Tag Archive for: Fitna

Iran: Playing With Diplomacy

/in , , /by

As the latest deadline in the international negotiations with Iran expires today, millions of Iranians are on the streets. They are not marching because of the talks, nor are they marching because it is the last Friday of Ramadan. They are marching because this latest ‘final’ day of negotiations is also ‘Al-Quds Day’ and thus an annual opportunity – inaugurated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini – to take to the streets and chant ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’

Back in Geneva, America’s negotiating team are presumably immune to the import of such occasions. A couple of weeks ago, when the Iranian Parliament decried the idea of international access to Iranian military and nuclear sites, the Parliamentary session ended with representatives on the floor chanting ‘Death to America’. In many ways this goes to the heart of the fallacy that is happening in Geneva. Because the American administration seems to see the Iranian regime as an entity that is open to change; one that desires normalisation not as a short-term tactic but as a long-term wish. When this US administration looks to Tehran it does not see an illegitimate regime which survives on a diet of anti-Western hatred, but a plausible negotiating partner. Whatever it is that President Obama and Secretary Kerry think they see in the unsmiling faces of the Ayatollahs is something which is hard to see in Iran on this day of all days.

On Wednesday this week, The Henry Jackson Society held a panel event with experts on Iran – including Emanuele Ottolenghi – who considered this latest round of talks. One issue which arose was the question of the endless extensions to the Geneva talks. On and off, the P5+1 have been at this process for several years now. And yet every time there appears to be the presumption that, as the Iranians run down the talk’s deadlines again and again, a couple more days will solve it. Is it really likely, after years, that the problems will be solvable given another 48 hours? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are stalling?

This past week it appeared for a moment that the latest Iranian gambit was to demand a lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran. In reality, this was probably no more than an attempt by the Iranians to split the European and the Americans from the Russians and Chinese. As the representatives of the international community go through another final round of talks, and attempts to schedule in the next final round as well, is there not another possibility here? Is it not in fact possible that the Iranians are in a position akin to that of Yasser Arafat at Camp David?

On that occasion it did not matter how long the Americans and Israelis kept at the negotiations for. It did not even matter that in the end the Israelis put more on the table than at any time before. What mattered was that Arafat never intended to sign a deal – not just not the deal in front of him, but any deal. It is the hope of the American representatives in Geneva that the Iranians desperately want a deal. But the deals they are considering keep offering them more and more and yet, they still don’t take them. Is it not possible that the millions of people marching through Iran today, rather than the negotiators in Geneva, are the ones who are really speaking on behalf of the regime?

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

mendozahjsLike a slow motion train wreck, the Eurozone crisis sparked by Greece’s parlous position continues to command attention across the continent. Although in an extraordinary turnaround from the position unfolding earlier in the week – when the Greek people rejected an austerity deal designed to secure a third tranche of bailout funds – it now appears that their irresponsible leaders have reversed position and submitted a package to Greece’s creditors that is even tougher than that previously rejected, and which does not mention debt relief at this juncture.

In this column last week, I suggested that Greece’s Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, was largely to blame for the situation of Greece careering towards Grexit through a series of political missteps. I think this view has been vindicated by a new development that has evidently pleased Eurozone leaders and the financial markets judging by their immediate positive reaction.

Having won his snap referendum by stoking up Greek nationalism and the sense of defiance that has been the hallmark of Greek resistance to overwhelming odds against them in the past, it remains to be seen how Tspiras is going to be able to sell one of the more remarkable political climbdowns of recent years to his people. He has evidently decided that the costs of a likely Grexit resulting from the seductive siren song of “an end to austerity and business as usual” are too high to bear. But having encouraged Greeks to support this idea, he will now have to convince them that there is no alternative to a negotiated deal.

While the beginning of the end – it does of course remain to be seen how any deal agreed will be implemented – of this saga should be welcomed, this has hardly been the EU’s, or Liberal Democracy’s, finest hour. The Eurozone has been exposed once again as a political project masquerading as an economic one, with no sense of how it will resolve this contradiction.  And Liberal Democracy’s ideals have been shaken by the Greek Prime Minister’s abuse of a direct democratic referendum process that says more about his personal political needs than those of the nation, and which will now be reversed without the Greek people having any say in the final outcome. Let us hope Europeans can learn from this shambles or else many more tears will follow from where Greek ones have already been shed.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Iranian girls show their hands, marked with the words “Down with USA,” at a demonstration in Tehran.

Survey of American Muslims: Sharia and Violence Are ‘Acceptable’

/in , , , /by

We are constantly told that only a tiny minority of Muslims hold extremist views and that Muslims make wonderful citizens. But a recent survey refutes all of this optimistic propaganda.

The survey tell us that significant numbers of Muslims in America do not want to be ruled by our Constitution but want Sharia law. Nearly a third of the Muslims said that violence to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws are acceptable. Nearly 10% of American Muslims say that Islamic State is real Islam.

Why do we want to admit more Muslims who oppose our laws and customs? How can Muslims be true citizens of America?

A recent survey shows thousands of American Muslims support shariah and jihad.

EDITORS NOTE: The survey discussed by Dr. Warner reveals the level at which American Muslims are “Fitnaphobic.” The results show, “[S]ignificant minorities embrace supremacist [Fitnaphobic] notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.” To read the survey click here.

The rejection of the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” is based upon the Quranic requirement that shariah be preeminent. Anyone resisting the imposition of shariah law [Fitna] must be stopped, by any and all means available.

Fitnaphobes cannot, by definition, be loyal to their host country’s laws, in this case the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America. They may pretend to adhere to the host countries laws until such time as they are numerous enough to impose shariah and thereby end the Fitna.

Putting a Fitnaphobe in any position of authority, public or private, can pose a national security threat to the host nation.

To learn more visit Fitnaphobia.com.

How Team Obama helps The Organization of Islamic Cooperation wage Jihad on Freedom of Expression

/in , , /by

Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West.  What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda.  The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”.  In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including:  jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.

Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda.  As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.

Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack.  Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”

The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.

The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.

In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts.  As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that:

Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.  Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

EDITORS NOTE: For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series. Readers may purchase The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech in Kindle or paperback format on Amazon. Click here for a free PDF of the newly released monograph.

Dr. Peter Pry: On Iran’s Nuclear and Electro-Magnetic-Pulse (EMP) Weapons

/in , , /by

One of the world’s top experts on nuclear weaponry and Electro-Magnetic-Pulse (EMP) weapons is our in-studio guest as we discuss a variety of critical issues including President Obama’s failure to negotiate successfully with Iran.

Dr. Peter Pry, a former CIA analyst details many complex issues in a very simple manner so that non-experts can understand the importance of prohibiting Iran from getting nuclear weapons. BUT, Dr. Pry is of the intellectual school which believes Iran, like North Korea, already has nuclear weapons and is simply “playing” the West to increase their nuclear capability!

Sooner or later, whether by man or nature, an EMP will hit the United States and many of us will die.

Sound crazy, it is, but even more crazy, it’s TRUE!

VIDEO: Three Reasons Every Religion is Better Than Islam

/in , , /by

Every religion is better than Islam, and so is atheism. Here are three reasons:

  1. All religions, except Islam, have the Golden Rule as an ethical cornerstone. Instead Islam has a dualistic ethical code.
  2. In Islam, the Sharia demands that all humanity submit to Islamic customs and law.
  3. The only religion that can kill apostates is Islam. Leaving Islam is a capital crime under the Sharia.

Some say that all religions are the same. But, from these reasons, we can see that Islam is inferior to all others.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Syria: Obama-backed rebels persecute Christians, force them from their homes

UK: Man carries Islamic State flag by Big Ben & Houses of Parliament, police refuse to arrest him

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about Islam and why they slaughter visit: www.Fitnaphobia.com.

Israel’s Dan Gordon: “Renaissance Warrior”

/in , , /by

day of the dead book coverWe have interviewed many wonderful people on our show, “Enemies of the State,” and just a few have earned the description of “Renaissance Man.” Today we introduce you to a true Renaissance Warrior, Israel Defense Force Captain Dan Gordon (Reserve) who is both a citizen of Israel and the United States of America.

With service of over 40 years in the IDF, Dan has also made his mark as a very successful author, screenplay writer and movie producer. Tom and the United West team take a look at Captain Gordon’s powerful new thriller, Day of the Dead – Gaza, which details real-life action during Israel’s 50 day war in the summer of 2014 with probable catastrophic scenarios that the various Islamic jihad organization will use against Israel, The USA and the West. Tune in and buckle up for information so true and so frightening that it will make an Islamic State’s beheading of a journalist look like child’s play.

On this show Dan Gordon details the current war-footing that exists in Israel as that tiny country, surrounded by millions of enemies, prepares for the inevitable showdown, which will determine the future of Israel and the West!

Are Israeli Standards Too High?

/in , , , /by

This week the UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon mooted the idea of bombing Islamic State (IS) targets inside Syria as well as Iraq. The suggestion came after the massacre of 30 British tourists on a beach in Tunisia. The British government is said to be waiting for final confirmation that there was a link between the terrorist in Tunisia and IS. Should that be proved, they appear willing to take action.

But modern warfare is increasingly a matter not just of those who take part but of the widest possible constituency. Military experts often talk of the worrying ‘long screwdriver’ approach to military force today, where a General, a minister or sometimes even a Prime Minister is required to approve and sign off every conceivable target. Anyone who can stand back from the detail can consider how much operational effectiveness suffers from this kind of passing of the buck upwards.

It also means that any mistakes are able to go right to the top of government. This – and many related subjects – were centres of the discussion which HJS initiated in Westminster several times this week. In separate events with journalists, Parliamentarians and the British public this week we played host to two of America’s top military experts. Major General Michael Jones and Professor Geoffrey Corn recently took part in a survey of Israeli responses during last year’s Gaza war. The in-depth study brought out many fascinating and important details about a widely misunderstood conflict.

But among the most important aspects of their presentation was confirmation of what we have often said in this place – that the high standard which the Israeli military and the air force in particular exercise has begun to concern Israel’s allies.

As the General and Professor showed, it seems highly unlikely that Britain, the USA or any other ally is going to take the time to text people to warn them of a strike nearby, or send leaflets to warn of a strike in advance or to use a non-lethal munition on the roof of a house as a final warning to exit the building. All of these Israeli tactics significantly minimize civilian suffering during conflict. But they also considerably, necessarily hamper operational effectiveness. Will any other country, in any other conflict, take this sort of care? It seems unlikely.

As Britain considers airstrikes inside Syria, we will have an advantage that the Israelis do not enjoy. Whenever Israel carries out an operation in the Gaza, the entirety of the world’s media not only focuses on the action but focuses on it from inside the war-zone, often deliberately or accidentally working as the propaganda tools of the Hamas government. Because of the way in which IS operates it is highly unlikely that any remotely impartial outside force will be present to observe where the British missiles hit or what collateral damage they cause. Decent people may rue this fact or they may quietly be thankful for it. But it is a curious fact that the one thing none of them will be able to publicly admit is that their aim will be to behave as well as the Israelis.

 

mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

You wouldn’t know it given the glorious sunshine that most of the continent is basking in, but Europe faces an epic crisis this weekend in the form of the Greek referendum on economic reform. With the polls too close to call, it is anyone’s guess which way the Greek people will choose to jump. Their choice has not been made any easier by the way this crucial debate has fallen foul of both local and pan-EU politics.

Firstly to the Greeks themselves. For all the well-documented disasters of their economy and taxation system, there would have been a perfectly obvious way for the Greeks to have had both a lifting of the extremities of austerity as well as an EU bailout. Fellow Euro members are desperate to keep Greece inside the Euro for political purposes – the Euro being a political rather than economic construct as on the latter terms several members would have now been ejected. Greece, in its turn, has made huge strides in achieving a primary surplus on its balance of payments. It should not have been beyond the wit of wisdom of man to have come up with a face saving proposal that would allow for some symbolic measures to please the Greek electorate while also continuing the work of paring back the deficit.

But while the Eurocrats seemed keen to tango, Alexis Tsipras of Greece’s extreme left-wing Syriza government did not. Tsipras not only made a mockery of the negotiation process with his hasty referendum gambit, but also doomed the possibility of that compromise emerging by taking the decision out of the arena in which it could have been constructed.

Moreover, the indecipherable way in which the referendum question has been structured and the controversial way ‘No’ has been placed above ‘Yes’ in the ballot has been designed to lead the Greeks into a cul de sac from which there is no escape. For Tsipras’ claim that Greece can reject what is now on offer and still stay in the Euro is an extraordinary one to make. And should it prove that voting ‘No’ leads to Greece’s exit, then all of the attendant economic misfortunes that will follow – and which will make Greece’s current crisis seem tame in comparison – will be on his head.

Of course, Eurozone countries deserve their share of the blame too. If Greece was an irresponsible borrower originally, then they were irresponsible lenders. The high-handed way Eurocrats conduct negotiations seems calculated to enrage rather than calm spirits. And the recriminations that have followed the referendum announcement may well lead to a nationalist backlash from Greeks should the worst happen and Greece leave the Euro in disgrace. Let us not forget that the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is a major force already in Greek politics.

Of course, sanity may yet prevail and the Greeks could vote ‘Yes’. It won’t be the best deal Greece could have got, but through the actions of their Prime Minister, it is the only sensible one they are left with. If so, then the resignation he has promised as a consequence of such a vote would be a fitting political epitaph for someone who has gambled so recklessly with his country’s future.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Dr. Freddy El Baiady: Egypt Combats Terrorism in the Sinai

/in /by

Dr. Freddy El Baiady, a former senator at Egypt senate house and a member of the supreme committee of ESD party, analyzing and commenting on the current political situation and the terrorist attacks in Egypt and in the region.

RELATED ARTICLE: Rockets Land in Israel, Egypt’s ISIS Affiliate Claims Responsibility

Independence Day: Why we fight

/in , , , /by

I have posted the substance of this year after year, and wasn’t even going to bother this year, with so many Americans so eager to throw their freedom away with both hands, but I decided to do so after all when I saw this cynical tweet from Harris Zafar, who has been unmasked more than once as an opponent of the freedom of speech, as well as a deeply dishonest dissembler about the global jihad. I will not stand by silently as the forces of deception and hatred appropriate America’s foundational principles and pretend that those principles are in accord with their sinister agenda. So here again is why we fight:

Another Independence Day is upon us, and it always bears repeating that the struggle for freedom has not changed, and will not change. It is the eternal struggle over whether human beings will live free, or willingly submit to slavery.

I see slaves seeking slavery, and slaves defending slavery, all over the world today. As those who are standing against tyranny are increasingly branded as “enemies of the people,” demonized, and marginalized, the avoidance of slavery will be harder than ever, and not coming solely from jihad. Nonetheless, the enablers of one are the enablers of the other. I see people defending oppressors and carrying water for bullies and tyrants, and thinking all the while that they’re serving the cause of freedom.

In reality, this is what it is all about. You are either fighting for one thing, or the other. It is always useful to check one’s daily efforts against this, for if you’re not working to advance the cause of one side of this comparison, you’re working to advance the other.

1. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

What we must defend:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

Non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” — Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami

2. Equality of rights before the law.

What we must defend:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence

What we must defend it against:

“The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” —‘Umdat al-Salik, o4.9

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution. … Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash. … Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed. … Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3. Freedom of speech

What we must defend:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

“In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.” — Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference

“Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator…” — Daily Times, June 8, 2008

4. Freedom of religion, and non-establishment of religion

What we must defend:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What we must defend it against:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” — CAIR co-founder and longtime board chairman Omar Ahmad (he denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her story)

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” — CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper

The 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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” — Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991

Never surrender. Never submit. Never be silenced. Freedom and independence forever.

RELATED ARTICLES:

July 4th: Muslims Tweet Calls for Bloodshed and Slaughter

July 4 celebrations at U.S. Air Force base canceled fears of a jihad attack

Islamic State video shows mass execution in ruins of Palmyra

Netherlands: Muslims riot, chant against “Jewish murderers”

It’s Ramadan 2015 — Time to Kill Some Jews! [VIDEO]

/in , , /by

If you want to break the Fitna code regarding how Muslims can increase the killing of Jews during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan tune in to our daily radio show – Monday thru Friday.

We start out with a little history lesson where we try to convince us Americans to change Independence Day to July 3rd! Huh?

Then we move into a report from Jerusalem Jane, in Jerusalem, about the many attacks this week, against Jews, by Fitnaphobic Muslims celebrating their Holy Month! Yep, there are dead Jews in Israel because of devote Muslims believing they are doing Allah’s will.

Folks, this is evil personified.

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic State Boy Soldier Reportedly Kills At Least 50 Kurds In Suicide Attack

July 4th and the Unknown Unknowns

/in , /by

The heightened terrorism concerns around the July 4th holiday weekend are troubling. The evolving terror threat in the United States is metamorphosing into one where the greatest concerns are from what former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calls the “unknown unknowns.” Although some pundits panned Rumsfeld for the statement, he was accurate in his diagnosis of the problem.

The older terror models constructed around operational cells, taking orders from a terrorist central-command, are the “known unknowns”, and they still present a clear and present danger. But the difference with these types of threats is that we are aware of many of these groups, many of their affiliated groups, and are currently pursuing an investigative and intelligence gathering strategy to destroy them and their plans.

With self-radicalized terrorists we have a number of challenging “unknown unknowns” investigative and intelligence gathering obstacles which differ from the terror-cell model. Obstacle number one is, we don’t know who these people are? Many of these individuals can learn the tools of the terror trade, and can absorb terrorist propaganda, using nothing more than a keyboard and an Internet connection. This solitary radicalization leaves behind few investigative breadcrumbs because the individual’s limited interaction with others in the terror arena limits the potential for detection and pre-attack mitigation as he crosses paths with the “known” terrorists being tracked and monitored.

Obstacle number two is the self-radicalized terrorist’s tendency to default to simple, yet deadly, attacks using homemade explosives or small arms. Homemade, simple explosive devices can be made by following instructions on the open Internet and by acquiring easily acquired chemicals. Absent any additional surreptitious behavior, the purchase of these easily accessible items is unlikely to arouse suspicion. Again, leaving behind few investigative breadcrumbs. These simple attacks also require little, if any, training. Training requires contacts and actions which can all leave behind a trail of evidence and learning to pull the trigger of a firearm or to remotely depress a detonator device doesn’t require a significant investment of time or energy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Carolyn Kaster/AP.

What You Need to Know Regarding Sharia Law

/in , , /by

The dedicated Muslims throughout the world are on a mad mission of inflicting upon the world their uncivilized form of existence know as shari’ah law.  It is comprised of several authoritative Islamic texts, the chief of which is the Qur’an.  Dedicated Muslims understand the qur’an to be the undisputed so-called holy revelation of allah to be the prophet Muhammad for all Muslims.  As the prolific Islamic author, Dr. Daniel Izzi Dien, noted in his book Outlining Sources of Islamic law.

The Qur’an, also known as the book, al-kitab, represents the most important source of Islamic law, being the ultimate word of the divine.  It is not seen by dedicated Muslims as purely a book of law.  .  But (“the book”) indicates the significance of textual authority, in the Islamic legal mind.  It therefore also implies what was composed and given by Allah.  This so-called first source if Islamic law is to be respected more than any other human made law.  The muslims believe that the qur’an was secured by the divine will and accuracy of the Qur’an as a document can be affirmed on the grounds that it was presented and recorded by oral transmission as well as script.

Of nearly equal importance to the Qur’an in terms of both influence and authority is the Sunnah (the “words and actions, approvals or even silence” ascribe to Muhammad), as recorded in the hadiths.  The Qur’an lays the foundation for the hadiths authoritativeness, commanding true or dedicated Muslims to obey the book and to obey Muhammad.  The Muslim founder, Muhammad likewise declared  that obedience to the qur’an and to his dictates was essential to avoid destruction.  Perhaps this is one of the excuses dedicated Muslims use today to murder, rape, enslave, behead non Muslims and even burn puppies to death.

The hadiths, therefore, are the secondary primary source of Islamic law and are binding authority on how the Qur’an’s dogmatic principles should be administered in Islamic society.  To collections of hadiths are considered “sound” and authoritative; these two are the books are of the Muslim persuasion.  Where the Qur’an and hadiths are silent (or where there is no consensus about authenticity, interpretation, or application of hadiths) the development of the oppressive shari’ah has relied on secondary sources.

One such source is ijma, which is a consensus of academic opinion on any legal issue that arose subsequent to the death of the brutal Muhammad.  The other commonly recognized secondary source of shari’ah qiyas, which are analogized configurations of shari’ah principles to contemporary legal issues by the “highest ranked and most able” shari’ah jurists throughout the Islamic legal tradition.  Due to the various secondary sources of shari’ah and differing levels of acceptance of hadiths among islamists multiple sects, shari’ah differ from nation to nation in the Islamic orb.   This difference of belief and practice within Islam further demonstrates the practical impossibility of incorporating Islamic shari’ah into a foreign legal system or even allowing it to co-exist as a separate legal system.

The framers of the United States Constitution were wise to raft a Bill of Rights that zealously protects religious freedoms while, at the same time, does not establish or force upon Americans, an official national religion.  What resulted are the religion clauses of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Theses clauses, in recognition of the far reaching effects of volitional religious belief, are critical now and were critical at our republic’s founding.  The authors of the constitution were fully aware of the dangers of establishing a combined church and state combination in the national government.

Unfortunately, Islam recognizes no such difference between religion and state.  In fact, Islam is defined as submission to the will of Allah and demands a comprehensive code of laws.  They completely cover the political, social and economic life of the overall community, as well as rituals of worship, including the five times per day bumping of the head on little rugs by Islamic worshiping men.  Many customs of cruelty have emerged out of the dogmatic religion of Islam per instructions within the Qur’an, including the brutal inhumane treatment of women and girls.

The Islamists also believe that wherever they pray, that is automatically their territory and that Allah will provide the means to physically conquer the world.

Whether it is Dearbornistan, MI or near Fort Worth, Texas, Muslims are more boldly either acting out or just demanding the inclusion of shari’ah law into our nations legal system.  On the national level, the Muslim brotherhood is using their numerous American attorney friends and progressive judges to gain an increasingly legal, but unconstitutional foot print within our republic.  May America awaken from her present practice of allowing enemy Muslims to gain a stranglehold on our beloved nation.  If not, we may soon not be able to free ourselves from their evil intentions, without tremendous effort and a substantial loss of life.

Many thanks to the American Center for Law & Justice for informative contributions.

The Ideological Gutting of American Foreign Policy

/in , , , /by

It was clear on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the United States was at war with Islamic radicals, and while there may have been differences of opinion regarding strategy, there was no denying the need to defeat doctrinal terrorism.  But as the U.S. became mired in foreign wars, critics questioned whether its actions were achieving the goal, and ultimately whether the goal was even justified.  Voices on the left falsely claimed that Arab-Muslim extremism was an understandable response to western chauvinism, and instead of condemning terrorists for their actions, they started blaming the victims for allegedly insulting Islam.

We saw it with the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when progressive pundits blamed free expression for inciting violence instead of the ideology that sanctified the killing of “infidels,” “heretics” and “blasphemers.”  Such attitudes arise from a perverse political correctness that elevates radical sensitivities over western cultural values.  But how can secular apologists defer to a doctrine that repudiates liberal democratic traditions?  How can they dignify claims of blasphemy against those who criticize beliefs they don’t consider sacred?

These questions were discussed at a program in Massachusetts entitled, “Freedom Isn’t Free: From the Greatest Generation to the Challenges of Today,” featuring former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, former CIA Operations Officer Clare Lopez and retired Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, Jr., who provided insight into how such issues affect government policy.

Progressives who reflexively condemn religion in politics or any perceived trespass of faith into the affairs of state are strangely silent when the religion is Islam.  Incongruously, they often discourage free speech to avoid insulting radical beliefs.

The panel agreed that such muddled thinking influences the Obama administration’s views regarding national security and foreign policy.  Despite the global threat represented by ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and regardless of the nuclear danger posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the White House has taken the dangerous road of appeasing the unappeasable.  Since his first days in office, President Obama has turned American foreign policy away from its traditional allies and towards an axis of regimes committed to doctrinal totalitarianism.

He seems driven by the progressive compulsion to validate claims of Arab-Muslim victimhood while denying the extremism and anti-Semitism so common in Islamic society.  Secular liberals often misrepresent Islamist aspirations by claiming that jihad means “introspection” or “inner striving,” and by denying the history of Islamic conquest in the Mideast, Asia, North Africa and Europe.  They also ignore the theological motivations for persecuting non-Arabic and non-Muslim indigenous peoples, such as Copts, Yazidis and Maronites.

Lenin described western leftists as “useful idiots” for supporting communism over their own national interests; the term applies to progressives today who defend or justify Islamism.  Frank Gaffney described the left-wing’s relationship with radical Islam as a “red-green alliance.”

According to Gaffney, the term “jihad” has only one meaning under Sharia, and that meaning is holy war.  He said it motivated the 9/11 attacks, the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, the Fort Hood massacre in 2009, and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish market in Paris earlier this year.  While not all Muslims support jihad –indeed many come to the West specifically to escape doctrinal extremism – there is no definition of the concept that preaches respect for “infidels” or their beliefs.

Those unable to engage in violent jihad, says Gaffney, are exhorted to engage in “civilizational jihad” by transforming western society from within.  The process includes disseminating propaganda in public schools, promoting sharia courts over civil courts, pursuing sharia-compliant financing requirements, and using societal institutions to assist in spreading the faith.  Gaffney said the existence of the “Civilizational-Jihadist Process” was confirmed in a Muslim Brotherhood documententitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which sets forth mission and strategy.

The success of this program in the West, said Gaffney, is reflected by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s pervasive influence in the United Nations and the establishment of Sharia compliant zones throughout Europe.  This strategy is pursued in the U.S. through initiatives seeking civil recognition of sharia court jurisdiction, the circulation of educational materials produced by Islamist front organizations, legal and illegal immigration, and efforts to gain access to the White House and the security, defense and intelligence establishments.

Islamist intrusion in government (with the complicity of the left) affects national security through the adoption of policies contrary to American strategic interests, said former CIA officer Clare Lopez.  Progressive-Islamist cooperation, she said, was instrumental in purging the FBI’s clandestine library of materials deemed offensive to Islam – though these materials were essential for teaching how to identify Islamist terrorists – and in depriving the military of the means to spot Islamist sympathizers within the ranks.

According to Lopez, the shielding of Islamists from scrutiny is not simply a case of political correctness run amok, but of government policy to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and support its ascendancy in the Mideast.  She said this was the crux of Presidential Study Directive 11 (“PSD 11”), which reportedly called for backing the Brotherhood to force political change in the Mideast and North Africa.  Leaks from this classifieddocument suggest the administration supported the Brotherhood and related groups when they toppled governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, she explained.

This policy produced disastrous consequences across the region, said Lopez, observing that “the outcomes [were] chaotic … shortsighted and ignorant.”  These would have been egregious if only caused by negligence.  However, the uprisings misleadingly dubbed the democratic “Arab Spring” were ignited by a strategy that in itself “wasn’t error [but] policy,” she said.  These policy failures were especially glaring after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Lopez and the panel believe the Benghazi attack resulted from the administration’s support of militias linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in their quest to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi (and also the governments in Egypt and Tunisia).  Although Qaddafi had renounced terrorism, relinquished weapons of mass destruction, submitted to nuclear inspections, and jailed terrorists released from Gitmo, Islamist opposition militias in Libya were supported with arms funneled by the U.S. through Benghazi.  After he was overthrown, she said, weapons from Benghazi were redirected to anti-government militias in Syria.

During this time the Ansar al-Sharia moved near the consulate and called for attacks on Americans.  Lopez explained that when Ambassador Chris Stephens requested increased security, he was denied by Hillary Clinton’s State Department because of optics; with the 2012 election approaching, the administration wanted to continue claiming it had defeated al-Qaeda and won the war on terror.  Thus, despite multiple warnings of impending attack, no reinforcements were provided, the consulate was overrun and four Americans were killed.  According to Admiral Lyons, there were military assets in the region that could have been deployed, but which inexplicably were not.

The White House and State Department thereafter claimed the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video critical of Islam – although information immediately available showed it was preplanned and unrelated to the video.  The ruse continued for weeks and included Mr. Obama’s statement during a “60 Minutes” interview the next day that it was “too early to know exactly how it came about” and Susan Rice’s repetition of the false video narrative during multiple television appearances.

As the administration supported Sunni militias aligned with the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Syria and North Africa, it pandered to Iranian Shiites around the Persian Gulf.  According to Lopez, Obama’s policy was to recognize Iran as the hegemonic power in the Mideast.  He thus snubbed Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia and embraced a Shiite regime that threatens those allies, condemns America as the “Great Satan,” seeks Israel’s destruction, and exports international terrorism.

The courting of extremist Sunnis on one side of the Mideast and apocalyptic Shiites on the other might seem incongruous, but Admiral Lyons sees it as consistent with the goal of fundamentally changing America.  “Never in my lifetime did I think I’d ever see America taken down by our own administration,” he said, observing that challenging U.S. influence is considered a progressive virtue.  Admiral Lyons believes that President Obama always intended to restructure national policy according to progressive ideals that disparage America, Israel and the West, and instead validate Islamist, Iranian and anti-western interests.

He cites as evidence the President’s use of sequestration to cut defense spending and disarm unilaterally at a time when China and Russia are growing in influence, militant Islam is on the rise, and military reductions are viewed as weakness.  “We’re headed for the smallest army since [before] World War II,” he said, noting that military experts are no longer certain the U.S. could prevail in a conventional regional conflict.  The question is how such fundamental changes could have occurred without significant opposition.

The answer, said the panel, lies in the pervasive acquiescence to anti-American priorities and sensibilities.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the liberal affinity for anti-blasphemy laws that contravene free speech.  The U.N. periodically entertains resolutions seeking to criminalize “slander” of Islam, and these are supported by progressive governments and NGOs.  Moreover, a number of European nations have enacted laws banning criticism of Islam as hate speech.

Though such laws would violate the First Amendment, many American progressives favor them as a way of curtailing “hate-speech” and encouraging diversity.  Even without such laws on the books, liberals often discourage free discourse by accusing those who criticize radical Islam of Islamophobia.  This attitude seems to pervade Obama’s denial of the religious basis of Islamist terrorism, and much of his Mideast policy.

The panel concluded that Obama’s policies have compromised America’s ability to defend itself and lead the world.  He has spurned Israel, appeased Islamists, reduced the military, enabled Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and refused to acknowledge the existential threat of ISIS.  These acts and omissions are not hallmarks of effective leadership, but of submission to a feckless worldview that has damaged U.S. power and influence to a degree that may not be easily reparable.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva – IsraelNationalNews.com.

On Iran: This is What Happens When the World Stays Silent

/in , , /by

When the Jews were being slaughtered in the holocaust the world remained silent. Today Iran repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and attacks ,through its proxy terrorist groups, Jewish and Israeli civilians around the world. If Iran gets the nuclear bomb will the world stay silent again?

To see all the films in the Clarion Project’s Iran short film series visit: http://iran.clarionproject.org/iran_f…

Iran: Deal or No Deal!

/in , , /by

Ha…chalk another win up for the Iranians who are making John Kerry and his negotiating team look like novice riders in the Camel Triple Crown! This fiasco is so serious that all Americans should be up in arms and walk away from any deal with this evil, lying nation.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commented on the extension of nuclear negotiations with Iran:

Once again, the Obama Administration has given into Iran’s obfuscation and stalling tactics. In April, the President announced to the world that the United States had reached ‘a historic understanding with Iran.’ Now, as the Iranian leadership attempts to walk back the key provisions of that deal, we’re told a few more days are required to negotiate a deal that was supposedly concluded months ago. The events of recent weeks have shown that it is clearer than ever that Iran is not serious about resolving longstanding concerns regarding its illicit nuclear program. Another week of negotiations at this point is just another week for further U.S. concessions. Tehran knows this. Our allies and partners in the Middle East see this because they’ve experienced it before.

“The major points of this agreement are already clear, though there may in the coming days be additional American concessions. We already know that this deal is not in the interests of the United States. It will not keep Americans safer. It will only embolden the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism as it expands its influence and sows instability across the Middle East. It will provide billions of dollars to a regime that brutalizes its citizens and acts like a criminal gang by kidnapping American citizens and effectively holding them for ransom. If the President were serious about negotiating a deal that advances our security and protects our allies, such as Israel, he would walk away from the table and impose new sanctions on Iran until the regime comes to the table ready to negotiate seriously. If he instead chooses to conclude a deal that ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, I am confident that a majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it, which will lay the foundation for our next President to undo this disaster.

On today’s show The United West team explains that there is one thing missing from the American negotiating side.

Tune in to find out what, or who is missing and how the States of New Jersey or New York play a role in successful U.S. negotiations.