Here’s why Ilhan Omar’s claim that ‘white men’ are greater threat than jihad terrorists is wrong

It has become commonplace among Leftists — not just Ilhan Omar — to claim that “white men” are a greater threat than jihad terrorists. (They say nothing about white jihad terrorists.) We have debunked this claim many times here at Jihad Watch, and here is another able takedown of this enduringly popular Big Lie.

WALSH: Ilhan Omar Claims White Men ‘Cause Most Of The Deaths’ In America. She’s Wrong. Here Are The Facts.” By Matt Walsh, Daily Wire, July 25, 2019:

Imbecilic bigot Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) claimed in a recently resurfaced interview on Qatari propaganda network Al Jazeera that Americans should be “fearful” of white men who are “causing most of the deaths within this country.” These racist and blatantly false comments came in response to a question about Islamophobia. The interviewer asked if Islamophobia might be the result of a reasonable fear people have about Islamic terrorism. Omar could have responded that we shouldn’t fear anyone based on race, ethnicity, or religion, and that each person should be judged according to his or her own merits — but instead, she took the opportunity to fear monger about the dreaded white man.

“I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Omar said. “And so if fear was the, the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.”…

It is often claimed, and not just by Omar, that white people are responsible for most of the domestic terrorism in America. The most common source cited for this claim is a 2017 Government Accountability Office report that found that more people have been killed by right-wing terrorists than by Islamic terrorists. How did they arrive at that conclusion? Here’s a relevant passage from the report:

…of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-right politics violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73%) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27%). The total number of fatalities is 106 for far right violent extremists and 119 for radical Islamist violent extremists over the approximately 15-year period. However, 52% of the deaths attributable to radical Islamist violent extremists occurred in a single event — an attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida in 2016.

In order to make “far-right violent extremists” the deadliest, one has to compile his aggregate numbers beginning on September 12, 2001. That seems an oddly specific date. Why not start on January 1, 2001? How about January 1, 2000? Isn’t it easier and cleaner to look at the numbers over the past 20 years, since the beginning of the new century? Well, the reason for starting on September 12, 2001 is obvious — it excludes the deadliest terror attack in American history, which was carried out by Islamic extremists. In other words, if we arbitrarily ignore the 3,000 people radical Islamists killed in one day, then Muslim terrorists have recently killed fewer people than have right-wing extremists. This is a bit like tabulating the total number of people drowned in shipwrecks except for anyone who happened to drown on April 15, 1912.

If you want to know about shipwrecks, it seems the Titanic ought to be a prominent part of that analysis. Similarly, any analysis of terrorism in the United States must obviously include the most devastating terror attack this country has ever experienced. But here’s the kicker: Even if you did begin your tabulation on September 12, 2001, deaths by Islamic terrorism still dwarf all other categories because over 1,000 people have died from illnesses tied to 9/11 in the intervening years. Or do they also not count?

Of course, if we expand our view and look at the problem on a global scale, the threat of far-right terrorism begins to look like Pluto compared to Islamic terrorism’s Jupiter. The Global Terrorism Index found 66 deaths caused by far-right groups worldwide between 2013 and 2017. It also found that 18,000 total people were killed by terrorists in just the year 2017 alone. Who do we imagine is carrying the bulk of that load? We know it’s not the far-right white men….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Michigan: Iraqis Scheduled to be Deported Remove their Monitoring Devices in Acts of Protest

Muslims enraged at Banana Republic over models in hijabs wearing clothes “not in line with Islamic dress codes”

Nigeria: Genocide of Christians by jihadists becoming “a major global security concern”

“Socially Allied Elements” on the March

RELATED VIDEO: Michael Stürzenberger explains the lionization of Nazism in the Islamic world. (Direct link)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Dem Candidates Sanders, Castro to Speak at Radical Islamist Convention

Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro have agreed to speak at the convention of a radical Islamist group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and hostility towards progressive Muslims and values.

Sanders and Castro will participate in a “presidential forum” held by the Islamic Society of North America(ISNA) during its convention in Houston August 31, 2019.

ISNA says it is inviting other Democratic presidential candidates and President Donald Trump to address its audience.

The U.S. Justice Department lists ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical and often violent arm of the Islamist global political project. The Brotherhood’s goal is a worldwide caliphate with all of humanity living under sharia law.

The Trump administration announced three months ago that it was considering designating the Brotherhood as a domestic terrorist organization.

As we reported in June, Trevor Noah, the progressive host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, is also slated to speak at the ISNA convention.

He, like Sanders and Castro, is apparently unaware of—or is unconcerned with—ISNA’s radical ideology, including expelling Muslims for Progressive Values, a pro-LGBT group, from its conference in 2017 or the fact one of ISNA’s past presidents endorsed the execution of homosexuals by sharia-based governments.

By speaking at the event, Noah, Sanders and Castro are helping ISNA appear as moderate leaders of the Muslim-American community (not to mention helping ISNA raise money through ticket sales).

The presidential forum is also being hosted by Emgage Foundation and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group that has an inflammatory and Islamist-friendly history but has taken a stronger public stance against the Islamist ideology in recent years.

ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history – that of the Holy Land Foundation, an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood to finance Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing).

It was during this trial that the Justice Department explicitly listed ISNA as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American network. This determination was supported by large quantities of publicly available evidence and internal Brotherhood documents.

The Holy Land Foundation actually operated from within ISNA, with money for Hamas passing from ISNA accounts to the Holy Land Foundation for distribution to the terrorist group.

U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis upheld the designation of ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in 2009, citing “ample” evidence linking ISNA to the Hamas/Brotherhood operation.

The current president of ISNA, Sayyid Syeed, was one of ISNA’s founders when it was established by the Brotherhood. ISNA was listed in a 1991 Brotherhood memo, which described their “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

Syeed was filmed in 2006 saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

The Fiqh Council of North America, once a part of ISNA but now an official “affiliate” of ISNA, also has radical members and underpinnings.

You can read more about the radical makeup of the ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council here.

The website for ISNA’s upcoming convention does not currently list its speakers but, if the past is any indication, it will include known extremists who appear moderate for condemning Al-Qaeda, ISIS and “terrorism” but support other terrorists like Hamas and an assortment of extremism, bigotry and anti-Western conspiracy theories.

By speaking at ISNA’s event, it is clear that these top leaders in the progressive movement still have a blind spot when it comes to the Islamist ideology. They usually don’t want to name it, exert no effort to identify it and seem uninterested in taking the time for a simple Google search to vet groups like ISNA.

The presence of Trevor Noah, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro and possibly more Democratic presidential candidates helps ISNA hide behind a moderate veneer and cleverly use its progressive partners to advance its anti-progressive agenda.

If Sanders, Castro and Noah are genuine about the need to detoxify our political environment of extremist rhetoric and ideologies as they say they are, they should cancel their appearances at ISNA’s convention.

RELATED STORIES:

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — Profile

Muslim Brotherhood Not Violent? Think Again

Extremists Headline ISNA 2018 Convention 

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Coming Out as Catholic

Randall Smith, with tongue in cheek, writes of a woman who has finally found the courage to accept her true identity.


I have a friend who came out to me recently – as a Catholic.  “I identify as Catholic,” she told me. “I didn’t know there was a name for what I was at first, and I grew up in a community that was constantly mocking Catholics. But deep down, I always knew I was different. And when I found people who were out and proud, I found myself.”

“What pronouns do you use?” I asked her.  “All of them,” she replied with a quizzical look. “It depends upon the sex and number of people to which I am referring.”  She grew up with a Jewish father who was an editor and a Christian mother who was a school teacher.  Her grandfather was a Jewish émigré who made a living as a writer.  As a result, she just can’t bring herself to write “Everyone has their book” rather than “Everyone has his book.”  “If I wrote it the other way, I would hear my mother groaning in my head.”  Nor can she call a single person “they.”  “It’s just the way I was raised,” she explains.  “I hope people can respect my culture.”  When addressing her, she prefers “Mrs.” or “Yes Ma’am.”

She can take a good-natured joke about Catholics, but noting the long history of discrimination against them, most jokes or jibes at the expense of Catholics she considers odious and should be avoided. She is opposed to any and all discrimination against Catholics, naturally, whether in housing or jobs.  It would be no more acceptable to her for someone to say to a job applicant, “But Miss X, you’re Catholic,” than it would be to say, “But Miss X, you’re gay.”

She considers it as discriminatory for someone to ask, “But Mrs. X, how could you be a fair-minded federal judge, you’re Catholic?” as it would be to ask, “How could you be a fair-minded federal judge, you’re gay?” She considers people ignorant who would say, “We would like to hire you, but it is just too controversial these days to hire someone who is so openly Catholic.”  If that seems odd, just insert the word “gay” for “Catholic,” and you’ll get the idea. She believes these are impermissible and immoral acts of discrimination that must stop.

Since she has come out at as a Catholic, she now makes clear to people that she does not appreciate (or tolerate) the usual crude jokes and bigoted comments people often make about Catholics. And if people speak about sexuality in a casual or coarse way in her presence, she considers this a form of aggression and a violation of her safe space.

She wears her wedding ring very openly, so she considers it extremely rude if any man makes suggestive comments or tries to “hit on her” in a bar.  She sees no reason why she shouldn’t be able to visit bars and cafés like every other woman and be able to sit there in peace without be accosted by men who don’t respect her sexual preferences – that is to say, her preference for sexual relations with just one man who is her husband.

Some bigoted people seem to think that she should just stay out of the bar if she isn’t interested in hooking up.  But she sees no reason why their sexo-centric orientation should somehow trump her non-sexo-centric orientation.

She likes to talk about philosophy, politics, and religion, and sometimes baseball.  And she can’t understand why talk about men and how they look in tight jeans should be considered the default topic of conversation among women.  She has found tremendous support for her preferences in this area since she has come out as a Catholic, from women and even from some of the men she has met. She tells me that these people have been tremendously supportive in helping her realize her new Catholic identity.

I knew this woman when she was younger.  She said she could never be Catholic.  I tried to be understanding and not laugh.  But I knew.  Most of us knew.  That unshakeable desire for truth. We would shake our heads, point to her, and whisper, “Catholic.”  It was only a matter of time.  I can remember a friend of mine who said that she just needed to spend a little time with others in the community, and she would come out. And sure enough, she did. I’m not saying it’s biological. It’s a choice. But sometimes, you just know.

Her coming out has been hard for some of her more narrow-minded friends, but you know, when you love someone, you just have to accept them for who they are.  And she’s made it clear: she is a Catholic.  I just hope everyone can put their petty prejudices aside and support her in this brave decision.

Too many people these days are Catholic and just don’t want to admit it.  There’s so much pressure to conform and just “fit in” with society.  Go to the parties.  Drink heavily.  Talk about sex like it was a football game or a chess match – as if it were some sort of power struggle.  Be crude and indifferent.  Disrespect your parents.

But my friend has chosen a different path.  It may not be for everyone, but all she is asking for is acceptance. I hope people can support her in her decision as she accustoms herself to this new, liberating sense of self.

My friend has a tremendous talent for organizing, and she has been thinking recently about organizing something she calls “Catholic Awareness Week” to help raise awareness of the history of discrimination against Catholics and to educate people about what it really means to be a Catholic. Moreover people around the country could fly the yellow Vatican flag from their windows everywhere to demonstrate their solidarity with Catholic values and principles and to show that they refuse to discriminate.

How could anyone object to that?

COLUMN BY

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is the Scanlan Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, is now available at Amazon and from Emmaus Academic Press.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing article is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Arab Americans Say their Mental Health Suffers Because There is No Box for Them

“Without a racial classification for Arab-Americans by the U.S. Census Bureau, the population’s mental health goes largely unstudied – particularly in a political climate that threatens it.”  – Science writer Passant Rabie.


Here is an article you likely didn’t see from a publication called ScienceLine.  Writer Passant Rabie is an Egyptian living in New York who is concerned about environmental justice as well as race and genetics.

In her article she argues that there should be a box for Arabs on questionnaires and on the census to identify the exact number of Arabs living in America.

She explains that their mental health suffers (even more than she says it already does!) when they must check the “white” box.

Arab-Americans’ mental health suffers due to census box

Within my first week of moving from Egypt to the U.S., I was forced to undergo a series of medical exams and receive a host of vaccinations. But it wasn’t the needles piercing into my left arm that made it an unpleasant welcome to a new country. It was the medical forms.

Before filling out my information at the student health center, I was asked to check an ethnicity box. I hovered my pencil over the given options: white, black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.

I struggled to find where I fit in. And then, right there next to the ‘white’ category, it read in parenthesis, “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”

This was awkward. I was about to get a tuberculosis shot in order to stay in a place where I already felt like I didn’t belong.

Rather than having our own racial category, U.S. residents originating from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are made to check off “white” on their health forms. Even for someone like me, just arrived and whose jet-lag still hadn’t worn off, checking off that ethnic box was alienating. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like for those who had grown up here, and all the times they were made to check off a box that wasn’t theirs.

Beyond cloaking millions of people in invisibility, the lack of a MENA ethnic box has also proven problematic when trying to conduct research on the minority group’s mental health. Approximately 3.7 million Americans claim Arab ancestry, according to estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau. But there is no way to obtain nationwide data on Arab-Americans’ health because they are not identified as an ethnic group. This leads to major health disparities and an inability to provide for the group’s medical and psychological needs.

She tells us that Arabs in America have a lot of mental health problems:

Meanwhile, no MENA box means crucial nation-wide data on the mental health of Arab-Americans’ continues to go unrecorded at a time when anti-Muslim rhetoric and its accompanying mental health stress is on the rise.

People of Middle Eastern descent are more prone to psychological distress, as revealed by a 2013 study that was the first to estimate the prevalence of psychological disorders among the MENA population in the U.S. The study compared the mental health disparities between people grouped as ‘non-Hispanic whites,’ revealing that ‘whites’ from the Middle East were twice as likely to report serious psychological distress when compared to whites of European descent. Additionally, Middle-Easterners suffering from psychological distress were less likely to have seen a mental health professional within the last 12 months, according to the study.

Read the whole thing.  She says that mental health problems already existed in the Arab community, but we made the problem worse for them after 9/11.  Hmmmm?

See that she also blames Trump (who doesn’t!) because she says his administration nixed the idea of a special category for Arabs on the 2020 Census form.

What do you think?

I do think we need a special category for Arabs so that we can have a count of how many are living in the US.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Oklahoma Senator Lankford Leads Bipartisan Push to Increase Refugee Admissions

A Trip Down Memory Lane: Baltimore Welcomes Diversity

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Amerika Magazine’s Push for Communism

TRANSCRIPT

Well, the gay Jesuits, which we know is rather redundant these days, they have completed the circuit and gone completely off the rails in the natural order as well — which, as an aside, is guaranteed once you have given up the supernatural life, which the Jesuits as an order did many years ago.

Now, in the pages of their rag, which editor Fr. Matt Malone projects as sophisticated and intellectual and only for the “thinking” man, critics being not sufficiently intellectual enough to grasp its profound prose, Malone has published a piece which is little else than an apology for communism.

A glossed-over attempt to get us to look at it from a different angle, a fresh perspective — in short: have a dialogue about it.

So fierce has the criticism and backlash against the original piece been that Malone felt compelled to take to the pages of his own rag and personally pen an apologetic for the original apologetic.

The original piece first offers some words from early 20th century worker Dorothy Day in saying most common people who join the Communist Party do so out of a desire for equality and fairness among the working class.

Aside from the fact that there’s not really any way to know that one way or the other, the truth remains that that is definitely not what the leaders of communism had or have in mind.

The article then includes Day’s assessment that whatever the intent of many of its adherents, “the movement is, in the final analysis, a program ‘with the distinct view of tearing down the church.'”

Most of the remainder of the article is spent tearing down Day’s assessment, which was spot on; funny that they would trot out Day’s kind analysis of the motives of rank and file party members but then assail her analysis of the movement as a whole.

Which is it, Amerika magazine? Is her assessment worth listening to or not? Or is it worth listening to when it supports your twisted position and to be discarded when it challenges your absurdity on a macro level?

The article is so indescribably lopsided, it’s hard to even take it seriously, much less analyze it.

It paints the most sympathetic view of communism possible (which admittedly is a hard thing to do) and juxtaposes that view against singular horrible examples of capitalism run amok.

In short, it takes two polar extremes and contrasts the extremes to arrive at a conclusion of “Meh, communism’s not so bad.”

Following along those lines, in his defense article of the indefensible, Fr. Malone says:

My reading of Catholic social teaching, especially the commentary of recent popes, is that it has many good things to say about capitalism while always reminding us about the bad that comes with it. At the same time, it has many bad things to say about socialism while always reminding us of the good that comes with it.

Talk about a complete gloss. The Church does not remind us of the “good” that comes with “socialism” — notice the subtle yet deliberate shift there from communism to socialism.

The Church, in the person of Pope Pius XI, says of socialism the following: “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist” — which is almost the same year that Dorothy Day was saying her bit that the goal of communism was to destroy the Church.

And so as not to confuse or conflate terms here, socialism and communism are only very slightly different economic systems, but economics is not the major reason for the Church’s condemnation of both, a condemnation that Fr. Malone simply does not mention to you — and actually deceives you about.

The real question surrounding these evil systems is not one of economics, but one of spirituality and human dignity.

While the original article details a couple of examples of big corporation’s poor working conditions for their workers — admittedly bad and unjust and in need of reform — it completely skips over the hundreds of millions of examples of out and out murder by communist regimes — much of it aimed at people of religion.

Karl Marx despised religion, a theme carried through by the Bolsheviks when they seized power in Russia in the 1917 revolution.

They came to power through massive violence, storming the palace of Czar Nicholas in St. Petersburg, eventually not just assassinating him, but also murdering his children and wife.

These same men and their successors who came to power in Russia also through murder and violence went on to set up an institutionalized system, the gulag, where millions were sent for slave labor and eventual starvation and execution.

Methinks, given the choice of working long hours in an Amazon shipping house or being tortured, starved and beaten to death in the frozen tundra of a Siberian gulag, the Amazon warehouse might not appear so bad.

But it wasn’t enough for communism in Russia to confine itself to the borders of that nation. It drew an Iron Curtain across Europe and built a wall to keep its enslaved population from escaping to freedom in the West.

Guards, communist guards, shot and killed anyone who tried to get across the Berlin Wall.

The horror of communism — its destruction of the human soul and spirit — was what prompted the politically explosive speech by President Ronald Reagan in 1987; while standing in the shadow of the monument to tyranny, he spoke the famous words.

In 1956, the Russian Commies sent tanks into Hungary to brutally crush an uprising of ordinary people who wanted freedom.

Communism and its twin sister, socialism, is always enforced through murder and violence against the will of the people it supposedly upholds.

Who can forget the scene of Chinese Communists in Tiananmen Square with the pervasive threat again of violence and death and the lone protestor staring down their evil?

Shortly after Stalin came to power, he put on a series of show trials where political prisoners were denied due process, dragged before Communist tribunals and predetermined sentences were handed down — often capital punishment.

Millions of poor farmers were driven off their ancestral lands which were seized by the Communist government in the name of the “people.”

Murder, torture, starvation, execution, enslavement, poverty distributed equally to the masses — these are what comprise the machinery of Communism.

And enormous energy of that machine was directed at the Catholic Church, which even today is playing out in China as the Commies and socialists in the Vatican have sold out Chinese Catholics.

In Fr. Malone’s stupid assessment of this big picture, he paints this as some academic question worthy of dialogue and for thinking people to ponder and consider over martinis in libraries and classrooms.

The Jesuits have popped champagne corks all over their order about Pope Francis denouncing a border wall and the death penalty.

However, walls, guns and the death penalty are the stock in trade of communism and socialism, yet somehow, all of a sudden, these historical facts are simply ignored and not presented.

And oh yeah, by the way, when the socialist and communist systems come to power, one of the very first things they do is set about to destroy the family.

Immediately, no-fault divorce is legislated and imposed, as is abortion and contraception, in an effort to destroy the family fabric and make individuals become dependent on the state — again, not talked about it either article in Amerika magazine.

So given the vast amount of lack of information in either article, the question needs to be asked: Is the editorial staff at Amerika just that stupid or are they malicious, agitating for a political system that seeks to destroy the Catholic Church, masquerading as a better economic system?

“90 Day Fiancé” star Avery Mills converts to Islam, says “No one can sway my decision. I really make my own path.”

“I really make my own path.”

How grand. But what will Avery Mills think, and what will she do, when she discovers that many Muslims do not believe that a woman should make her own path?

The Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34

The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will” — Qur’an 2:223

It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” — Qur’an 2:282

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” — Qur’an 4:3

It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” — Qur’an 4:11

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” — Qur’an 65:4

Also, a Muslim wife may not refuse sex. A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

And: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

Islamic law stipulates: “The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home…because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet…said, ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out of it if he is averse” (Reliance of the Traveller m10.4).

“’90 Day Fiancé’ Star Avery Mills Says She ‘Never Cared’ What People Thought: ‘Find Your Own Path,’” by Maria Vultaggio, Newsweek, August 4, 2019:

Season 3 of 90 Day Fiancé: Before the 90 Days is bringing back some familiar faces, but mostly new ones. This includes Columbus, Ohio, native Avery Mills and her 24-year-old Syrian love, Omar Albakkaur.

Avery, 19, left her faith as a Christian to become a follower of Islam—even though most of her family and friends objected. She joined a Muslim dating site soon after, which is how she met Omar.

When viewers first meet, she’s traveling to Lebanon with her mother to meet Omar for the first time. In a teaser for the new season, Avery gushes that he’s holding a woman’s hand for their first time. It’s up to Avery to decide if she wants to leave America—and all her family and friends—to be with her fiancé in a war-torn country.

Avery’s story is sure to garner attention, but she doesn’t care about the negative things people have to say about her faith or her decision to marry Omar. “I have never cared about what people thought in the past. No one can sway my decision on my choices,” she told Newsweek in a phone interview. “I really make my own path and I’ll tell them that.”

Sunday’s premiere marks her first time on reality TV and she’s not sure how to feel. “I’m excited to see how the story is going to play on TV [and] of course there are a few nerves, but I’m mostly excited,” she said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

India: Mosque caretaker admits burning a Qur’an and faking a “hate crime”

Canada: ISIS jihadi deemed a danger to the public to be released anyway, will live near one of his intended targets

Germany: State-sponsored media refuses to report on sword murder by Muslim migrant

RELATED VIDEO: NYC: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” shoves commuter onto subway tracks.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

INTEL REPORT: (Qatar and the) Muslim Brotherhood’s War on Europe

The weekend of 02-04 August the Saudi-owned al-arabiyya TV channel’s weekly program sina’at al-mawt aired a show they called “The Muslim Brotherhood’s war in Europe.”  Highlights included the following:

The program focused mainly on the situation in Belgium where Muslims comprise 1/5 of the population of its capital city of Brussels.  Of course, Brussels is also the capital of the EU, so it is representative of what is taking place throughout Europe.

Turkey, Iran, and Qatar are all vying for control of the Muslim diaspora in Europe, as are ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other groups.  But it is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) that practices hegemony over all the Muslims, not just in Brussels, but throughout all of Europe.

One of the Muslim interviewees, a Mr. Ramdhan abu Jasser, the director of the Brussels Center for Research, noted that in Europe, there is a moderate stream promoting assimilation and toleration, and a radical stream, but the moderate stream is failing (he used the term khataab, which can mean either a sermon in a mosque, a public speech, or even general conversation).

As an example he added that when someone from one of the (radical) organizations holds a confab, thousands come . . . and this is without talking about Jerusalem, the right of return, martyrs, or Iraq.  But when there is a moderate confab, like one they just had in Rotterdam a couple of weeks ago, speaking about dialogue and settling down in Europe (assimilation), only 10 or 15 show up.

When Rashid Ghanoushi (head of Tunisia’s MB clone an-nadhdah (renaissance) party, thought of by the experts in DC as part of the “moderate” wing of the MB) speaks or preaches in the Middle East, only a few hundred show up, but when he speaks, or preaches, in Europe thousands come together.  They come from Germany, Denmark, elsewhere and spend lots of money on taxis, hotels, etc.  And, what he talks about is hatred of Europe and the Arab regimes, and to avoid assimilation.

Mr. Jasser went on to say what the MB has failed to gain in the Arab countries, it has gained in Europe, noting in this regard that there are millions of MB members in France alone.

Both Turkey and Qatar (the top two state sponsors of the MB) are heavily involved in gaining influence among Europe’s Muslims.  Qatar has especially expanded its efforts to gain control over the mosques, and to guide the strategy of the MB in Europe.  The principle of “Money talks” gives Qatar a nice edge in this endeavor.

The results?  The MB in Europe preaches the death cult of MB ideologue Sayyid Qutb.

Qatar also finances the “Muslim League” in Belgium, having donated a million Euros.

One of the interviewees also noted that there are many other Muslims and Islamic organizations that are not members of the MB but still help to spread the MB ideology.  The overall primary goal is to “raise the next generation of jihadis” and to also attack moderate teachers and preachers.

Turkey is cooperating with Qatar in this effort to make the MB supreme in Europe.

ANALYSIS:  Given the birthrate disparities between Europe’s native population and that of its Muslims (both those who are citizens and those who recently arrived as “refugees”), Europe, and the world, is looking at a Brussels that by 2050 will be majority Muslim and politically controlled by a MB that hates Europe and Western Civilization in general.  Bear in mind also that native Europeans have been voluntarily converting to Islam in record numbers since 9/11.

Brussels is the capital of the EU and the HQ for NATO.  Anyone still think it’s a good ideal to keep NATO around?

Furthermore, the rest of Europe will not be far behind Brussels in terms of turning their continent entirely over to the MB.

In other words, the game Qatar (and its allies Turkey and the MB) are playing in Europe, is one of waiting, rather than violent revolution now.  That is, while they readily support active terrorism in the Middle East and Africa, their game plan in Europe is to just let the demographics do their job while promoting the MB’s increasing hegemony over the minds and allegiances of Europe’s Muslims–even those who are not actual members of the MB.  That is why they play the “we’re fighting the war on terror” card in one hand to soft soap the westerners all the while laying the foundation for conquest from the inside out by their MB arm.

Sadly, there are serious risks that America will follow in Europe’s footsteps if corrective action is not taken now.  That is why one of he chief goals of Americans for Intelligence Reform is to encourage our intelligence agencies (and our politicians) to learn how to identify long term threats (non-conventional as well as conventional) based on past long-term history as well as ideology, and to provide guidance on how to deal with these threats.

KURDS/TURKEY/ISRAEL

On 02 August, an al-arabiyya TV news cast reported that Turkey has been selling oil to Israel.  This is an interesting development because Turkey and Israel are so at odds on a number of issues (including Turkey’s drilling for oil in waters claimed by Israeli ally Cyprus, Turkey’s support of HAMAS, etc.) that they are on the verge of war.

The origins of this oil are the oil fields in Iraqi Kurdistan which are piped or trucked to a sea port in S.E. Turkey where it is loaded onto an oil tanker and shipped to an Israeli port.

LIBYA/EGYPT/TERRORISM

Back in October of 2018 the Libyan National Army led by General Khalifa Haftar captured the Egyptian terrorist Hisham al-‘Ashmawi.  This capture took place in the town of Derna, Libya, a hotbed of terrorism before being cleaned out by General Haftar’s army.

Hisham al-‘Ashmawi was wanted in both Libya and Egypt for a string of terrorist actions in both countries.  Egypt eventually won the legal battle for extradition which was accomplished a couple of weeks ago.

On the evening of 02 August, Egyptian talk show host ‘Amru Adeeb reported during his al-hakaya (the Story) show a number of details about Hisham ‘Ashmawi’s career.  He had originally gone to Afghanistan where he became close to Ayman Azh-Zhhwahiri, current head of al-Qaeda.  Then he went to Syria to become involved in the war there.

Tabbed to head al-Qaeda in Africa he left Syria, entered Turkey, and was smuggled by the Turks into Libya to set up shop there.  However, in 2016 he ventured to Iraq to join ISIS there, and later also worked in upper (southern) Egypt and in the Sinai.

In Egypt he worked with a group called al-marabitun (garrisoned troops) which previous reporting had identified as a violent offshoot of the MB spreading like wildfire throughout the Egyptian army.  He also started an al-marabitun chapter in Libya.

According to Mr. Adeeb, Mr. al-Ashmawi is singing like a bird and spilling his guts now that he is in Egyptian hands (not to mention fingernail pulling devices, racks, tongs, branding irons and other tools of the trade).  There should be lots of good news forthcoming about the terrorism infrastructure throughout the Middle-East to Afghanistan sector.

ISIS

On 04 August al-arabiyya TV on their show panorama reported that ISIS still has billions of dollars in addition to 50-300 tons of Gold (depending upon whose estimate you choose).  With Ayman azh-Zhwahiri’s deteriorating health and the recent death of Hamza bin Usama bin Laden, look for “flush with cash” ISIS to become the dominant international terrorist organization for years to come.

Muslim Brothers Shut Out Critics

The email announcing the Eventbrite refund of my ticket for Washington, DC’s July 23-24 Muslim Collective for Equitable Democracy conference clearly indicated to me a depressingly familiar tactic of controlled public relations. Once again, defenders of Islam such as the Hamas-derived Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) had excluded the inquisitive eyes and ears of a known critic like me from participation in a purportedly public event.

Numerous past and present CAIR officials filled the conference schedule, including CAIR Executive Director Nihad AwadAbbas BarzegarZahra BillooRobert McCaw, and Corey Saylor, while CAIR had promoted the conference online. CAIR’s radical political allies such as the past and present Congress members Keith EllisonIlhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib also appeared in the conference lineup. New York City Muslim-American political activist Debbie Almontaser and the nationally known Gold Star father Khizr Khan also continued their long history of event appearances with CAIR.

Such CAIR involvement gave this author a foreboding feeling when he purchased a conference ticket. CAIR’s longstanding practice of strictly scrutinizing event attendees does not allow entry for anyone who would question CAIR’s pro-jihad/sharia affiliations. CAIR has accordingly refused this author admittance to CAIR’s gala dinner, as well as CAIR Capitol Hill and National Press Club briefings.

CAIR’s aversion to prying eyes reflects a broader pattern among its likeminded Islamist allies. Georgetown University Professor Jonathan Brown once ejected this author from a lecture, before outrageously proclaiming that Islamic doctrine precluded condemnation of slavery and sex slavery. Brown later similarly revoked this author’s invitation to a conference co-hosted by Georgetown’s Saudi-established Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU), which Brown directs.

Representative Omar’s own personal behavior at the conference continued this see, hear, and speak no evil maxim. As with a past refused request to condemn publicly Al Qaeda, she responded testily to a request to denounce Muslim practices of female genital mutilation (FGM) made by a fellow panelist, Muslims for Progressive Values President Ani Zonneveld. Omar claimed that such questions directed at Muslims were offensive and rejected commenting upon FGM, a horror that 98 percent of females suffer in Omar’s ancestral Somalia, the highest rate globally.

Contrary to Omar’s no-comment policy, the conference’s very agenda raises disturbing questions that questioning reporters should raise. Her fellow panelist Khan rose to prominence on the basis of rebuking presidential candidate Donald Trump with the heartbreaking sacrifice of Khan’s son, an army captain killed during the Iraq war. Yet the CAIR official and conference participant Billoo has scandalously shown contempt for America’s war dead.

Even more disturbingly, Khan shared a conference panel with Omar and gushed over this radical’s role in supposedly strengthening a diverse America. The names of her and others “will be written with golden letters on the pages of history,” he stated. In contrast, other Americans will more remember how she slandered American military personnel as indiscriminate killers during the 1993 international relief operation in Somalia.

Given the modern American Muslims’ heavily Democratic-leaning political proclivities, conference organizers had invited the Democratic 2020 presidential candidates to attend. That only Senator Elizabeth Warren agreed to make a livestream address disappointed the organizers.

Leading Democrats may have stayed away from CAIR and its allies at the conference for now, but Americans as a whole should demand closer scrutiny of these groups. In particular, Democrat public figures attending such future events must face difficult questions about who does and does not attend according to gatekeepers guarding against “Islamophobia.” A free public has a right to know what these self-identified Muslim conclaves mean for the wider body politic.

COLUMN BY

Andrew E. Harrod

Andrew E. Harrod, PhD, JD, Esq. is the author of over 150 articles online and in print concerning various political, religious, and international relations topics. This article first appeared in Sharia TipSheet.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar and the Door of No Return

Fear of Muslims Leads to Prison Conversions to Islam (Report #3298)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Demolition/Restoration. An HQ for the counter-revolution.

TRANSCRIPT

We’re standing out in front of the beginning of the physical plant expansion here at St. Michael’s Media, which got underway just a couple of days ago. More on that later, but on a very related note, what we are doing here is what needs to happen all over the Church — certainly in the United States — a demolition of bad structures and protocols that are designed to support not the mission, but simply the existing structure.

The current state of affairs in the Church, as exemplified by the likes of Cdl. Blase Cupich, reveal the problem in its simplest terms.

Men like Cupich have taken the structure and abused it, turning it into an edifice to corrupt the Faith, not focus on the mission of saving souls.

Listen to just a brief comment he made earlier this year at a talk to a liberal think tank in Cambridge, England, pushing for revolution and a “paradigm shift.”

That a prince of the Church would feel such ease and comfort in blurting out words like “revolution” in a divinely established institution sounds eerily to previous clerics like Martin Luther. He too brought “revolution” and paradigm shifts under the guise of spirituality and so forth.

And herein lies the problem: Cupich and company are able to get away with this because they can abuse the current structures — no accountability, a gross lack of transparency, absolutely zero fidelity to the faithful or the Magisterium.

An archdiocese’s expenses, for example, are rarely revealed. That practice isn’t under divine guidance.

The selection of generally young men to be seminarians rarely has any input from faithful laity. Rarely are laity selected to take part in decisions to close and sell off parishes.

What laity are involved in “management” decisions are usually preselected individuals who are picked precisely because the bishop knows they will agree with him.

The Church is in shambles, and the reason it is is partially because the way earthly business is currently conducted in the Church. The structures of the Church are set up ultimately so leaders can carry out their divinely appointed mission of announcing salvation to the world.

But when those man-made structures are used by wicked men and turned to the purpose of evil, then the man-made structures need to be demolished and a new way of doing business built up.

As long as there exists in the Church today this level of evil, then there is a need for exposure of it.

Too many bishops and their staffs deal in a clandestine fashion, harming numerous people materially and spiritually, and they get away with it because people don’t know.

But people need to know; they need to know how business is conducted, how their money is spent, how decisions are made about hiring chancery personnel who do not accept all the teachings of the Church and so forth.

This is the driving force behind our expansion here at our Ferndale studio. There must be in the Church today a media outfit that deals honestly and forthrightly with all this corruption and exposes it.

As a reminder, it was only exposure in the secular media that brought the whole evil of homosexual predation among clergy to everyone’s attention.

Had that exposure not happened, McCarrick and the boys club would still be running the corrupt dog and pony show and altar boys would still be being sexually assaulted.

It doesn’t matter if the corruption is spiritual, financial, moral, doctrinal or liturgical, it’s all fruit from the same tree, and this tree must be chopped down and thrown into the fire.

So Church Militant is responding to the crisis, which men like Donald Wuerl lied through their teeth about, by marshaling our resources through your ongoing generosity.

Right out here, we will be adding an extension which will house our new chapel, which will alleviate the massively cramped conditions we are in now. Some of the staff currently have to stand in the hallway because inside is too small.

With the chapel moved into the extension, the entire inside will be able to be gutted and rebuilt, which is going on now. Walls knocked down — that should make the Vatican socialists happy: no walls.

In this space which is being cleared out even now as you can see will be our Church Militant Media Pit.

That pit will house all our internal workings for everything we produce — Vortex, Headlines, Download, our special reports and investigative efforts, our Church Militant Action Arm, our news articles — everything situated in the same space.

If you watch it or read it at Church Militant, it will all come out of this space. And that’s exciting because it will greatly increase our efficiency, our internal work, what we call the “sausage-making,” which most of the time, people don’t want to see.

All the tips and whistleblower information we get, all the news that comes in, will all pour into this same room and be able to be treated much more quickly and turned around to you much faster.

Our Expansion Campaign, while mostly visible in all this demolition and construction, isn’t the end of it though. Some stuff is not visible. For the past few months, we have been beefing up our website considerably, making it faster and stronger and more secure.

That fine work has been done by our web partner, Petros, who has developed the most sophisticated website in the Catholic media world.

It’s all backend stuff that you don’t see, but it makes your time on the homepage much more efficient. You just don’t realize; it’s completely transparent to you.

Also, the beefed-up website means we are now able to roll out our all-new Church Militant app for mobile devices.

The test version will be delivered to us later today, and we will begin the testing internally and with a select group of Church Militant supporters, and once any bugs are worked out, we will be rolling it out for everyone.

Exciting times here at Church Militant, not just because there’s some new studios and all that and a new vibe, but because this is exactly what needs to be put into action to help reclaim the Church from this evil which has engulfed it — a media source, completely independent, free to expose the evil and talk about the needed changes and restoration.

None of this would be possible without the support of tens and tens of thousands of faithful Catholics who want back their Church, who are heartbroken over the current state of affairs.

Their families have been ravaged, their friends and loved ones thrown to the wolves, crimes and immoralities covered up.

It’s time for a powerful assault, an offensive against all this. That’s what all this smashing and banging and building is all-out about.

Demolition will be done in a few days, and then the construction begins in earnest. We need to fight the so-called “paradigm shift,” the self-styled revolution.

The counter-revolution needs a headquarters. Welcome to HQ.

Mario Lopez on the Chopping Block — And What About Us? [Video]

Just last week, longtime celebrity Mario Lopez went on The Candace Owens show where he made a statement on transgender kids that shouldn’t have been controversial.

Lopez questioned the ability of a three-year-old to make definitive determinations about switching genders. He said it was “dangerous” for parents to support children that young who identify as transgender. Lopez immediately faced a “public” backlash (read: Leftist media) for what was called out as a “controversial” and “insensitive” statement.

His career as a host for the television show “Access Hollywood” now hangs in the balance. Under such pressure, Mario Lopez made an immediate public apology. Apparently, divergence from “groupthink” is not allowed.

Watch the interview with Mario Lopez (the conversation in question begins at 11 minutes):

Conversations around politics and culture have so polarized that, taken together with increased tech censorship and political correctness, American voices are being silenced.

For the political Left, the conversation has shifted from wanting to find real policy solutions to strictly taking an anti-Trump position. The border crisis, for example, is evidence of that.

Serious human rights and security issues surrounding the southern U.S. border are no longer about how we help asylum seekers while maintaining U.S. sovereignty.

Instead, the conversation has become so polarized that, in “resistance against Trump” and “the wall,” members of Congress are actually helping traffic people illegally across the border as a political statement (or stunt) to counter President Trump’s policies.

For example, Senator Cory Booker recently went into Mexico to escort five female asylum seekers into the United States. He’s also a 2020 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

What we don’t hear in these stunts is the voice of the American people. It’s becoming more difficult to isolate authentic opinion versus media hype, especially when people who hold opinions against groupthink are not only harassed but can also lose their livelihood because of them.

Just this week, I was kicked out of a Secular Muslim Women’s Group page on Facebook after one member objected to me for a post I made in support of President Trump.

While I’ve been on that page for years with little ill effect and my political opinions are not secret, the volatility around thinkers who deviate from the approved Leftist script is now swift and evident.

We are not only not being tolerated; we are being silenced. While I’m grateful to have my own platforms which I’ve worked hard to build and are bigger than that Facebook page, not every person who wants to speak out about today’s issues has such a platform.

The more our voices are regulated, the more Americans are inching toward being silenced. Mario Lopez found that out the hard way.

COLUMN BY

Shireen Qudosi

Shireen Qudosi is Clarion Project’s National Correspondent.

RELATED STORIES:

To What Lengths Are Extremists Willing to Go to Destroy America?

Will the Death of Nuance Lead to a Civil War?

Left Vs. Right: Fueling Us to the Brink of Destruction

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column with video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Germany: Muslim who murdered man with sword in broad daylight is ‘Palestinian’ claiming to be Syrian ‘refugee’ [Video]

“War is deceit,” said Muhammad (Bukhari 4.52.268).

“Breaking: sword murderer apparently lived under false identity in Germany,” translated from Eilt: Schwertmörder lebte anscheinend unter falscher Identität in Deutschland,” JournalistenWatch, August 1, 2019 (thanks to Searchlight Germany):

Stuttgart – The alleged murderer who attacked and killed a 36-year-old German with a sword on Wednesday evening in broad daylight is said to be a Palestinian who claims to have been a Syrian refugee.

According to Stuttgarter Zeitung, the 30-year-old alleged sword killer is said to be a Palestinian known to the police, who has acquired a Syrian identity. Once again, the German state has apparently accepted his data completely unchecked. The “Syrian” is said to be living in Germany for four years and is registered with the authorities as Issa M. (28). The authorities will now determine whether the perpetrator really is another person, according to the Stuttgarter Nachrichten. The “Syrian” Issa M. yesterday slaughtered a man with several blows and stabs in a block of flats in Stuttgart after a quarrel his former roommate in front of numerous eyewitnesses. And we say again: Thank you, Mrs. Merkel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamists like These States.

Pence Speaks Out In Defense Of Christian Woman Punished In Iran For Converting From Islam

Just a Few Questions for Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch

NATO ally Germany refuses to back U.S. in Gulf out of fear of Iran

RELATED VIDEO: Maryland — BDS Occupies Takoma Park.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Quebec’s Totalitarian Moment and Loss of Catholic Culture

Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett: The government says, “We want you, but not your faith. Just your cultural and economic value to the state will do.”


In 1981, while ushering in Canada’s new Charter of Rights and Freedomsthen Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau remarked that “The Golden Thread of Faith is woven throughout the history of Canada from its earliest beginnings up to the present time.” Now, in Trudeau’s home province of Quebec, we are witnessing the unraveling of that thread and the prospect of its complete sundering.

On June 16, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed the Coalition pour l’Avenir du Québec government’s Bill 21: An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State. At ten pages, the law is brief in length, but broad and troubling in scope. It affirms that Quebec is a “lay state,” characterized by the “separation of State and religions . . . the religious neutrality of the state . . . the equality of all citizens . . . and freedom of conscience and religion.”

Based on these mutually contradictory premises, the law prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by public servants when they are exercising their functions.

Caught in this web are, among others, legislators, justices of the peace, prosecutors, peace officers, and school teachers. Even religious freedom advocates will be unlikely to quarrel with the ban on full-face and head coverings for police officers and school teachers.

But the law goes too far in suppressing all outward symbols of religious faith, including religious Sikhs who wear a turban, orthodox Jews who wear a kippah, Muslim women in hijab, and Christians who wear visible crosses. Worse, the prohibitions extend to private institutions that are under agreement with the government to provide health and social services.

The exclusive focus on religious garb is indeed troubling. One suspects the ultimate goal of the National Assembly is to use the force of law to remove religion from Quebec’s public life, a process ongoing elsewhere in Canada.

The right of public religious expression entails more than wearing religious symbols. It also means the right to operate faith-based institutions in a manner consistent with religious teachings, to refrain from participation in activities that are incompatible with religious belief, and – in a democracy of equal citizens – the right to engage in debates over law and public policy with religion-based arguments.

The logic of the law could easily be wielded to justify future restrictions on these more substantive areas of expression.

Nevertheless, the law is deeply troubling on its face, demanding that public servants in Quebec present incomplete versions of themselves when performing their duties in the public domain. Anticipating the intense opposition this law would elicit, the government of Quebec invoked section 33, the so-called “notwithstanding clause” of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982. That clause permits Parliament – or any provincial legislature – to enact legislation notwithstanding the provisions in sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which includes freedom of conscience and religion) for a period of five years.

To each her religion

The Quebec government is seeking to do an end-run around the Charter, openly flaunting the suppression of fundamental freedoms, while baldly asserting that the secular state protects the equality of citizens and their freedom of conscience and religion.

The new law reflects anti-Muslim attitudes prevalent in rural Quebec. But ultimately it flows from a statist understanding of the role of government and from the gnostic impulses of Quebec’s secular elites. They view themselves as guardians of the knowledge of good and evil and arbiters of how the state is to be served. This amounts to a fundamental reordering of representative democracy.

The new law can also be characterized as a project of certain Québécois elites to cling to the political and cultural values of the 1960s and 1970s. During those years, French Quebec came to reject longstanding Catholic nationalism in favor of an avowedly secular progressive nationalism – Quebec’s so-called Quiet Revolution.

The Second Vatican Council unfolded during the early 1960s, but Quebec’s elites, like other Western Catholics, never understood the teachings of Dignitatis Humanæ concerning the human person and the utter necessity of religious freedom for all. Instead, the culture that emerged is an alien French laïcité – the use of the state to control and privatize religion –which historically has not been the stuff of French-Canadian society.

Indigenous First Nations, English, Scottish, Irish, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, Lebanese, Italians, Haitians, and North Africans, among many others, have long come together in Quebec (though not without discrimination along the way). Quebec’s government has almost exclusive control over immigration to the province. It welcomes immigrants, especially Francophone immigrants, from around the world to help build French civilization in North America.

This is a laudable project. Yet the government is now telling those it has welcomed: “We want you, but not your faith. Just your cultural and economic value to the state will do.” This represents a narrow, utilitarian, and fundamentally anti-Catholic understanding of the human person.

Hence the stunning hypocrisy of the government’s claim to uphold freedom of conscience and religion in the new law. Religious freedom is the right of every person, and every religious community, to live their faith through religious observance and public action. Religious freedom is necessary for individual and social flourishing. Like all other inalienable rights, it is not a gift of the state. It should be protected and defended by the state.

So why this law? The answer is that the secular elites of la belle province do not really believe in pluralism and diversity. This new law is a gross violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It represents a significant legal step in the removal of religion from the public life of this historically Catholic province.

Legal challenges are pending, of course, and some people of faith in Quebec, along with some public institutions, such as municipalities and school boards, may decide to respond with civil disobedience. If so, will the Quebec government arrest observant Sikhs, Jews, and Muslims while they fulfill their duties as public servants? We must wait and see.

COLUMN BY

Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett

The Rev. Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett serves as Senior Fellow and Director of the North American Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute. He is a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic deacon of the Eparchy of Toronto and Eastern Canada. He previously served in the Canadian foreign service as Canada’s first Ambassador for Religious Freedom and Head of the Office of Religious Freedom from 2013 to 2016. He holds a B.A. Hons. in History (Dalhousie), an M.A. in History (McGill), and a Ph.D. in Politics (Edinburgh).

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

PODCAST: Are Muslims ‘Slaves’ Under Islam? Listen to the Debate

In the podcast below, former ISIS bride Tania Joya (now an ex-Muslim) and Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi answer the question: Are Muslims slaves under Islam?

Joya and Qudosi met up on Capitol Hill where both were discussing Clarion Project’s new film, Kids: Chasing Paradise.

Joya appears in the film and Qudosi is Clarion’s national correspondent. In this provocative interview by The Hill, Qudosi is also asked to defend Clarion Project from accusations by the Southern Poverty Law Center that Clarion Project is a hate group.

Listen:

RELATED STORIES:

Test Case for Trump: US ISIS Bride Wants to Come Home

Tania Joya: How I Was Radicalized

Muslim Reform Movement Kicks Off in Washington, D.C.

PODCAST: Christian Nationalism? The Left’s Latest Attempt to Silence Believers

By FRC’s David Closson, Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview

A coalition of left-leaning church leaders recently launched a project “Against Christian Nationalism.” In their statement they cite “Christian nationalism” as a “persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy.” At best, the project is a solution in search of a problem — at worst, it’s an attempt to drive conservative Christians out of the public square.

According to the statement, “Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian.”

As David Barton, president of Wall Builders, pointed out on “Washington Watch” Tuesday, the problem with this statement lies in how “Christian nationalism” is defined. Clearly, these left-leaning church leaders (which includes Jim Wallis who advised President Obama and Tony Campolo who advised President Clinton) are seeking to redefine nationalism in a way that implies something sinister about conservative Christians who love their country.

No one is seriously arguing that “to be a good American, one must be a Christian.” This points to the insincere motives of this movement; simply put, theologically liberal Christians are fearful of the gains social conservatives have made in the last few years, and they are attempting to sideline faithful Christians by creating what Barton describes a “radioactive term” to sully their reputation.

But Christians who love their nation have nothing to apologize for; in fact, they should be emboldened to enter the political arena with the courage of their convictions. As David Barton points out, the vast majority of Americans do love their country and identify as Christian. In short, patriotism is a virtue, not a vice. As Barton notes, quoting one of the Declaration of Independence signers, “The Declaration says that patriotism is a religious and moral duty because if you love your country, you will want what’s best for it. And if you want what’s best for it, that’s going to bless everyone who lives in the nation… loving your country and seeking what’s best for it is a blessing.”

However, a broader point about “Christian Nationalism” and the idea of America as a Christian nation is raised by this story which deserves further comment. Is belief that America is a “Christian nation” equivalent to Christian Nationalism? To answer this question, it is important to carefully define terms.

First, if by “Christian nation” we mean America was influenced by Christian principles at the founding, it is difficult to argue the reverse. Clearly, Christianity provided the principles of equal rights and human dignity that motivated the founders. Moreover, the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians who generally believed in the truth of the Bible. Christianity remains the largest religion in the United States. Finally, Christian beliefs still provide the intellectual background for many of our cultural values such as respect for human dignity, the need to care for the disadvantaged, and respect for the rule of law. In all of these senses, America could be called a “Christian nation.”

However, in another sense — surveying the cultural landscape today — we are not. Are the majority of Americans Bible-believing, born-again Christians? No. Do Christian values dominate the perspective promoted by the government, media, and universities in America? No. Does the government compel people to follow a Christian church? No, because this would violate the first amendment of the Constitution. Do people have to profess Christian faith to be citizens or have equal rights under the law in this country? No. Are Christian ideas welcomed and accepted by many in “elite” circles of public opinion? No. In these senses, America is not a “Christian nation.”

The irony is that many of the activists behind this attempt to demonize conservative Christians participating in politics see an “evangelical bogeyman” under every rock, and still proceed to argue that Christians somehow overwhelmingly dominate the culture. The reality is far different.

Thus, in conversations about “Christian nationalism,” it is important to define the terms. When someone alleges that America is or is not a “Christian nation” it is important to determine what they mean by the phrase. Clearly, America is indebted to Christian morality in significant ways.

All Bible-believing Christians reject “white supremacy” and “racial subjugation” which backers of the “Against Christian nationalism” campaign claim is inherent to Christian nationalism. However, this is a redefinition of terms and an attempt to drive patriotic Christians from the public square at a time when social conservatives are making tremendous gains on life and religious liberty at the state and federal level.

Christians ought to affirm God’s providential working in history. The material blessings of the United States are not unconnected from the Christian morality that has under girded our country, and Christians should continue to exert their influence at all levels of government, while allowing a free marketplace of ideas that allows for open debate and religious freedom.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Baltimore Ravings: The Remedy for America’s Cities

Libs Screech at Mario Lopez’s Honesty

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

CAIR Islamophobia Report: A First-Class Fraud

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped in on the effort to paint its opponents as “Islamophobes,” the latest twist in the Left’s never-ending effort to smear opponents with names like “racist,” “xenophobe,” etc. And while this repulsive strategy makes a mockery of the First Amendment and has reduced American political dialogue to infantile, elementary school name-calling, its true goal is to marginalize, deplatform and defund its opponents, especially those that pose a threat to its subversive agenda. This paper exposes for all to see, just how transparently dishonest and hypocritical CAIR and its allies in the Red-Green Axis truly are in this their latest “Islamophbia” report, and links them to the worldwide effort of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to impose blasphemy laws against anyone who would speak ill of any aspect of Islam.

CAIR Islamophobia Report- A First-Class Fraud PDF

The Left has become increasingly aggressive about silencing its critics. In late June 2019, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released its latest undercover video showing Google’s frightening institutional bias and its apparent intention to manipulate public opinion to influence the 2020 elections. Google is just one of many on the Left seeking to mislead, discredit, defame, and silence the Left’s opponents. But they are not alone. In what we have called the Red-Green Axis, Islamic groups in the U.S. and abroad have partnered with the Left to silence anyone who questions any aspect of Islam, including Islamic terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently published its latest effort in a piece titled Hijacked by Hate: American Philanthropy and the Islamophobia Network.

It would be a joke, but it isn’t funny. “Islamophobia” is the latest in a long list of contrived “phobias” invented by the Left and its Muslim allies to continue the Left’s time-honored vilification tactic. It is an unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest way of dealing with legitimate criticism that has reduced political discourse in the U.S. to infantile, elementary school name-calling. The Left owns this outcome, but the Muslims are catching up.

First, we must ask: what is “Islamophobia?” Well, CAIR doesn’t exactly say. That is understandable, because if they told you what it means, you would laugh out loud. But one of their collaborators was honest enough to put it in a Facebook post (which wasn’t blocked by Facebook, BTW, unlike some posts critical of Islam). Here’s a screen shot of the post.

Meanwhile, we have Boko Haram’s gruesome mass slaughters in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab engaged in mass terror attacks in Somalia and Kenya, Abu Sayyaf kidnapping and murdering in the Philippines, countless individual and group acts of barbaric terrorism throughout the West, and the Islamic State beheadings everywhere – all doctrinally justified by the Qur’an, Sunna and Islamic Law (shariah).

If this is not Islam, then Islam is the most misunderstood religion in world history. There is literally no parallel in any other religion—although it should be noted that, according to a widely-used textbook in U.S. madrassas (Islamic schools), indeed, “Islam is not a religion,” but rather a complete way of life. And while we struggle to cope with this deadly onslaught, CAIR and its proxies are aggressively inserting Islamic teachings in public schools (while Christianity is equally aggressively banned), engaging in relentless lawsuits attempting to insinuate Islamic Law into U.S. courts, colluding with the Left in its various acts of subversion and sedition, and viciously attacking anyone who protests.

No, Esam, we are not the haters. You are! And your list is a bad joke, especially as it contains terms like jihad and terrorism that are to be found throughout the Islamic canon (notably the Qur’an itself!), as well as the perfectly doctrinal assertion about Islam not being a religion.

But it’s no joke. He is serious. And this is not just anyone. Esam Omeish is “Chief of General and Laparoscopic Surgery” at INOVA Alexandria Virginia hospital. Omeish is a former leader of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) — both prominent Muslim Brotherhood groups. He is also a founding board member of the Dar al Hijra mosque in Falls Church, VA.

Dar al Hijra’s former Imam is the infamous Anwar al-Awlaki — mentor to Fort Hood terrorist, Nidal Hassan and others. Al-Awlaki was later killed in a CIA drone strike in Yemen. Hassan, along with two of the 9-11 terrorists, attended the mosque during 2001, when Awlaki was Imam. Another attendee was Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, an al-Qaeda member convicted of attempting to assassinate President George W. Bush.

Can we say Islamic Terrorists?

If we do, we are… wait for it… Islamophobes! It turns out that this compendium merely details what the Organization for Islamic Cooperation defines as Islamophobia. The OIC is the world’s largest Islamic group, and the second largest intergovernmental organization in the world — including 56 nations and the Palestinian Authority. It wields substantial influence over the United Nations, and was able to convince the U.N. to insert its blasphemy definitions into UN Resolution 16/18Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.

Would that include “negative stereotyping” or violence against Christians and Jews? Ah, no. It is all about Islam, the only “religion” the U.N. has ever cared about.  And according to Islamic Law, anything that gives offense to Muslims by criticizing Islam in any way whatsoever, whether true or false, is slander – a criminal, even capital, offense against Islam. If, for example, you criticize Islam for Islamic terrorism, you are guilty of “incitement to violence.” So Islamic terrorism is our fault! According to the OIC, this kind of talk should be criminally prosecuted under Islamic blasphemy & slander laws, and while Resolution 16/18 pays lip service to free speech concepts, its true goal is to criminalize speech critical of Islam.

These people are the real haters. Let’s be clear about that. And they express their hate by trying to destroy those who expose them, meanwhile living comfortably in the most generous, free, affluent nation in the world. They define the term “parasite.”

So, let’s expose this “Islamophobia” report for the fraud it is. Its purpose is to attack those foundations providing income for CAIR’s enemies, the so-called “Islamophobia Network,” to starve them out of existence. As Center for Security Policy (CSP) Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare M. Lopez wrote in May 2019, “the clear intent of the report and the list is to provide a target list of philanthropic organizations to be shamed, shunned, and ultimately pressured into divesting from support of those groups deemed by CAIR to be “Islamophobic.”

CAIR claims that this network benefits from donations made through shadowy organizations called Donor-advised Funds. There are numerous such funds, including Fidelity, Schwab, Tides, Proteus, Vanguard, and others. These funds allow donors to remain anonymous. In today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, where the Left and its Muslim allies are constantly seeking to expose, doxx and threaten donors, who can blame them?

But how can CAIR criticize others? CAIR gets money from Schwab and Proteus, according to Foundation Search. And while it has not received anything from Fidelity or Vanguard recently, many of its Muslim Brotherhood allies have. The Islamic Society of North America has received $176,600 from Fidelity, and $79,500 from Vanguard. The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), also receive donations from Fidelity and/or Schwab.

In fact, Vanguard, Schwab, Fidelity, Tides and other donor-advised funds are major financiers of the Left, and donations to non-Left groups are tiny by comparison. CAIR’s characterization of these funding sources is a fraudulent misdirection in this report. CAIR’s true goal in publishing this screed is to intimidate those funds from offering any money at all to CAIR’s political enemies.

CAIR’s Xenophobe Network

CAIR’s report claims that 39 xenophobic “hate” groups comprise a nefarious network receiving “billions” in “dark money” from those evil donor-advised funds. Never mind their definition. This is an absurd exaggeration, and it is factually incorrect:

  1. There were 46 groups listed in the report, not Can CAIR even count? NPR endorsed this report: Can NPR count? Did they even bother?
  2. Collectively, these 46 groups received approximately $1.4 billion over three years – about $450 million in one year, not “billions.”
  3. Two-thirds of this income was received by one organization, Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).

Hard to fathom, but yes, CAIR considers the 700 Club to be part of a vast, dark “Islamophobia” network.

But let’s consider: if CBN’s annual income is removed, the other 45 receive an annual total of $145.1 million/year. It becomes immediately apparent why CBN was included. Without it, CAIR cannot us the “B” word, and even with it they have to count up three years. Of course, the CAIR report does not break the numbers out by organization, so you wouldn’t automatically know that most of this “network” was in fact the 700 Club.

Spread across the 45 organizations, excluding CBN, gives an average annual revenue of $3.2 million each. Literally, a hill of beans in the non-profit world, and nothing like the billions in funding received by the Left.

See the table below. Figures are taken from each organization’s nonprofit tax returns (linked in the table). While they pay no taxes, they are still required to file, but sometimes file quite late. All of the figures in the table below and the other tables in this report for that matter, were taken from the most recent tax return, usually 2016 or 2017, but a few were for 2018.

CAIR’s $1.5 Billion Xenophobe Network
  Net
Revenues Assets
1 Christian Broadcasting Network $308,099,729 $142,691,721
2 American Future Fund $29,401,632 $2,838,387
3 American Center for Law and Justice $22,801,099 $1,224,787
4 American Family Association $19,068,393 $28,683,191
5 Foundation for Defense of Democracies $9,039,436 $18,973,604
6 Center for Security Policy $6,548,493 $1,967,835
7 Middle East Media Research Institute $6,262,533 $1,532,913
8 David Horowitz Freedom Center $5,976,459 $650,572
9 National Review Institute $5,689,857 $9,660,370
10 Concerned Women for America $5,596,942 $191,832
11 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting $5,363,477 $7,632,375
12 Middle East Forum $4,361,751 $5,463,633
13 American Civil Rights Union $3,119,465 $1,250,047
14 Clarion Project $3,005,986 $2,074,817
15 Gatestone Institute $2,159,819 $120,750
16 Investigative Project on Terrorism $2,056,982 -$137,257
17 Eagle Forum & Defense Fund (10 Chapters) $1,810,441 $29,351,809
18 Religious Freedom Coalition $1,529,083 $438,276
19 Lawfare Project $1,392,062 $790,780
20 American Freedom Law Center $1,276,078 $530,871
21 Christian Action Network $1,098,170 $80,590
22-46 All Others $8,298,096 $7,045,532
TOTAL $453,955,983 $263,057,435

Most of these groups are involved in many and different issues: so, to call them part of any kind of “network” is absurd. Consider the National Review (NR) for example. Founded by William F. Buckley, NR is one of the oldest conservative publications in the U.S. Except for a few writers, it is also one of the last Never-Trump holdouts. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)? How about the American Future Fund (AFF)? AFF turns out to be a group that promotes “conservative, free market ideals.” That does not sound “Islamophobic” to me.

Besides being groups that CAIR/SPLC hates there is actually little, if any connection, among these 46 groups. Not a “network” of any kind, let alone “dark.”

Only four make over $10 million/year. Most struggle just to keep their doors open.  More than half (represented by line 22-46) are not even worth mentioning separately. Combined, these 25 organizations realized just $8.3 million in their latest year. That averages out to about $332,000 each. Some earn less than $100,000. Two take in nothing at all. Most have only one or a few staff members. This vast network looks more and more like a guppy the closer you look.

Finally, the role of donor-advised funds is exaggerated. For example, of approximately $24 million CBN has received from various donors since 1999 according to Foundation Search, less than 18 percent came from donor-advised funds. Most of the rest came from individual family foundations, Christian foundations, and others. Conversely, CAIR’s network of conspirators, which I have dubbed the Red-Green Axis, thrives on donor-advised dollars.

So, CAIR’s characterization of this “Xenophobe network” is fraudulent on its face. It is also indicative of the group’s shoddy workmanship — alone enough to mistrust its assertions. So, let’s now take a look at CAIR’s Red-Green Axis network. This really is a multi-billion-dollar network. And you don’t even have to add years.

CAIR’s Multi-Billion Dollar Red/Green Axis Network
Annual Net
Islamic Groups Revenues Assets
ACCESS $27,488,567 $37,871,650
CAIR & CAIR Foundation $14,026,522 $11,663,463
Islamic Circle of North America $8,351,219 $20,337,153
International Institute of Islamic Thought $7,559,412 $963,220
Muslim American Society $4,381,563 $3,676,152
Muslim Legal Fund of America $3,576,412 $71,496
Islamic Society of North America $3,481,603 $1,601,028
Muslim Advocates $2,376,533 $1,553,085
MPAC Foundation $2,093,657 $1,084,022
Pillars Fund $1,906,122 $2,015,940
Constitutional Law Center for Muslims $1,700,636 $17,225
Muslim Public Affairs Council $1,552,024 $417,529
North American Foundation of Islamic Services $1,248,598 $814,284
Council of Islamic Organizations $937,397 $611,099
EMGAGE Foundation $740,752 $199,613
Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America $330,871 $384,048
U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations $100,795 $3,434
Washington Trust Foundation, Inc. $13,896 $4,923,358
North American Islamic Trust* NA $300,000,000
Subtotal $81,866,579 $388,207,799
 
Collaborators & Supporters
American Civil Liberties Union $380,810,055 $470,408,742
ACLU Foundation $146,251,550 $342,625,524
Southern Poverty Law Center $136,373,624 $449,834,593
Anti-Defamation League $65,971,077 -$16,541,031
Industrial Areas Foundation $6,028,449 $4,792,009
TOTAL $817,301,334 $1,639,327,636
* Assets estimate based on news reports. No public information exists.

Compare and contrast this network with CAIR’s contrived Xenophobe “network.” Virtually all of the listed Muslim groups are Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Many, including CAIR, are also named by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror financing trial — the largest of its kind in the U.S.

The SPLC and ACLU work hand in glove with CAIR all the time. In fact, SPLC’s Heidi Beirich contributed to the CAIR report. No wonder it is such shoddy work. The ALCU’s conservative counterpart is Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice. The ACLJ received $22.8 million, according to its most recent IRS filing. The ACLU amassed over $500 million in the same year, 23 times that of ALCJ. Kind of like Sasquatch being attacked by a gnat. Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation and even the ADL are now working with these Islamic groups as well.

The Six “Islamophobes” CAIR Really Hates

CAIR singles out six “Islamophobe” groups for particular animus. CAIR claims in the report that they have collectively received $125 million from various funders (including those evil donor-advised funds). Where did they get all that money? CAIR provides no citations or explanations in the report. You just have to take their word for it. These groups receive nothing like that, even if you add up multiple years. Here are the facts from each organization’s most recent tax return:

CAIR’s $125 Million Islamophobia Network
Net
Revenues Assets
ACT for America $128,631 $1,053,938
American Freedom Defense Initiative $405,658 $516,119
American Freedom Law Center $1,276,078 $530,871
Center for Security Policy $6,548,493 $1,967,835
David Horowitz Freedom Center $5,976,459 $650,572
Middle East Forum $4,361,751 $5,463,633
TOTAL $18,697,070 $10,182,968

Whoops! Not quite $125 million, eh? Unlike CAIR, you can check my work by simply clicking on the hyperlinks in those tables. Most of these groups are living on a shoestring budget. CAIR knows this but purposely doesn’t mention it.

So how much does poor little CAIR take in annually? Look at the Red-Green Axis table. All by itself, CAIR receives $14.0 million annually through its foundation and network of offices, and has amassed $11.6 million in net assets, more than the six “Islamophobes” combined.

Additionally, an organization called the Washington Trust Foundation, holds another $5 million in real estate assets owned by CAIR. In its own words, the Washington Trust’s purpose is “To support the purposes of CAIR Foundation, Inc….” And guess who runs the Trust? None other than “Islamophobe” expert Esam Omeish.

But why single out these six small organizations for particular attention? That’s where the rubber meets the road, because while almost all of the 46 organizations listed in the Islamophobia Network table focus on a broad range of issues, and are not “networked” in any meaningful way, those six singled out for particular vilification are the ones that have been very effective at exposing and pushing back against CAIR’s subversive onslaught.

Take David Yerushalmi’s American Freedom Law Center (AFLC). It has battled CAIR in court numerous times and has never lost a case against them. This tiny organization with half a million in assets, has forced CAIR to pony up millions for its misguided lawfare.

For example,  CAIR has agreed to pay significant legal fees and other compensation to plaintiffs in two cases represented by the AFLC:  a June 2019 Virginia case and  an April 2019 case in Oklahoma. Both cases revealed CAIR engaging in significant fraud against the plaintiffs. And each time, CAIR relented when it became clear that the alternative was to carry the case to trial. Going to trial would expose CAIR to a close examination of its terrorist connections and subversive agenda. CAIR demurred.

CAIR is plainly not a “social welfare” organization, a designation required for 501.c.3 tax-exempt designation. They are afraid of losing it, and these six organizations are a major threat. They have been effectively exposing CAIR’s association with terrorists (especially the Palestinian terrorist group, HAMAS), and the subversive agenda that follows the Muslim Brotherhood “Civilization Jihad” plan for the Brotherhood in America, specifically:

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.

In response, what is CAIR’s vile, unethical answer? Savage these groups and their funders in an attempt to starve them of funding. What would CAIR do if it had the unbeatable political power it is hoping to obtain with the Left’s help? One shudders to think.

With the media, Hollywood, the education establishment, and a major political party totally owned by the hard Left and more than willing to echo your messages, destroying your opponents through defamation is a pretty good business model, too. All you need do is abandon all ethics, integrity, morality, and any interest in the truth. Right up Nihad Awad’s alley, and he has made $723,000 over the past three yearsdoing so.

Branches and off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood are responsible for virtually all Islamic terrorism in the world. In a declassified secret FBI memo, an informant disclosed that the Muslim Brotherhood’s “ultimate goal is to enforce, by ‘violence if necessary,’ the Islamic Revolution on all non-Islamic Governments,” including the United States.

This Islamophobia report is just the latest in a long line of assaults by CAIR and Co. against their political enemies. It is a form of pre-violent-stage terrorism that does not yet kill individuals directly but attempts to destroy their ability to earn an income and continue their work, while intimidating would-be allies.

A not insignificant number of individuals associated with CAIR have been convictedof terrorism-related charges over the years, although the Muslim Brotherhood has chosen to avoid terrorism in favor of subversion in the U.S. because it is a more effective strategy for the moment. CAIR’s Awad has publicly allied himself with both the PLO and HAMAS terrorist groups in the past, and CAIR refuses to denounce HAMAS.

As urgent as international threats undeniably are and will continue to be, top level U.S. national security leadership attention must be turned to the domestic insurgency threat posed by the subversive, jihadist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest of the Islamic Movement in this country. CAIR is undoubtedly the lead Brotherhood front group driving this threat, but its top position within the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) and, in turn, its close working relationship with the pro-Muslim Brotherhood, HAMAS-supporting regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, add a further and foreign dimension to the threat that must not be ignored.

To counter this threat, the U.S. government must reverse the Great Purge of 2011-2012, which, under Brotherhood supervision, removed all training curricula as well as language from official USG usage that accurately identified the inspirational/motivational role of Islamic doctrine for all Islamic terrorism. The professional instructors who once taught this enemy threat doctrine and their courses must be restored government-wide, with USG backing and funding.

Finally, the declassification of PSD-11 (Presidential Study Directive 11), which reportedly in 2010 laid forth the blueprint for the Obama administration’s new supportive relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, is an absolute priority. Absent its declassification, it will remain impossible for those responsible to be held fully to account and very difficult to reverse its ongoing malign effects on our national security.

The Trump administration must confront the Muslim Brotherhood’s many tentacles in the U.S. Federal law enforcement should begin a renewed effort to investigate Brotherhood groups in the U.S. and at the very least, revoke CAIR’s tax exempt status. It is plain from this report that CAIR is not a “civil rights” organization, but one intent on imposing the Muslim Brotherhood’s malevolent “…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…