Large Numbers of Prison Inmates are Muslims Costing Taxpayers Millions

I’m glad to see that someone has done a deep dive into the issue of the costs of incarcerating Muslims, many of whom are immigrants we have welcomed to America.

Of course, although some of the Muslim prisoners being counted are American Muslims and converts to Islam, we can still see that incarceration rates for this segment of the population is on a percentage basis extremely high.

Every time I see one of those gushing reports about how new immigrants to America are causing the economy to boom, I know that the pro-open borders bias of the researchers has kept them from reporting the costs of law enforcement, trials, and incarceration of some of those ‘new Americans.’

I wonder what the cost will be of the investigation and ultimate prison term of the alleged Somali refugee terrorists in my previous post?

Here is Daniel Greenfield at Frontpage earlier this month,

IN 5 STATES, 1 IN 5 PRISONERS ARE MUSLIM

At 1%, Muslims are still a small percentage of the population. But there’s one place in America where they are vastly over-represented.

State prisons.

Take Maryland, which has an estimated 70,000 Muslims, making up over 1% of the population. But of Maryland’s 18,562 prisoners, 5,084 were Muslims.

That’s 27.4% or over 1 in 4 prisoners.

It would also mean that 1 out of 13 Muslims in Maryland may have been in a state prison.

Those are startling numbers, yet they come from Muslim Advocates, an Islamist legal advocacy group. Both MA’s numbers and the number of Muslims in different states may be miscounted, yet these figures raise serious questions about public safety and the toll that immigration is taking on our communities.

While Maryland’s numbers are some of the worst, MA lists similar figures for Washington D.C. where out of 5,219 prisoners, 1,232 were Muslims, so that once again 1 in 4 prisoners were Muslim.

D.C. does have one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, numbering between 2 and 3 percent. Even taking the highest estimate, 6.5% of the Muslim population in D.C. was in jail in 2017.

Muslims make up 1% of the population in Pennsylvania, but 1 in 5 of its prisoners.

[….]

In 5 states, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, Muslims make up 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 prisoners.

In another 4 states, Wisconsin, Missouri, Delaware, and Arkansas, they make up 1 in 10 prisoners.

[….]

Overrepresentation may be partially a product of the success of Islamic Dawah or missionary activity in prisons. Islamic prison Dawah has produced many converts and at least some terror plots. And it may serve to explain high Muslim prison numbers in some states, but not necessarily in others.

[….]

The MA report also claims that 12% of federal prisoners are Muslims. (CAIR in the past had claimed that it was only 6%.) The current federal BOP population is 177,619. That would mean over 21,000 prisoners.

And over 105,000 Muslims are prisoners in state and federal prisons.

[….]

Using Pew’s growth estimate, which projects that the Muslim settler population will reach 8.1 million by 2050 (a severe underestimation of actual growth), that would mean a quarter million Muslim prisoners.

This is not just an abstract statistic. It’s a compilation of human misery, lives lost, futures taken, a litany of abuse, loss, assault, and the accompanying taxpayer expenditures on trials, prisons and free lawyers.

The current cost of incarcerating Muslim federal prisoners is taking $670 million a year from taxpayers.

By 2050, the cost could climb to over $1.5 billion.

Continue here for much more data-crunching information.

RELATED ARTICLE: Update on the Arizona Somali Refugees Arrested for Supporting ISIS

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

VIDEO: New expose on the great evil that is Google

Posted by Eeyore

According to the Blacklist doc at 10:30, The Rebel.media is delisted from some google search results, as well as The Gateway Pundit, Infowars and many more.

Google Document Dump

RELATED ARTICLES:

Google “Machine Learning Fairness” Whistleblower Goes Public, says: “burden lifted off of my soul”

UPDATE: Google Engineer Who Went Public Placed on Administrative Leave

Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech is “dangerous,” “taking sides”

Conservative Teenager Banned from YouTube for Her Respectful Opposition to LGBT Movement

Tell Your U.S. Senators and Representative to Oppose Gun Control

In the wake of two recent criminal mass attacks, a number of gun control proposals have begun to circulate in our nation’s capital. None of these proposals would have prevented either of last weekend’s tragedies, but they all would restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“Universal” Background Checks Won’t Stop Mass Shootings

Every perpetrator of high-profile mass shootings has either passed a background check or acquired a firearm in a way that would be unaffected by a universal background check (either through theft or the use of a “straw purchaser”).

“Universal” Background Checks Do Not Stop Criminals

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 75 percent of criminals in state and federal prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows.

Criminals defeat the background check system by getting guns through straw purchasers. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent….”

In a 2018 study, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”

“Universal” Background Checks Are Not as Universally Popular as Advocates Claim

Despite claims of the near universal popularity of “universal” background checks, these proposals have not been nearly as popular as claimed when presented to voters. In 2016, Maine and Nevada both had “universal” background check initiatives on the ballot.

Despite being outspent by Bloomberg-backed gun control groups by $5.3 million to $1.2 million, Mainers defeated the initiative by 3.6 percentage points.

In Nevada, where Bloomberg-backed groups spent almost $19 million in support of the initiative versus less than seven million spent against, the initiative passed by less than one percentage point.

Banning “Assault Weapons” Isn’t the Answer Either

FBI data shows that four times as many individuals are killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also shows that rifles were listed as being used in fewer homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”

A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Presented with the overwhelming evidence of the ban’s inefficacy, Congress did not renew it.

In 2018, a RAND Corporation study found no conclusive evidence that such bans have an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. The immense popularity of the AR-15 has come about at a time when Americans cite self-defense as their primary reason for owning a gun.

The effectiveness of the commonly-owned semi-automatic rifle in defense of self and others was illustrated in 2017 during an attack on a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Upon learning of the attack, resident Stephen Willeford retrieved his AR-15 rifle and shot and wounded the gunman. Since 2017, other Armed Citizens have used commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to thwart an armed robbery in Texas, stop a trio of home invaders in Oklahoma, and halt a stabbing attack in Illinois.

Now Is the Time To Act

Please contact your Senators and Representative TODAY and urge them to oppose ineffective gun control measures that won’t make us any safer but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. You can use this link to send them an email or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill Clinton Touts Failed Gun Ban With Bogus Info

“Universal” Background Checks Aren’t as Universally Popular as You’ve Been Led to Believe

Kamala Harris and Her Perplexing Anti-Gun Ideas

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Move Over Russia: Google Takes Lead in Election Interference [Video]

In a recent congressional testimony on “Google and Censorship through Search Enginesliberal professor Dr. Robert Epstein warned of Google interference in the upcoming presidential elections.

Speaking to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Epstein states that his “research over the past six years shows that Google, via various deliberate manipulations, moved between 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race.”

Cruz pointed out that in 2016, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign’s number one financial supporter was the parent company of Google, Alphabet.

Adding further significance to the conversation on election interference, Epstein warned that the figure of 2.6 million was “rock bottom minimum” in terms of votes influenced. More accurately, he said, the range for Google’s election interference was between 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive Google was in their  techniques.

Those techniques included search engine result manipulation, search suggestion manipulation and affecting answers.

The exchange between Senator Cruz and Epstein also warned that none of these Google interference tactics are competitive.

Instead, Silicon Valley giants like Google have these tools exclusively at their disposal, which raises the question of whether a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires can be trusted with that much influence.

The testimony came at the same time that presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard initiated a lawsuit against Google for $50 million. According to Vice News, the legal complaint centers on the allegation that,

“Google unfairly barred the Hawaii congresswoman from buying ads… [Google] has been criticized by many on the Right for censoring content that favors conservative viewpoints. However, Google’s favoritism of political and policy ideas is more nuanced and self-serving. Simply put, Google supports viewpoints, political causes, and candidates that favors its policy positions over those that do not.”

Gabbard’s campaign was looking to buy ad space in a six-hour window following the first Democratic presidential debate — a debate which she gave an outstanding statement on the “War on Terror.”

While the televised speech was watched by millions of followers, Gabbard understood that it would be critical to her campaign to ride that wave by marketing the event through digital media.

In a report by The New York Timesthe lawsuit also outlines the Gabbard campaign’s belief that “its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at ‘a disproportionately high rate’ when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.”

The recent accusations against Google aren’t raised in a vacuum.

As Clarion Project has previously reported, Google has been caught teaming up with Chinese authorities in surveillance and prosecution measures over China’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Google has been called out for supporting a tracking app that allows Saudi men to control their wives’ and daughters’ movements.

RELATED STORIES:

The Curse of Silicon Valley’s Community Standards

Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History?

Peer Policing: The Next Dangerous Step Silencing Our Voices

Maine Homeless Question Why Asylum Seekers Will Get Housing Before They do!

“How do they have a place for them but not for us?”  – (A homeless woman in Maine)

I can’t believe my eyes.  A local media outlet has dared to publish this news and it comes at a time when the national media is dumping on the President who says Americans should come first when it comes to public assistance!

150 African asylum seekers have jumped ahead of 18,000 Mainers who have been on a waiting list for years for Section 8 housing!

From WGME-13 (hat tip: Jeannine):

I-Team: Homeless Mainers feel left behind as asylum seekers get housing

PORTLAND (WGME) – Nearly 200 asylum seekers have to be out of an emergency shelter at the Portland Expo by this Thursday as the Red Claws move back in.

While state and city leaders scramble to find them housing, some homeless Mainers say they feel left behind.

The I-Team found more than 18,000 Mainers are on a waiting list for Section 8 and that’s just one program to help low-income families get affordable housing.

Many of those people are homeless and hungry and have already been waiting years for their number to be called. [Am I dreaming? I can’t believe any media in America would report this news!—-ed]

Zanetta Smith said she’s thankful for a storage shack in the woods where a friend is letting her live.

She said it’s not much, but it’s better than living in her car where she’s been for the last 5 years.

“It was pretty tough in the winter,” Smith said.

She lost her apartment after she got sick and couldn’t work anymore.

“You fall into bad times, and sometimes it’s hard to get out of it,” she said.

She’s trying to get a place of her own with a toilet, shower, and running water, which her temporary housing doesn’t have.

She said she’s been on the waiting list for a Section 8 voucher for years.

According to Maine Housing, the statewide Maine Centralized Section 8 waiting list is now up to 18,316.

“It’s years, unfortunately. We just don’t have the supply and stock,” said Dan Brennan, director of the Maine State Housing Authority.

Brennan said it could be five years to get a voucher to help pay for rent, and even if you get one, there’s no guarantee you’ll find a place.

“There simply is not enough supply of units available for people who need them,” Brennan said.
Local housing authorities also have waiting lists for public housing.

In Portland, for example, we found nearly 1,400 people waiting for a unit to open up, which could take as long as three years.

“Of course when the asylum seekers come up here they offered them free housing. How do they have a place for them but not for us?” Smith wants to know.

At last check, more than 150 asylum seekers who arrived in Portland since June have moved out of a makeshift shelter at the Portland Expo and into units in Bath, Brunswick, Lewiston, Portland, and Scarborough.

There is more!  Continue reading here.

See all of my previous posts on the DR Congolese migration to Maine, here.

BTW, yesterday I told you that over 11,000 DR Congolese were legally admitted as refugees to the US in the first ten months of this fiscal year.  This bunch in Maine came illegally and are now jumping the line for taxpayer supported housing!

RELATED ARTICLE167 Jewish Groups Urge President to Admit “at least 95,000 refugees” in FY2020

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

Joe Biden’s Adventures in the Natural Law

Hadley Arkes on a fair trade: The Church will not instruct a Biden or a Cuomo about politics, if they’ll stop misleading Catholics about Church teaching.


William Blackstone, that venerable commentator on the English law, remarked that it was a contradiction in terms to suggest that the law may recognize a principle of revolution.  And yet, James Wilson, one of the premier minds among the American Founders, insisted that the law in America could indeed encompass a principle of revolution.

For the law in America began with the recognition that there could be an unjust law – a measure passed with all of the trappings of legality and yet wanting in the very substance of justice.  Americans could readily grasp that point because they began with an understanding of moral truths and natural rights quite apart from the laws that were “posited” or enacted in any place. And that body of natural law would supply the standards for judging the rightness or justice of the things enacted as law.

But by the end of the 19th century, the natural law had become an object of derision among lawyers.  In our own time, conservatives sharpened the reaction against natural law as they recoiled from liberal judges, moving outside the text of the Constitution, inventing new rights to contraception and abortion.  They were false constructions of natural right, but they had to be met by showing what was false in the reasoning.

The conservatives, however, were losing their confidence in moral reasoning, and so their ingenious strategy was to avoid any hint of moral reasoning altogether.

When Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he had shaped a remarkable record as a professor and a wise jurist, but with a deep dubiety about the natural law.   At the infamous hearings over his confirmation, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, was the redoubtable Joseph Biden.  Faced with a legal “positivist,” Biden thought he would embarrass Bork by staking out a strong position in natural law:

As a child of God, I believe my rights are not derived from the Constitution.  My rights are not derived from any government. My rights are not derived from any majority.  My rights are because I exist.  They were given to me and each of my fellow citizens by our creator and they represent the essence of human dignity.

Biden was striking this posture because Bork would have been a likely vote in overturning Roe v. Wade.   That right to abortion was being treated now by the Left as a species of “natural right.”  And yet, James Wilson had raised the question: If we have natural rights as human beings, when do they begin? The answer: as soon as we begin to be.  Which was why, as Wilson said, the common law cast its protection over human beings “when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.”

Despite his Catholic background Joe Biden was, and remains today, a firm defender of a right to abortion.  And yet, if I have those rights, “as a child of God . . . because I exist,” the child in the womb must be the bearer of those rights.   How could a pregnant woman have a right then to sweep away the natural rights of the child by the simple expedient of removing, in a stroke, the bearer of those rights?

Biden’s position might have been salvaged, I guess, if he just didn’t consider the child in the womb a human being on the same plane as any other human. But if our rights do not depend on the votes of majorities, could it be that our very standing as human beings could be left in the hands of majorities, in legislatures or courts?  Or worse: that the decision could be left to the woman and man who have already found an interest in killing the child?

But four years later Biden found himself delivered from his problem. He now had before his Committee, for hearings, Clarence Thomas, who was charged with the offense of taking natural law seriously at times.  That new threat to Roe v. Wade marked a change of 180 degrees.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Biden warned that if we had judges again who took natural law seriously, we would have a throwback to those reactionary judges who resisted the New Deal in the 1930s, with its regulation of business.  We would go back, he said, to the kinds of teachings offered by this Professor Arkes in this preposterous book, First Things.

The years would roll on and Joe Biden would settle in with the clichés offered by the Cuomos and Pelosis: He would not impose, through the laws, the “personal” “beliefs” he had absorbed through his religion. But the Church, on abortion, has never appealed to “beliefs.”  The teaching has drawn on the facts of embryology, woven with principled reasoning.

Since they were moral teachings, made communal, they had never been merely “personal.”  We’ve come to see the deep reluctance of bishops to challenge the leading Catholic politicians who have offered this oh-so-familiar evasion, for they don’t want those politicians charged with the offense of taking orders from their Church.

And yet, one wonders why something as simple as this may not be said: The Church would not tell the Bidens and Cuomos what to say as they make their careers in politics, but they surely would have no moral right to mislead a wide audience of Catholics about the teachings of their own Church.

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

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: Voter ID. Rep. Bob Barr: Speech Trump Needs to Make. Red Flag bills.

GUESTS:

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform — as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. His analysis and commentary have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Politico, Human Events, National Review Online and Townhall. Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department

TOPICVoter ID Opponents Lose Again!!

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPICThe Follow-up Speech Trump Needs to Make

Rob Natelson has divided his professional life between the private for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and state and local government. A former law professor and nationally known constitutional scholar, he is currently a self-employed consultant who serves as senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver.

TOPICRed Flag bills: Attack on the Bill of Rights!!

WARNING: Thanos is Still Alive… And Everywhere.

When we last talked about Thanos, we focused on the nature of resources, the value of humanity, and the history of failed overpopulation doomsday proclamations.

This time, we’re following up on some of those themes with a deeper discussion of environmentalism and the role wealth creation plays in generating better standards of living for both people *and* the environment around us, then we shift gears to the concept of “central planning” and explain why Thanos’ is no different than countless historical and modern tyrants who believe they can easily plan out the future for billions (or trillions) of people… and what inevitably happens when things don’t go their way.

CREDITS: Written & Produced by Sean W. Malone. Edited by Arash Ayrom & Sean W. Malone.

EDITORS NOTE: This Foundation for Economic Education video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why Is California Such a Mess?

The glamour and sophistication often associated with California stands in startling difference to its reality. The Golden State, home to some of the wealthiest people in the US, is also home to a disproportionate number of people who are living in poverty.

Check out FEE’s newest Out of Frame video, “Thanos is Still Alive… And Everywhere.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Foundation for Economic Education video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

President Donald J. Trump is Ensuring Non-Citizens Do Not Abuse Our Nation’s Public Benefits

PROTECTING PUBLIC RESOURCES: The Trump Administration is taking action to help ensure that non-citizens in this country are self-sufficient and not a strain on public resources.  

  • The Trump Administration is releasing a final rule that will protect American taxpayers, preserve our social safety net for vulnerable Americans, and uphold the rule of law.
  • This action will help ensure that if aliens want to enter or remain in the United States they must support themselves, and not rely on public benefits.
  • An alien who receives public benefits above a certain threshold is known as a “public charge.”
    • Aliens will be barred from entering the United States if they are found likely to become public charges.
    • Aliens in the United States who are found likely to become public charges will also be barred from adjusting their immigration status.
  • President Trump is enforcing this longstanding law to prevent aliens from depending on public benefit programs.
    • The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that those seeking to come to the United States cannot be a public charge.
  • For many years, this clear legal requirement went largely unenforced, imposing vast burdens on American taxpayers. Now, public charge law will finally be utilized.

ENCOURAGING SELF-SUFFICIENCY: Self-sufficiency has long been a basic principle of our Nation’s immigration laws that has enjoyed widespread support.

  • Public charge has been a part of United States immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility.
  • Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed two bipartisan bills in 1996 to help stop aliens from exploiting public benefits.
    • This included the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
    • As Congress made clear at the time, it is our national policy that aliens should “not depend on public resources to meet their needs.”
  • Americans widely agree that individuals coming to our country should be self-sufficient, with 73 percent in favor of requiring immigrants to be able to support themselves financially.

PRESERVING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET: We must ensure that non-citizens do not abuse our public benefit programs and jeopardize the social safety net needed by vulnerable Americans. 

  • Large numbers of non-citizens and their families have taken advantage of our generous public benefits, limited resources that could otherwise go to vulnerable Americans.
  • 78 percent of households headed by a non-citizen with no more than a high school education use at least one welfare program.
  • 58 percent of all households headed by a non-citizen use at least one welfare program.
  • Half of all non-citizen headed households include at least one person who uses Medicaid.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Blacks Should Ignore the Liberal Agenda

This Sheriff Was Sued for Cooperating With ICE. Now, He’s Vindicated.

VIDEO: Former Islamist Extremist Describes His Escape From the Ideology

What leads a person to become an Islamist extremist? For one immigrant, it was not fitting in with his American classmates.

Mohammed Khalid, a former Islamist extremist, described what drew him to the radical ideology and why he left it at an event last month at The Heritage Foundation.

Khalid, now a scholar in cybersecurity studies at the University of Maryland, was born in the United Arab Emirates and lived in Pakistan before emigrating to the United States in 2010.

As a 14-year-old struggling to fit in at an American public high school, Khalid said he turned to the internet to make sense of what some saw as the negative connotation of his first name, “Mohammed.”

He said he quickly became enthralled with the answers online extremists offered.

He absorbed as much material as he could, Khalid said, watching propaganda videos that painted the West in a negative light. He said the ideology resonated with him because he remembered seeing the same clips on the news when he lived in Pakistan.

“One of the biggest things that I remember was that the Twin Towers, when they were falling down—I could not forget one of the comments,” Khalid said. “One of the commentators was like, ‘Well, maybe they had it coming.’ This was when it began to kind of make sense to me, that well, maybe what’s happening to me is reflective of a wider ideology that I’m not aware of.”

At 16, Khalid said he was spending 40 hours a week communicating with Islamists through password-protected online forums, translating Islamist propaganda videos into English to radicalize American Muslims. He confided in these Islamists, whom he considered closer than family.

“The more I confided in them, the more separated and secluded I became from my own family,” Khalid said. “My family could not figure out what was wrong with me; they did not know what was happening because I kept it very well hidden from them.”

Khalid was arrested in April 2014, charged with conspiracy to provide material to terrorists, and convicted. He says he spent five years in federal prison.

At 17, he was the youngest person to be convicted of terrorism-related charges in the U.S.

Slowly, with the help of officers at the juvenile detention center, he said, he began to emerge from the extremist mindset.

The officers “explained about their struggles, they explained about their dreams, about their journeys,” Khalid said.

“And so began a process of humanization, a process in which I was able to finally relate to these people whom I’d other-ized under the umbrella of Islamist ideology, and whom I finally, when I reached that beginning step, began to see as human beings,” he said.

When an audience member asked whether it is possible for Muslims to reject extremism without leaving their faith, Khalid, who remains a Muslim, answered yes:

I see … a lot of my friends actually struggling to reconcile [Islam] with the society they find themselves in. They want to be partakers of this American culture. At the same time, they want to hold on to a Muslim identity that unfortunately, you know, sometimes is collapsed together with a whole bunch of outdated traditions. … I think moving forward, a lot of people individually have to decide how they want to interpret the religion, instead of letting religion be this one-size-fits-all approach.

Maajid Nawaz, founder and chairman of the London-based counterextremism think tank Quilliam, also spoke at the event.

Nawaz said the most vulnerable groups in society are former Muslims. He suggested that Islamic theology should be updated to develop a “Western Muslim identity.”

Muslims have a responsibility to respect those who leave the religion, he added, rather than isolating or targeting them.

“If Muslims … want to explore other faith traditions, or none, we have to protect them and their right to do so,” Nawaz said. “Because in our communities still, that is a big to-do, and they are discriminated against.”

COLUMN BY

Carmel Kookogey

Carmel Kookogey is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


A Note for our Readers:

Conservative lawmakers MUST be able to point to tremendous policy victories they have been able to achieve by the end of 2019.

To do that, they will need to be focused on a few specific priorities before the end of the year arrives.

Guess who has the ideas for a clear plan policy agenda for conservative leadership? That’s right — The Heritage Foundation.

Click here to learn how you can do your part in achieving policy victories for conservatives everywhere today.

LEARN MORE >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Nazism returns: European Union to put warning labels on Jewish-made products

Europe has gone down this road before. It didn’t end well. This time, its principal motivator is the continent’s rapidly growing Muslim population, as well as its endless infatuation with an increasingly anti-Semitic Left.

Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, August 9, 2019:

The European Union is poised to mandate that Israeli products made in contested territories carry consumer warning labels, a decision that could trigger American anti-boycott laws and open up what legal experts describe as a “Pandora’s box” of litigation, according to multiple sources involved in the legal dispute who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice recently issued non-binding opinion arguing that EU law requires Israeli-made products to be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.”

The decision was seen as a major win for supporters of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel and its citizens. Pro-Israel activists, as well as the Jewish businesses involved in the legal dispute, see the decision as an ominous warning sign that they say is reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.

With the EU court’s 15 judge panel now poised to issue its own binding judgment in the case, legal experts are warning that a potential decision mandating such labeling could pave the way for goods from any disputed territory to receive such treatment. The decision also could trigger U.S. anti-boycott laws meant to stop Israeli-made goods from being singled out for unfair treatment on the international market….

The legal dispute first began after France passed a law mandating that products made in the West Bank territory of Israel be labeled as coming from an “Israeli colony,” a label not applied to any other products across the globe.

The term “Israeli colony” is not legally required to be applied under EU law and was seen as overly burdensome by Israeli business leaders.

Following the French decision, the Israeli Psagot winery filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination against Jewish companies. That lawsuit eventually made its way to Europe’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.

That court now appears poised to affirm the advocate general’s opinion mandating that Israeli goods be labeled in a fashion that opponents say is unfair and anti-Semitic in nature….

RELATED ARTICLES:

The New York Times, Aftenposten, Robert Spencer, Richard Spencer, and journalistic standards in 2019

NY imam active in interfaith work distributes pro-jihad propaganda on the side

Missouri: Muslim migrant gets five years prison dawah for providing support to jihad terrorists

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

The New York Times, Aftenposten, Robert Spencer, Richard Spencer, and journalistic standards in 2019

The New York Times and Norway’s Aftenposten are both respected pillars of “journalism,” but neither would know the facts if they came up to them and yelled “Extry! Extry! Read all about it!” Just ask former U.S. President Robert Nixon and the celebrated atheist Robert Dawkins.

Oh wait, did I get those names wrong? Don’t ask Aftenposten or the Times. They certainly won’t know. The ignorant, ill-informed and inattentive frequently confuse me with the white supremacist neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, but for major establishment media sources to do it bespeaks a carelessness with the facts that doesn’t speak well of their other coverage.

“Ti ting du må vite for å forstå Sverige,” by Bjarne Riiser Gundersen, Aftenposten, August 9, 2019:

Fascisten Robert Spencer, som grunnla alt-right-bevegelsen i USA, beskriver i dag Sverige som «mest alt-right i Europa» og samarbeider tett med svenske forbundsfeller. Dette bakteppet er nødvendig for å forstå svensk debattkultur på 2000-tallet.

That is: “Ten things you need to know to understand Sweden”:

Fascist Robert Spencer, who founded the Alt-Right movement in the United States, today describes Sweden as “the most alt-right state in Europe” and works closely with Swedish allies. This background is necessary to understand the culture of the Swedish debate in the 2000s.

I did not found the alt-right movement (and have nothing to do with it), I’m not a fascist, and I never said Sweden was “the most alt-right state in Europe.” The bumbling Bjarne Riiser Gundersen has mixed me up with the white supremacist neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.

Meanwhile, there is this: “The global machine behind the rise of far-right nationalism,” by Jo Becker, New York Times, August 10, 2019:

Leaked video showed two Sweden Democrat MPs and the party’s candidate for attorney general hurling racist slurs at a comedian of Kurdish descent, then threatening a drunken witness with iron pipes. Under Akesson and Karlsson, the party has hosted American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

Searching around, I found several articles in which Richard Spencer and the Sweden Democrats are both discussed, but none of them say Richard Spencer ever spoke for the Sweden Democrats. However, around 2010 or 2011 I spoke for them in Stockholm, not about “white nationalism,” to which I do not adhere, but about the threat of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others.

So far both the New York Times and Aftenposten have ignored requests for a correction. Journalism, they call it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Former Islamist Extremist Describes His Escape From the Ideology

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

Federal Lawsuit Filed On Behalf of Marine Dad Banned from School Property After He Objected to Islamic Indoctrination of Daughter

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yesterday afternoon, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of former Marine, John Kevin Wood, and his wife, Melissa, who refuse to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda in her high school World History class.  The lawsuit was filed against the Charles County Public Schools, the Board of Education, and the Principal and Vice-Principal of La Plata High School located in La Plata, Maryland.

The Woods’ daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes.  The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”  For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam.  Moreover, the second part of the statement, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader.  The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam.

Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its 11th grade students, including the Woods’ daughter, that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The Charles County Public Schools also taught the following:

  • “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful
  • “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
  • The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are thereforeobedient.”

Read the two exhibits containing Student worksheets here.

The sugarcoated version of Islam taught at La Plata High School did not mention that the Koran explicitly instructs Muslims “to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.”  (Sura 9-5)

When John Kevin Wood discovered the Islamic propaganda and indoctrination of his daughter, he was rightfully outraged.  He immediately contacted the school to voice his objections and to obtain an alternative assignment for his daughter.

The Woods, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and our Savior, that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, and that following the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.  The Woods believe that it is a sin to profess commitment in word or writing to any god other than the Christian God.  Thus, they object to their daughter being forced to deny the Christian God and to her high school promoting Islam over other religions.

The school ultimately refused to allow the Woods’ daughter to opt-out of the assignments, forcing her to either violate her faith by pledging to Allah or receive zeros for the assignments.  Together, John Kevin Wood, Melissa Wood, and their daughter chose to remain faithful to God and refused to complete the assignments, even though failing grades would harm her future admission to college and her opportunities to obtain college scholarships.

Adding insult to injury, in an effort to silence all pro-Christian speech in her school, La Plata’s principal, without a hearing or any opportunity to refute the false allegations against him, issued a “No Trespass” notice against John Kevin Wood denying him any access to school grounds.

Wood served 8 years in the Marine Corps.  He was deployed in Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm and lost friends to Islamic extremists.  A few years later, Wood responded as a firefighter to the 9-11 Islamic terrorist attack on the Pentagon.  Wood witnessed firsthand the destruction created in the name of Allah and knows that Islam is not “a religion of peace.”  The school prevented John Kevin Wood from defending his daughter’s Christian beliefs against Islamic indoctrination, even though as a Marine, he stood in harm’s way to defend our nation, and the Charles County Public Schools.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “Defendants forced Wood’s daughter to disparage her Christian faith by reciting the Shahada, and acknowledging Mohammed as her spiritual leader. Her World History class spent one day on Christianity and two weeks immersed in Islam. Such discriminatory treatment of Christianity is an unconstitutional promotion of one religion over another.”

Thompson added, “The course also taught false statements such as “Allah is the same God worshiped by Christians, and Islam as a “religion of peace. Parents must be ever vigilant to the Islamic indoctrination of their children under the guise of teaching history and multiculturalism.  This is happening in public schools across the country.  And they must take action to stop it.”

The Woods’ lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Defendants violated their constitutional and statutory rights, a temporary and permanent injunction barring Defendants from endorsing Islam or favoring Islam over Christianity and other religions, and from enforcing the no trespassing order issued against John Kevin Wood.

Read entire Federal Complaint here.

EPSTEIN DEAD: The Media, “Epstein committed Suicide.” Joe Biden, “We choose truth over facts.”

Statement from Attorney General William P. Barr on the Death of Jeffrey Epstein

Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement:

“I was appalled to learn that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead early this morning from an apparent suicide while in federal custody. Mr. Epstein’s death raises serious questions that must be answered. In addition to the FBI’s investigation, I have consulted with the Inspector General who is opening an investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Epstein’s death.”


When news broke of American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Edward Epstein being taken out of Manhattan’s Metropolitan Correctional Center on a stretcher CNN ran this headline “Jeffrey Epstein has died by suicide, sources say.”

How can CNN know this is true? Because they want it to be true. As Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden said at a small campaign rally in Iowa the day before, “We choose truth over facts.”

CNN and many other news outlets were running similar “truth over facts” headlines. The presumption (their chosen truth) is that Epstein committed suicide without any facts to prove it. Sources are not facts, as we have learned from two years of lies about Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Facts are facts. Facts lead to the truth.

There are three possibilities in the death of Epstein:

  1. He died of natural causes.
  2. He committed suicide.
  3. He was murdered.

The only way we the people will know the facts is after the results of the FBI investigation and the DOJ IG report are released. These investigations will include the gathering of all evidence (including video of Epstein in his cell), an autopsy to determine the cause of death and a review of everything that happened in the days leading up to Epstein being found dead.

In a column titled “AUDIO: Jeffrey Epstein DEAD FOR HOURS On Suicide Watch With Cameras In Cell Before EMS Arrived” investigative journalist Laura Loomer reported:

Exclusive sources for LauraLoomer.us tell us that at around 6:20 am EST, Manhattan Correctional Center (MCC) requested First Responders for an inmate who was found unresponsive.

Jeffrey Epstein, 66, was found unresponsive this morning in his cell in his bed, and was cold to touch when correctional officers entered to wake him for breakfast. Our sources say that there were no injuries visible and they began chest compressions while EMS were en route.

[ … ]

There are reports from MSM claiming that Epstein hung himself which are categorically FALSE. Epstein’s body was cold to touch which means he had been dead for at least 4 hours, and if he had hung himself, one of the TWO cameras in his cell would have alerted the officers monitoring them. The reports being pushed through MSM are contradictory to that which our exclusive sources and the EMS recording states.

There would not have been a way for Epstein to commit suicide because while on suicide watch, one does not have clothes, bed sheets, or shoelaces. Inmates on suicide watch only have a smock and a hole in the ground for using the restroom. [Emphasis added]

Listen to  the below audio after the 2 min 40 sec mark where dispatchers confirm that Epstein was stiff and cold.

How Epstein died is pure speculation at this point.

The media has done what it always does, report what they want to believe rather than report the facts. Headlines are more important than the facts. Let the facts come out.

As Mark Twain said, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Questions Swirl Around Epstein’s Death

What’s Next for Epstein Investigation

Yes, You Heard That Right. MSNBC Just Tossed Out A Conspiracy Theory About Jeffrey Epstein’s Death 

Bill Clinton Wanted To Appoint A Lawmaker Caught In The Epstein Scandal To The Supreme Court

RELATED VIDEOS:

Significant Questions Following Epstein’s Apparent Suicide

It’s in writing. Pedophilia is a part of the postmodern agenda.