wise to take heed to the warning as well, lest we be caught unprepared.

Now that we have methodically reviewed the Roadmap, a question arises: “How will leaders of the American Muslim community respond (react), if the Trump Administration actually designates the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, thus ‘destroying’ the affiliated institutions and groups that have been endorsed and supported by the AMJA?”

As plainly stated in Paragraph 12 of the Roadmap, those who attempt to shut down the network of organizations that support the American Islamic community are characterized as the “the worst of all.”

Therefore, if we take the Roadmap seriously, we must ask a second question: “What actions (resistance) will the AMJA feel compelled to endorse, if the Designation Act of 2017 effectively bans leaders of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, ISNA and MPAC from any further legal involvement in the arenas of politicssocial activism, and law enforcement?”

Remarkably, an overt example of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the American political arena was seen in the January 21, 2017 appearance of Imam Mohamed Magid at an interfaith religious service for President Donald J. Trump.

Mohamed Magid, who is Imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), has also served as both President and Vice-President of ISNA (an HLF co-conspirator which is also closely linked to ADAMS), was scheduled to recite a simple opening prayer. Instead, he went ‘off script’ and recited two verses from the Quran that just happen to reflect concepts included in both the AMJA Roadmap, and in Article 1 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (also see Paragraph 4 above).

The two verses (as quoted by Imam Magid at the prayer service) are Quran 49.13: “O humankind, We have created you a single male and female (Adam and Eve) and made you into nations and tribes and communities, that you may know one another. Really, the most honored of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you, and God has all knowledge,” and Quran 30.22: “And among the signs of God is the creation of heaven and earth, and the variation in your languages and your colors. Verily, in that are signs for those who know.”

In addition to co-conspirator ISNA, ADAMS has close ties to several other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, including HLF co-conspirator International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the SAFA Trust, which was raided by the FBI after 9/11 because organizations and leaders “in the SAFA Group maintained a financial and ideological relationship with persons and entities with known affiliations to the designated terrorist Groups PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and HAMAS.”

Incredibly, one of the SAFA Trust’s sub-organizations was the Sterling Charitable Gift Fund, whose 6 primary advisors included Imam Mohamed Magid.

What is the link between all of these groups and the AMJA Roadmap? The link is Imam Magid himself, who in addition to serving as past President and Vice-President of the ISNA, and as Imam of ADAMS, currently serves as AMJA Expert number 26, where he is listed as “Shaykh Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center in Virginia.”

Since Imam (Shaykh) Magid is a current member of AMJA, it is very plausible that he deliberately went ‘off script’ at the prayer service, in order to make a public declaration (sound the alarm) to the entire Islamic world, while using his opportunity to speak at a high-profile public forum to reiterate one of the concepts discussed in the Roadmap.

Meanwhile, in a example of simultaneous, overlapping social activismHussam Ayloush, who heads the CAIR Los Angeles chapter, compared Trump on Facebook to the proverbial emperor without any clothes, while urging Imam Magid not to “hand him a towel,” while Ahmed Rehab, Executive Director of CAIR Chicago, said on Facebook that he was “thoroughly disappointed” by Imam Magid’s “unilateral decision” to join the prayer service, which “goes against the consensus of our community’s leadership and grassroots.”

So, if the one-day-old Trump Administration already “goes against the consensus of our community’s leadership and grassroots,” what effect(s) will designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group have on the community’s pro-Jihad sympathizers, both here in America, and in other parts of the world?

Will fellow members of the global Ummah feel compelled to help their oppressed brethren, who are facing calamities/disasters and Fitnah from disbelievers here in America?

Is it even vaguely possible that some may take to heart the admonition found in Quran 8.12, which says:

“[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip’”?

Or, perhaps these aspiring Jihadists would prefer to follow the guidance found in Quran 47.4:

“So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command].”

As first reported by Andrew Bostom in March of 2011, AMJA Secretary-General Dr. Salah Al-Sawy was asked by a reader whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West…[was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad.”

Then, in a Fatwa published in Arabic on his own website, Dr. Al-Sawy provided the following carefully written endorsement of both offensive and defensive Jihad: “The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence [Shariah law] at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.”

This is essentially the same tactical approach the AMJA Roadmap is following. In other words, to paraphrase Dr. Al-Sawy’s Fatwa: Since the Islamic community in America does not possess the strength or current capabilities to engage in offensive jihad at this time, it should continue to aspire toward defensive jihad, and strive to improve its position with regards to jurisprudence Shariah law at this stage (as in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones).

Is my premise just so much hyperbole? Exaggeration? A misunderstanding? Misguided Islamophobia? That remains to be seen.

However, as we move into the Trump Administration, which is expected to be completely antithetical the counter-terrorism and immigration policies of the Obama Administration, this would certainly be an excellent opportunity for the AMJA (and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR, ISNA & MPAC) to show America (and the world), once and for all, that Islam really is the Religion of Peace®.

Appendix I – AMJA Fatwas

In April of 2006, AMJA Shariah scholar Dr. Katem Al-Hajj authorized capital punishment for Muslim apostates in America, stating that “as for the Shariah ruling [for apostasy], it is the punishment of killing for the man…as the prophet said: “Whoever a Muslim changes his/her religion, kill him/her,” and his saying “A Muslim`s blood, who testifies that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not made permissible except by three reasons: the life for the life; the married adulterer and the that who abandons his/her religion.”

In June of 2006, Dr. Al-Hajj issued a fatwa reiterating the Shariah-endorsed punishment [Al-Hadd] of stoning for committing adultery: “All praise be to Allah, and may his peace and blessings be on the last and best prophet and messenger, Muhammad. Since you are ashamed and you have repented sincerely, Allah is all forgiving, so don`t lose hope in his mercy and forgiveness. The act you have committed – as you appear to know – is an offensive sin, and it is a form of fornication, as the Prophet indicated…Yet, it is not the absolute Zina [sexual sin] punishable by Al-Hadd (which is stoning in the case of a married man).”

In July of 2007, AMJA scholar Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah issued a fatwa sanctioning animosity and hostility (derived from Quran 5.51) toward non-Muslim “Disbelievers” [Kufar]: “Our belief is that Islam is the final divine religion, supersedes all other divine religions, and that all other religions are abrogated by the prophet-hood of Mohammad. In another words; no one has the right to stay on his/her Christianity or Judaism after the prophecy of Mohammad. Based on the above, if any one from the people of scriptures has received the message of Islam clearly, yet, insisted on his belief, then he is – from an Islamic perspective – a disbeliever. Meanwhile, we believe that hellfire is granted for the disbelievers, which include anyone did not believe in the prophet-hood of the messenger that he/she lived during his/her life.”

In November of 2007, Dr. Al-Hajj posted a 23-page fatwa forbidding Muslims in America to work for the FBI, the military, or for U.S. security (and law enforcement) services, because such work could possibly involve “spying on Muslims,” and because Muslim minorities in non-Islamic countries are “subject to man-made laws, which Islamic law [Shariah] does not recognize, either fully or in part..”

This AMJA-authorized prohibition against involvement with law enforcement was on full display in 2011, when CAIR published a poster admonishing Muslims in America to “Build a Wall of Resistance” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.” The same precedent was expressed again in 2016, when CAIR called on Muslims to openly defy Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers when questioned on travel from Islamic controlled countries by saying, “None of your Damn Business,” and to “agitate Customs Agents by saying Islamic prayers “very loudly” when questioned”

In January of 2009, AMJA Secretary-General Dr. Salah Al-Sawy issued a fatwa on the penalty for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad: “[F]or those scholars who say that repentance of a person who insults Allah or His Messenger shall not accepted, [they] mean that repentance does not lift up the set punishment for cursing and insulting the Prophet, i.e., execution. Because the Prophet is the one who was actually wronged and insulted and he is no longer alive, therefore, he is not alive to practice his right to forgive him [the blasphemer] for what he did. Also, no Muslim is ever is entitled or authorized to forgive on the Prophet’s behalf.”

In January of 2009, Dr. Al-Qudah issued a fatwa on the death penalty for apostasy, stating that “Under the authority of the Muslim state, the People of the Book have the right to stay on their belief without being compelled to embrace Islam. But if one of them has embraced Islam, it would not be acceptable from him to go back to his original religion. The same rule applies to those who are born into Muslim families. According to the Islamic Law, they cannot commit apostasy. Implementing the punishment of killing the apostate is the sole and the exclusive responsibility of the Muslim state (were there any nowadays). Nobody else has the right to implement it.”

Three months later, in April of 2009, Dr. Al-Qudah issued another fatwa on Shariah-endorsed death sentences for apostates, stating that “The fact that there is no compulsion in religion does not negate the other fact that someone who has embrace Islam cannot change his mind afterward and embrace polytheism.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column was finished at 2017 hours on January 19, 2017 (the evening before the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President) in Washington, D.C.

Avengers ‘Infinity War’: Teaching children that mass slaughter is okay for all the wrong reasons

I used to be a fan of Marvel comics. Not anymore. The reason is the latest edition of 18 films in Marvel studios Avengers series titled “Infinity War.” After watching the film I was very disturbed by the message. Here is a key exchange between Thanos, the alien invader/protagonist, and Dr. Strange, one of the Avengers:

Thanos: When we faced extinction I offered a solution

Dr. Stephen Strange: Genocide?

Thanos: But random, dispassion is fair for rich and poor a like. They called me a mad man. What I predict came unannounced.

Dr. Stephen Strange: Congratulations, you’re a prophet

Thanos: I’m a survivor

Dr. Stephen Strange: Who wants to murder trillions

Thanos: With all the six stones I can simply snap my fingers, they will all cease to exist. I call that… mercy.

Dr. Stephen Strange: Then what?

Thanos: [I] finally rest, watch the sunrise on an ungrateful universe. The hardest choices require the strongest will.

In the end Thanos wins and trillions of people in the universe are slaughtered. The final scene is of Thanos in a green pasture admiring his work.

The most disturbing part is that during the film Dr. Strange looks at millions of options/outcomes and determines that Thanos winning is the only way. Dr. Strange, while getting erased from the universe, says to Tony Stark, “Tony, There was no other way.” This leads to fratricide, with half of his fellow Avengers dying. Fratricide is defined as:

[O]ne that murders or kills his or her own brother or sister or an individual (such as a countryman) having a relationship like that of a brother or sister.

Hollywood has made killing one’s brothers and sisters a noble, good and merciful thing. Why?

Alexander C. R. Hammond, research assistant for HumanProgress.org published an article titled “The Avengers, Thanos and Overpopulation.” Hammond wrote:

Thanos believes that there are finite resources in the universe—an appropriately illiterate idea, considering that the universe is infinite. Thus, if population growth is left unchecked, rising demand for resources will inevitably bring ruin to everyone. Halving the population of the universe is, in Thanos’ mind, “not suffering, but salvation,” for it is intended to avoid famine and poverty. The premise is misguided, but it’s striking how many people here on Earth share it.

Thanos’ concerns are identical to those of Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich, whose influential 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb predicted that rapid population growth would result in demand on Earth’s finite resources outstripping supply, resulting in the breakdown of society. To this day Ehrlich continues to make doomsday predictions, and to this day reality continues to prove him wrong.

Population control is not new

Centralized government population control has been tried before. Hammond notes:

Less amusing are the horrific real-life policies that have been implemented because of Ehrlich’s doomsaying. To be sure, no policy has yet been on par with Thanos’ plan to directly kill half of the population, but as Chelsea Follett has noted, “Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh and India—as well as China’s draconian ‘one child’ policy. In 1975, officials sterilized 8 million men and women in India alone…To put that in perspective, Hitler’s Germany forcibly sterilized 300,000 to 400,000 people.”

Since Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, the world’s population has more than doubled, from 3.5 billion to 7.5 billion. Since 1968, famines have all but disappeared outside of war zones, and daily per capita calorie consumption has increased by more than 30 percent. In Asia, the region that consumed the fewest calories and had the fastest-growing population in 1968, caloric intake has increased by 40 percent, faster than the global average. Since 1990, the overall number of hungry people in the world has decreased by 216 million, despite the fact that the population grew by more than 1.9 billion.

The Human Brain is the Ultimate Resource

University of Maryland economist Julian Simon noted in his 1981 book that the human brain is the “ultimate resource.” Humans can innovate themselves out of scarcity by becoming more efficient, increasing supply, and developing substitutes.

Hammond presents the following facts:

New technologies and improved farming methods have led humanity to use less land, while producing more food, which is then sold at a cheaper price. In 2013, the world used 26 million fewer hectares of farmland than it did at the turn of the millennium. To take cereals as an example: A hectare today produces on average 118 percent more yield than it would have 50 years ago. If all farmers could reach the productivity of an average U.S. farmer, the world could return a land mass the size of India back to nature.

As for the finite resource that our modern world depends upon, consider fossil fuels. Thanks to improved detection and drilling technology, there are now far more oil and gas reserves than ever before. Since 1980, proven oil reserves have increased by over 151 percent; for gas this figure was 163 percent. To put these data into perspective, in 2015 we used 34 billion barrels of crude oil, while we discovered another 53.2 billion barrels each year between 2010 and 2015.

We’re solving the problems of hungerpovertyilliteracydiseaseinfant mortalityfood production and much more at an unprecedented rate. And instead of becoming more scarce, natural resources are actually declining in price.

Billions Have Suffered due to the Overpopulation Myth

Chelsea Follet a researcher at the Cato Institute and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org. in an article titled “Billions Have Suffered ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ in Reverse Thanks to Overpopulation Myths” writes:

Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.

Back at home, many prominent American environmentalists—from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Travis Rieder to entertainer Bill Nye “The Science Guy”—support tax penalties or other state-imposed punishments for having “too many” children.

Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book in 2016 through the Oxford University Press advocating a “one-child” policy, claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.

Their views are chilling.

Infinity Stone is chilling indeed. Children and adults are globally being indoctrinated into believe the culling the human population is necessary to save the planet earth. Thanos is the consummate environmental protagonist.

As Eleanore Roosevelt wrote:

“One’s philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes… and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.”

Hollywood’s philosophy of mass slaughter is being expressed in its films, its choices are wrong. It is ultimately up to us to choose correctly to reject this one world order view that promote human genocide on a galactic scale.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Lot of People Agree with a Supervillain about Population

RELATED VIDEO: Out of Frame – Obviously Thanos is Evil. He’s also Wrong.

VIDEO: Billions Have Suffered ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ in Reverse Thanks to Overpopulation Myths

Chelsea Follett
Population panic has motivated far more forced sterilizations than even the Nazi ideology did.

by Chelsea Follett


This week, viewers will get another chance to submerge themselves in the dystopian future created by Margaret Atwood. The Handmaid’s Tale, based on the novel about the government forcing women to bear children to counter a declining population, resonated with audiences across the world.

However, the reverse Handmaid’s Tale—the idea of coercing people to have fewer children—ought to generate just as much outrage. Particularly when that coercion is justified by baseless fears.

“Too Many” People

Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich plays on those fears. His apocalyptic warnings, which started almost 50 years ago, persist despite decades of evidence proving them wrong. Just recently, Ehrlich said the collapse of civilization is a “near certainty” within decades.

“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” he warned in 1969.

Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations as well as China’s draconian “one child” policy.

Then he said, “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. And by ‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

Unfortunately, many people still believe him.

His 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb incited global panic with claims that out-of-control population growth would deplete resources, bringing about widespread starvation. Ehrlich’s jeremiad led to human rights abuses around the world, including millions of forced sterilizations in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India—as well as China’s draconian “one child” policy. In 1975, officials sterilized 8 million men and women in India alone. The sheer scale of this authoritarian nightmare is difficult to imagine.

To put that in perspective, Hitler’s Germany forcibly sterilized 300,000 to 400,000 people. In other words, Ehrlich’s unfounded fears have motivated far more forced sterilizations than even the Nazi ideology did.

Such abuses aren’t confined to past decades: In 2012, India’s Supreme Court found that “unrealistic targets have been set for sterilization procedures with the result that non-consensual and forced sterilizations are taking place.” And even today, China limits couples to having no more than two children.

Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.

Back at home, many prominent American environmentalists—from Johns Hopkins University bioethicist Travis Rieder to entertainer Bill Nye “The Science Guy”—support tax penalties or other state-imposed punishments for having “too many” children.

Bowdoin College’s Sarah Conly published a book in 2016 through the Oxford University Press advocating a “one-child” policy, claiming it is “morally permissible” for the government to limit family sizes through force.

Their views are chilling.

We Don’t Need Laws Regulating Birth Rates

Coercing people to have fewer children amounts to pointless suffering. While China’s fertility rate fell under the “one-child” policy, fertility rates fell just as swiftly in neighboring countries without despotic anti-child laws. It is now well-documented that as countries grow richer and people escape poverty, they opt for smaller families—a phenomenon called the fertility transition.

It is almost unheard of for a country to maintain a high fertility rate after it passes about $5,000 in per-person annual income.

Many people, like tycoon Elon Musk, now worry that the world will produce too few, rather than too many, children—echoing the situation in the dystopian Gilead. Demographers, indeed, estimate the population will decrease in the long run, after peaking around the year 2070.

As production increased, prices fell, and calorie consumption rose. Hunger is in retreat. Human ingenuity proved to be the “ultimate resource.”

The evidence isn’t on the overpopulation alarmists’ side. The doomsayers don’t take into account the fertility transition. More importantly, they fail to understand that more people can mean more prosperity.

As economist Julian Simon noted, “Whatever the rate of population growth is, historically it has been that the food supply increases at least as fast, if not faster.”

Since Ehrlich began preaching about overpopulation-induced Armageddon, the number of people on the planet has more than doubled. Yet yearly, famine deaths have declined by millions.

Recent famines are caused by war, not exhaustion of natural resources. As production increased, prices fell, and calorie consumption rose. Hunger is in retreat. Human ingenuity proved to be the “ultimate resource,” as Simon put it.

Tyrannical population-control measures are not only repugnant but also senseless. So while you’re watching Season 2, keep in mind that the reverse of The Handmaid’s Tale is just as horrifying—and it has supporters trying to make it a reality.

Reprinted from Human Progress; this first appeared in USA Today.

Chelsea Follett

Chelsea Follett

Chelsea Follet works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: What 19 in 20 Americans Don’t Know About World Poverty

DACA Ruling: Judicial Travesty Obstructs Presidential Authority

Fed. Judge Bates’ ruling ignores facts and national security.

The April 24, 2018 headline of the New York Times articleU.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules summed up Judge John D. Bates’ outrageous decision to force the Trump administration to continue the DACA program created by the Obama administration.

The judge has given the Trump administration 90 days to substantiate President Trump 90 days to justify his claim that DACA is illegal.

Judge Bates’ ruling ignores the indisputable fact that DACA was created by Obama’s Executive Order and not by legislation.  Judge Bates apparently believes that Exeuctive Orders must extend beyond the administration of the president who issued those Executive Orders, even when the new president disagrees with them.  Bates’ ruling obstructs President Trump’s ability to implement his policies.

In order to understand the issue we must begin by considering the origins of DACA, an acronym for Deferred Action – Childhood Arrival.

First of all, the action that is being deferred by DACA is the required departure of illegal aliens from the United States.

Prior to the Obama administration’s claim of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” to justify the creation of DACA, immigration authorities did use the notion of “deferred action” for humanitarian purposes in a case-by-case basis, to provide nonimmigrant aliens, that is to say aliens who had been admitted into the United States for a temporary period of time, with permission to remain in the United States beyond their authorized periods of admission.

If, for example, a family member of an alien visitor in the United States had fallen seriously ill or became seriously injured, nonimmigrant family members would be allowed to remain in the United States for a finite additional period of time, to tend to their stricken family member.

As an INS special agent I was, on occasion, tasked with interviewing medical professionals to verify the medical condition of such individuals to make certain that fraud was not being perpetrated.  Generally doctors were required to provide periodic documentation that reported on the medical status of the ill or injured family member.

Once the situation was resolved, hopefully with that family member making a sufficient recovery, the alien beneficiaries of that temporary deferred action were required to depart from the United States.

Obama however, exploited this humanitarian program, that was supposed to be used in a limited case-by-case basis, to achieve a political goal by enabling potentially millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States as quasi-lawful immigrants for an initial two year period, even though there is no provision in the immigration laws for this action.

Under current immigration law, the U.S. generously, provides approximately one million aliens are granted lawful immigrant status for a number of circumstances that do not begin as a reward for violating our immigration laws.  That number of new immigrants surpasses the number of immigrants admitted by all of the countries on earth, combined.

On June 15, 2012 President Obama delivered a statement from the White House Rose Garden in which he announced his plans to create DACA via an Exeuctive Order.  His statement made it clear that DACA was an end-run, around the legislative process, to provide illegal aliens with immigration benefits contained in the DREAM Act, which failed to pass in the Congress.

The DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.  It is more than a bit confounding that under the guise of “Political Correctness” actually an exercise of Orwellian Newspeak, the term “alien” has been expunged from discussions about immigration.  That term has come to be referred to as “hate speech” by immigration anarchists

Yet  that word is included in the acronym “DREAM” and illegal aliens who participate in this wrong-headed program have come to be known as “DREAMERS.”

Hypocrisy is alive and well in the immigration debate.

Furthermore, the claim that the “DREAMERS” were all children when they were brought to the United States and hence too young to have control over their circumstances, is yet another artifice and one repeated by the media every time this issue is discussed.

In reality, aliens were eligible to apply to participate in Obama’s program if they had not yet attained the age of 32 when they filed their applications and claimed that they entered the United States prior to their 16 birthdays.

With so many applications and so few resources, there were virtually no interviews and no field investigations to verify the claims made in the applications that, thus far, have been filed by nearly 800,000 illegal aliens.

This creates an open invitation to fraud.

Imagine, for example, how effective law enforcement would be in stopping speeders if police officers had no radar units and could only issue a speeding tickets if drivers admitted to exceeding the speed limit.  This is, in essence, how these DACA applications were processed and continue to be processed under Judge Bates’ ruling.

Today, six years after Mr. Obama’s DACA program was created, aliens as old as 37 years of age could apply for DACA- provided that they claim to have entered the United States before they turned 16.

An alien who lies on that application would be committing a serious crime, immigration fraud. However, given the scarce resources, if Judge Bates gets his way, unknown millions of illegal aliens could easily game this program.

Adult illegal aliens who have not yet entered the United States could easily falsely claim to have been present in the United States for decades, justifiably confident that their fraudulent claims would not only go undetected but rewarded.

What could possibly go wrong?

The answer that that question can be found in my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill wherein I quoted from the official report “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

[ … ]

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Obama falsely claimed that “Congress had failed to act,” blithely ignoring that when Congress votes down legislation it is, indeed, acting- just in this instance, not the way he wanted Congress to act.

On June 17, 2012, Fox News published my Op-Ed, Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress, in which I stated that, given all of the facts, what Obama had referred to as “Prosecutorial Discretion” should, actually, be referred to as “Prosecutorial Deception.”

Prosecutorial discretion is often used by government and law enforcement agencies to not squander limited resources but to use them most effectively, not unlike the concept of a medical triage whereby in an instance of mass casualties, the most seriously injured are treated before those with relatively minor wounds.

In creating DACA, the Obama administration did not simply ignore illegal aliens not deemed essential to arrest, but created an expensive program that required that limited resources were diverted to provide huge numbers of illegal aliens with lawful status without legal authority.

This disingenuous, supposed justification for creating DACA caused me to describe Obama’s claims as an example of “Prosecutorial Deception” in my Fox News commentary.

Furthermore, the Obama administration’s use of the term “Deferred Action” was clearly another artifice.  DACA was not intended to postpone the eventual departure of the huge number of illegal aliens who were dealing with personal emergencies, but rather serve as a stop-gap measure to enable them to remain in the U.S. until, Obama had hoped, Congress would pass legislation that would permanently legalize their immigration status by creating a massive amnesty program.

This, in and of itself, runs contrary to the principles that underly the concept of “Deferred Action.”

News coverage about DACA has failed to report on that which I have noted in my commentary, but has become a conduit for the dissemination of propaganda and the disingenuous claims made by the Obama administration, parading those falsehoods as supposed facts.

Mainstream media coverage and discussions about DACA have ignored how the Obama administration perverted the discretionary authority inherent in deferred action, for humanitarian purposes, to create a de facto temporary amnesty program, conferring lawful immigrant status on nearly 800,000 illegal aliens, who may not even be children but actually middled-aged.

By denying President Trump the right to terminate DACA, Judge Bates apparently seeks to legitimize Obama’s DACA Executive Order, treating it as law, when in reality DACA co-opted Congress’ unique legislative authority.

America is a nation of laws, not Executive Orders.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

No, Teachers Are Not Underpaid

Salaries lag in some states, but nationally, wages and benefits outpace the private sector.

by Andrew BiggsJason Richwine


Recent protests across the country have reinforced the perception that public school teachers are dramatically underpaid. They’re not: the average teacher already enjoys market-level wages plus retirement benefits vastly exceeding those of private-sector workers. Across-the-board salary increases, such as those enacted in Arizona, West Virginia, and Kentucky, are the wrong solution to a non-problem.

Comparing Salaries

Most commentary on teacher pay begins and ends with the observation that public school teachers earn lower salaries than the average college graduate. This is true, but in what other context do we assume that every occupation requiring a college degree should get paid the same? Engineers make about 25 percent more than accountants, but “underpaid” accountants are not demonstrating in the streets.

Teachers rally outside the state Capitol on the second day of a teacher walkout to demand higher pay and more funding for education in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 3, 2018. Reuters

Wages are not determined by years of schooling but by the supply and demand for skills. These skills vary by field of study. About half of teachers major in education, among the least-rigorous fields at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Incoming education majors have lower SAT or GRE scores than candidates in other fields, but—thanks to grade inflation—they enjoy the highest GPAs. Data from the Collegiate Learning Assessment indicate that students majoring in social science, humanities, and STEM fields not only start college with greater skills than education majors but also learn more along the way.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) analyzes the skill requirements of different jobs, assigning each a pay grade based on the federal government’s General Schedule (GS). At the lowest skill levels—a GS-6 on the federal scale—teachers earn salaries about 26 percent higher than similar white-collar workers. At GS-11, the highest skill level, teaching pays 17 percent less than other white-collar jobs. This explains how shortages can exist for specialized positions teaching STEM, languages, or students with disabilities, while elementary education postings may receive dozens of applications per job opening.

Contrary to myth, teachers are generally not foregoing higher salaries by staying in the classroom.

The average public school teaching position rated an 8.8 on the federal GS scale. After adjustment to reflect the time that teachers work outside the formal school day, the BLS data show that public school teachers on average receive salaries about 8 percent above similar private-sector jobs.

Contrary to myth, teachers are generally not foregoing higher salaries by staying in the classroom. Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation show that teachers who change to non-teaching jobs take an average salary cut of about 3 percent. Studies using administrative records in Florida, Missouri, Georgia, and Montana showed similar results; the Georgia study found “strong evidence that very few of those who leave teaching take jobs that pay more than their salary as teachers.”

It’s Not Just Wages

It’s true that teacher salaries in several states are lagging. Teachers in Arizona, West Virginia, and Oklahoma have good reason to be dissatisfied: their salaries rank near the bottom nationally, even after controlling for cost of living. Even in these seemingly underpaying states, though, pensions can more than make up the difference.

Oklahoma teachers accrue new pension benefits each year, with a present value equal to 30 percent of their annual salaries. Subtract Oklahoma teachers’ own contribution of 7 percent, and employer-paid retirement benefits are worth 23 percent of annual salaries. By contrast, the typical private-sector employer contribution to a 401k plan amounts only to about 3 percent of employee pay.

Many teachers also qualify for retiree health coverage, now practically extinct in the private sector. In some states, retiree health care is modest: Oklahoma teachers get an insurance supplement of about $100 per month. But for teachers in Illinois, future retiree health benefits are worth an additional 8 percent of annual pay, while in North Carolina, retiree health benefits are worth an additional 12.5 percent.

As the New York Times recently reported, public-employee retirement and health benefits are bleeding dry state and local budgets. Neither the public nor teachers fully appreciate the costs of these programs. We forget the value of benefits when considering how teacher pay compares with private-sector work. And research suggests that teachers value deferred compensation less than upfront salary.

Possible Reforms

This opens the possibility of a constructive reform. States could offer newly hired teachers higher pay, coupled with switching those teachers to a generous, well-designed 401(k)-type retirement plan. In Oklahoma, for instance, the state could give new teachers an 11 percent raise—costless to the taxpayer—by providing a 401(k) plan with an employer contribution, which would still be four times greater than private-sector levels.

Research has found that better pay has only a modest impact on teacher quality.

For areas with legitimate teaching shortages—such as in STEM fields or special education—districts could offer targeted salary increases. A strategic approach to filling teacher shortages is particularly important to poorer states such as West Virginia and Oklahoma, where resources are limited.

Across-the-board pay increases, by contrast, are expensive and inefficient. Arizona governor Doug Ducey’s promised 20 percent teacher salary increase will cost $400 million annually before a single new teacher is hired. Such efforts create no incentive for prospective teachers to specialize in areas where shortages exist. And if the salary boost winds up reducing teacher retirements, fewer spots will open up for better-qualified new teachers. Research has found that better pay has only a modest impact on teacher quality.

Teachers enjoy widespread public favor, and their desire for higher pay is understandable. But no nationwide crisis of teacher compensation exists. Most teachers receive market-level salaries and generous retirement benefits. Local hiring problems can and should be addressed without granting windfall benefits to teachers whose compensation is already better than adequate.

Reprinted from the American Enterprise Institute.

Andrew Biggs

Jason Richwine

Jason Richwine

Jason Richwine is a public policy analyst in Washington, D.C.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Myth of Institutionalized Learning

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Muslim Brotherhood

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Ikhwan, Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is an organizational humanitarian hoax being perpetrated on the American people to bring Islam to America. Islam in America would not be problematic if it was a religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism – it isn’t. Islam is a comprehensive socio-political, military, religious way of life with its own governing supremacist religious sharia laws that are antithetical to Western cultural norms and America’s governing secular Constitutional laws.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the United States.

The goal of Islam is to convert the world to Islam. The purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood in America is SETTLEMENT not assimilation. Settlement is the incremental process of making Islam familiar, acceptable, normative, and ultimately replacing secular American laws with supremacist religious Islamic sharia law.

The treasonous conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots is fully documented in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum that details the strategic goal for the group in North America and the necessity for organizational acceptance. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that America is structured by organizations so the parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, has spawned hundreds of offspring organizations with the same subversive settlement goal and the same deceitful operating principles.

The Explanatory Memorandum explicitly states, “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The Muslim Brotherhood mission statement is crystal clear – Islam intends to subjugate (settle) host populations in North America and replace host religions and cultures with supremacist Islam and Islamic sharia law. So where is the hoax?

The Explanatory Memorandum was a secret strategic document for internal use only and certainly not intended for public consumption by its targeted society – the United States of America. The Memorandum describes in chilling detail the overarching deceit required to present the Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its hundreds of offshoots as peaceful organizations when their stated objective is to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood disguises itself as the compassionate advocate for peace and Muslim tolerance when in fact it is America’s existential enemy – the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous humanitarian hoax.

Saul Alinsky instructed his followers to cut their hair, blend in, and destroy the American capitalist system from within – so did the Muslim Brotherhood. In Arabic there is a word for this deception – taqiyyah – lying in the service of Islam. There is no equivalent word in English – only the equivalent deceit. Like Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum details the seditious steps necessary to overthrow the American government from within by blending in, keeping a low profile, and becoming part of the organizational/political structure.

Former radical Muslima Isik Alba describes the 8 types of Islamic jihad currently being waged against Western countries in its campaign to rule the world under Islam – it is the Muslim Brotherhood’s treasonous conspiracy in action:

  • Population jihad – open borders and mass migration of Muslims into Western countries.
  • Media jihad – buying media channels and directing content to promote the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Education jihad – buying university chairs and directing curriculum content to promote the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Economic jihad – investing in Western banks, properties, businesses, and stocks to buy cultural influence promoting the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Physical jihad – killing non-believers until everyone left is either Muslim or recites the Muslim declaration of faith.
  • Legal jihad – bringing sharia tribunals, councils, and courts to the West.
  • Humanitarian jihad – Muslim “humanitarian” organizations requiring registration as a Muslim to receive humanitarian aid and then further requiring prayer meetings and enrollment in Muslim schools to continue receiving humanitarian aid.
  • Political jihad – Muslim politicians in office downplaying the role of Islam in violence and terror.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 has been declared a terrorist group by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates. Why not in the United States?

The biggest criticism after 9/11 was that the security services failed to connect the dots. In 2001 President George W. Bush disingenuously tried to separate Islam from terrorism by announcing that Islam is a religion of peace. Fifteen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers were Saudi yet Bush allowed Saudi nationals to fly back to Saudi Arabia when no other airplanes were allowed to fly. WHY?

America has a complex connection to Saudi Arabia and so does the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabian oil was first discovered in commercial quantities by Americans in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in 1938. The US went into business with Saudi Arabia and in 1943 the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) was formed. Oil revenues became the primary source of wealth for Saudi Arabia replacing its tourist income derived from pilgrimages to Mecca. Oil made Saudi Arabia rich – very rich. America needed a guaranteed source of oil and Saudi Arabia needed its oil wells protected – a deal was made with exceptions to every rule.

The Muslim Brotherhood came to Saudi Arabia in the 1950s when thousands of Egyptian teachers were recruited to work in Saudi Arabia’s new public schools. The Brotherhood used religion for political purposes but the Saudis refused to allow that platform because it posed a threat to the Saudi royal family. The Brotherhood stayed quiet for years but eventually tried to influence Saudi society. In 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood celebrated the election of Mohammad Morsi in Egypt and stunned the Saudis by openly supported uprisings in other Arab countries. In March, 2014 Saudi Arabia declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

The discovery of the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum in 2004 was shocking and should have been enough to declare the Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its offshoots a terrorist organization in America including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) but that did not happen. WHY NOT?

Pro-oil President George W. Bush protected the Muslim Brotherhood throughout his presidency by repeating the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace. Even after 2004 when the discovery of the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum left no doubt that the Islamists intended to settle America and replace the US Constitution with religious sharia law – Bush protected the Brotherhood at the expense of America’s homeland security.

Pro-Muslim President Barack Obama went much farther by welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into America and seeding the government with seditious MB operatives. Together Obama and the Brotherhood with CAIR scrubbed any mention of Islam, jihadis, or the stated ideological goals of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood to conduct civilization jihad and destroy America from within.

Pro-Muslim huckster-in-chief Barack Obama successfully conned America into believing that the Muslim Brotherhood was a peaceful moderate voice in Islam. Americans were so enamored with Obama that they actually believed his subversive lies. Rachel Ehrenfeld has written a comprehensive article supporting the argument for President Trump to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Cynthia Farahat, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, has written an expose about current Islamists with ties to terrorism lobbying Congress.

It is time for America to equate terrorism with treason. The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its vile offshoots are terrorist organizations and should be classified as such. Every member of Congress should be required to read the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum which clearly states the purpose of the MB in America – to destroy America from within and settle it under supremacist Islamic sharia law. Any member of Congress, after reading the Explanatory Memorandum, who refuses to reclassify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is either too corrupt or too indoctrinated to hold office. Terrorism is treason. It is that simple.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be allowed to continue in the United States. Reuters 3.21.18 article “Saudi Arabia Purges Muslim Brotherhood Influence From Schools” reports Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman is revamping its educational curriculum to eradicate any trace of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is time for the United States to reverse Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood infestation and follow the Prince’s lead to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood from America. Let’s begin by scrubbing Obama’s pro-Muslim training manuals from all security and law enforcement training. Eventually we can remove Obama’s treasonous stain on America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity.

How we create fossil fuel resources

Resources are things you can use. But despite the popular expression “natural resources,” nature gives us very little in the way of usable resources. It gives us raw materials but we need to use human ingenuity to transform those raw materials into resources.

Human beings are not resource depleters, we are resource creators.

That’s the issue I want to discuss here, focusing on energy resources.

We have more fossil fuel resources than ever before

The catastrophic depletion argument says we are depleting energy resources by using fossil fuels, which will be disastrous to us and to future generations because we have made ourselves dependent on these resources. In reality we have more resources now, including more fossil fuel resources, than people had 300 years ago, before we started producing fossil fuels.

Look at this chart.

image

The line on the bottom shows the world’s consumption of oil over time. Notice how the line slopes slightly up, which means every year on average we’re consuming a little bit more oil. Then the line on top represents our oil reserves.

Think about this for a second. We use more oil every year but we have more oil every year.

How we create fossil fuel resources

How is this possible? What’s going on is that fossil fuel resources are created, not taken. We’re taught to think of oil reserves as a fixed amount that nature gives us that we’re constantly using up. That’s not how it works. What happens instead is that people find progressively better ways to find, extract, refine, and use oil.

For example, in the 1800s people discovered something called “skunk oil.” It was unusable because it had a lot of sulfur in it and smelled like rotten eggs. Then people figured out how to refine it so this previously unusable product became oil. They used ingenuity to expand the supply of usable oil. The popular term “oil reserves” just refers to the amount that’s currently in inventory: basically, the amount it makes sense to develop given our current technology and economics.

As we evolve, as we figure out new ways to turn non-resources into resources, we can take more and more unusable hydrocarbon and make it usable. With any given fossil fuel there’s likely at least ten times more of it than we’ve used in the entire history of civilization.

That’s one reason we shouldn’t be worried about running out of fossil fuels. The other reason not to be concerned is that we have the unlimited ability to create other energy resources as well.

image

This doesn’t mean we can just ban some form of energy today without severe consequences. What it does mean is that over time we could potentially transform anything in the world into energy. Just the potential of nuclear technology alone shows that we don’t have to worry about running out of energy.

The key to abundant energy resources is to leave people free so that overtime they can continue to evolve new and better ways to get energy.

If people are free, then even if you would run out of fossil fuels in 200 years, you would gradually transition to something else. If fossil fuels became more scarce relative to demand, the price of fossil fuels would go up and then that would incentivize other people to compete.

I call this “evolving energy.” We’ll never run out of energy as long as we are always free to produce and use the most cost effective energy at any given time. The challenge we face isn’t using up a fixed amount of energy. There’s just an ongoing challenge of figuring out new ways to create the best form of energy under freedom.

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence Make History in Dallas

For the first time in the organization’s history, a sitting president and vice president both addressed NRA members at the 147th Annual Meetings in Dallas on Friday during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum.  This makes the second year in a row that President Trump’s visit is one for the history books.   Last year, he became the first sitting president to attend the Annual Meetings in more than three decades when he spoke at the 2017 Leadership Forum in Atlanta.  The last president to attend the NRA Annual Meetings was Ronald Reagan in 1983.

And just as he did last year, President Trump promised to the cheering, capacity crowd that he will protect the firearms freedom of law-abiding Americans and that recent efforts to restrict the Second Amendment will be staunchly opposed by his administration.  Vice President Pence echoed the president’s sentiments, noting to the crowd that both he and President Trump will stand strong against any attempts to undermine our freedom.

In addition to the president and vice president, the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum featured speakers from across the country, including elected officials, first responders, veterans, NRA leaders, and freedom-loving Americans from all walks of life:

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA 

Chris Cox, Executive Director, NRA-ILA

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX)

Gov. Pete Ricketts (R-NE)

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) 

Dana Loesch, NRA Spokesperson

Mark “Oz” Geist, Former Marine, Author of “13 Hours”

Mark Robinson, Second Amendment Activist, Greensboro, NC.

Diamond & Silk, Social Media Commentators

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union

Charlie Kirk, Founder, Turning Point USA and Kyle Kashuv, Student, Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School, Parkland, FL