Posts

NYC: Giant sculpture proclaiming ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet’ goes up at Ground Zero

Said Jenkell: “Given the unique and justified sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center, it came to my mind to propose to remove the sculpture showcasing the flag of Saudi Arabia, or relocate it to a less sensitive location. But there is no way I can do such a thing as the flag of Saudi Arabia is entirely part of the G20 just like any other candy flag of this Candy Nations show.”

City officials should move it. Would a giant sculpture containing Shinto inscriptions be put up at Pearl Harbor? But nothing will be done about this. To move it would be “Islamophobic,” and the de Blasio administration would rather have its teeth pulled out with rusty pliers than do anything that might even give the appearance of “Islamophobia.”

“A Sculpture Celebrating Saudi Arabia Has Been Erected on Ground Zero,” by Davis Richardson, Observer, January 9, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A sculpture celebrating Saudi Arabia’s place in the G20 Summit was erected on the World Trade Center grounds last week, a stone’s throw away from the 9/11 memorial.

Shaped to resemble a piece of candy, the nine-foot-tall statue bears the Kingdom’s emerald flag emblazoned with the Arabic inscription, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the prophet.” It was created by French sculptor Laurence Jenkell in 2011 as part of the larger installation “Candy Nations” which depicts G20 countries as sugary delights….

“I first created flag candy sculptures to celebrate mankind on an international level and pay tribute to People of the entire world,” Jenkell told Observer in a statement. “Given the unique and justified sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center, it came to my mind to propose to remove the sculpture showcasing the flag of Saudi Arabia, or relocate it to a less sensitive location. But there is no way I can do such a thing as the flag of Saudi Arabia is entirely part of the G20 just like any other candy flag of this Candy Nations show.”

The installation was curated and installed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey….

Although the installation was originally created in 2011 to convey “an optimistic message of unity beneath external differences,” its placement at the World Trade Center raises questions given longstanding accusations directed toward Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In 2003, hundreds of families affected by the 9/11 terror attacks sued the Kingdom over its alleged involvement in harboring terrorism—given that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

Last March, a U.S. federal judge rejected Saudi Arabia’s motion to drop the charges.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Nik Shuliahin on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Hope Restored for Syria’s Christians?

Just before Christmas, it appeared the United States was on the verge of quickly withdrawing remaining U.S. troops from Syria, a move which would have thrown the safety, security, and religious freedom of the area into doubt. Now, thankfully, the quick withdrawal isn’t so sure.

When President Trump announced this decision, FRC expressed concern — as did a number of the president’s supporters — about the religious freedom implications of this move. If the United States moves out, ISIS, Turkey, Iran, and other Islamist groups move in. As our own General Jerry Boykin pointed out to CBN News, among the vulnerable are Christian communities, including those made up of former Muslims, who would undoubtedly receive the brunt of ISIS’s rage if the group is allowed to fester and again conquer freed areas of Syria. Syrian Christians also appealed directly to fellow believers in the United States, asking not to be abandoned now, after our support enabled them to fight for some semblance of freedom.

As General Boykin told Fox News over the Christmas break, while he “wants the president to succeed,” he believes it would be a mistake to pull U.S. troops out of Syria this quickly. Aside from the shame of again abandoning our allies the Kurds, any genocide that occurs due to our withdrawal would destroy President Trump’s legacy on ISIS and the Middle East. It makes sense that the president would want to fulfill this campaign promise, but the United States needs to make sure ISIS is fully defeated.

It appears the president is listening. Following his initial statement about a “quick” withdrawal, Trump more recently announced that the withdrawal would take four months. After a recent lunch with the president, Senator Lindsey Graham (who shares our concerns about the move), said Trump “told me some things I didn’t know that make me feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” President Trump “promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise,” Graham said. “We’re not there yet. But as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”

One of the vulnerable areas is known as the Federation of Northern Syria, which is a modern religious freedom miracle — permitting those of all religions (including former Muslims) to live out their faith (something quite rare in the Middle East). Those cultivating this miracle want to build religious freedom for everyone over the long-term — the type of allies the United States needs as we seek to promote religious freedom around the world. Failure to support the work of such allies will inevitably result in destabilization, only causing more people to flee and seek refuge elsewhere.

Aside from the actual problems associated with a quick pull-out, the optics of this potential move are very bad. It appears President Trump spoke with Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan who had threatened to invade Northeastern Syria, and now the United States is planning to pull out. Even if the two leaders have some kind of agreement to protect the Kurds, this looks bad, because Erdogan cannot be trusted. Compounding all this is the fact that our withdrawal could lead to Iran’s increased presence, which will further threaten Israel. Yet now, with the Saudis ready to spend big money to re-build some of Syria, President Trump has a perfect opportunity.

It remains to be seen how this will all play out. With his announcement that our troops will now be withdrawn more slowly, it appears the president recognizes some of the concerns we and others have pointed out, and we are optimistic he will continue to take them into account. In supporting religious freedom models like the Federation of Northern Syria, and helping build them elsewhere in the region, President Trump has an opportunity for a truly historic legacy in the Middle East.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Take a Deep Breath: Pulling Out of Syria And Mattis Leaving is Not The End Of The World 

Open & Shutdown: 2019 Starts with a Stoppage

Opportunity Knocks for EEOC Pick

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by FRC is republished with permission.

Plot Against Toledo Synagogues Is the 105th Islamist Terror Plot or Attack

In early December, an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Ohio arrested 21-year-old Damon Joseph for planning an attack on a synagogue in Toledo, Ohio. Joseph was inspired by ISIS, making this the 105th Islamist terror plot or attack since 9/11 against the U.S. homeland.

Law enforcement first located Joseph on social media where he made posts of weapons and in support of ISIS.

Undercover agents contacted Joseph and he sent them ISIS propaganda and recruitment literature. He expressed support for violent “martyrdom operations” in the U.S. and following the attack on the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue in October.

Joseph expressed interest in carrying out a similar attack.

He then spent the next month deliberating over whether or not to conduct such an attack but ultimately decided that it was time for him to move from “virtual jihad” to “physical jihad.”

By the end of November, Joseph was plotting the specifics of his act of terror, still interested in attacking a synagogue with firearms.

Joseph asked one of the undercover agents if they would be interested in participating in an attack and when the agent responded that he had money available for such an operation, Joseph forwarded a plan of attack and the need for firearms and ammo.

Joseph said there were two synagogues that could be targets but he preferred the larger one because he wanted to “go big or go home.” Joseph then met in person with undercover agents to talk about specific weapons and tactics.

In the following days, the undercover agents sent photos of the weapons they had acquired for the attack. They then met with Joseph to exchange the weapons, which had been rendered inoperable.

Once he took the weapons, Joseph was arrested.

This plot was the 92nd homegrown plot—the terrorist radicalization and plotting occurred here in the U.S.

While many policymakers express concerns over the entry of terrorists in the U.S., this remains a rare area of attack. The U.S. has significantly improved its vetting following 9/11 so that most threats from abroad are now stopped abroad. This does not mean the U.S. can rest on its laurels as policymakers should always be scrutinizing the U.S.’ vetting programs to make sure they are working as well as they can.

But it does mean that the U.S. should be focusing more on how to stop terrorists who radicalize here in the U.S.

Domestic intelligence, undercover agents, other internal law enforcement activities should be improved to counter this internal threat.

The plot also shows the sad reality that anti-Semitic beliefs find fertile ground in many extreme ideologies, including the far right, the far left, and among Islamists. Such beliefs are abhorrent and cut against the founding ideals of the U.S. In his letter to the Hebrew congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, George Washington wrote in 1790 that in the U.S.:

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support…

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants;  while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Inserra

David Inserra

David Inserra specializes in cyber and homeland security policy, including protection of critical infrastructure, as policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @dr_inserra.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

RELATED ARTICLE: Europe’s Right Wing Woos a New Audience: Jewish Voters

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by The Daily Signal is republished with permission. Photo: Michal Fludra/Zuma Press/Newscom

Iran waging ‘cyber warfare’ to ‘disrupt communication of dissidents’ and ‘promote terrorism’ worldwide

A NEW wave of “cyber warfare” is using “mass surveillance” to “actively disrupt the communication of protesters and dissidents” in Iran and “promote terrorism” across the globe, an explosive document has claimed.

This is precisely why Islamic supremacists must never be appeased nor tolerated. They are fascist and expansionist, and while the abuse to which they subject their own people is atrocious enough,  these abuses do not stop at their borders.

“Revealed: How Iran wages ‘CYBER TERRORISM’ to secretly spy on MILLIONS and incite ‘CHAOS,’” by Sam Stevenson, Express, December 28, 2018:

A NEW wave of “cyber warfare” is using “mass surveillance” to “actively disrupt the communication of protesters and dissidents” in Iran and “promote terrorism” across the globe, an explosive document has claimed.

The paper was compiled by the official Iranian resistance movement, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). It makes damning assertions which implicate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in waging “cyber warfare to preserve the theocracy”. NCRI representative Hossein Abedini has spoken to Express.co.uk about his group’s findings.

Furious Iranians, making use of cyber technology to disseminate their message, have been part of a popular uprising that erupted in Tehran in December 2017.

But now the theocratic regime – led by Iran’s IRGC and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) – is using “cyber attacks” to suppress its people, the Iranian Resistance document seen by Express.co.uk claims.

It explains: “Millions of Iranians have access to the internet and more than 48 million own smartphones.

“Iran’s young and restless population has become increasingly ‘tech-savvy’ over the years to evade the regime’s controls and censorship.

“The continuous cyber resistance by the public has driven the regime to route internet traffic through one of the state-controlled systems, making it very difficult for any subscriber to evade state-sponsored cyber repression.”

The ominous paper argues the Iranian regime is among very few governments in the world where “its testbed of cyber attacks and strategies is its own citizens”.

It contends this approach is “in line with Tehran’s longstanding worldview of instilling fear and repression at home, while promoting terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and chaos abroad”.

The document claims the regime uses malicious malware and spyware embedded within smartphone applications (apps) to “secretly spy” on its people….

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Alireza Heydarifard on Unsplash.

Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy singles out ‘radical Islamists’

Bolton says: “Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad. The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology. This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

The idea that there is a significant pushback to the jihad ideology within the Islamic world is a trifle overstated. The concept of jihad as meaning warfare against unbelievers in order to establish Islamic law’s hegemony over them is deeply rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, as well as in Islamic law. Nonetheless, in 2011 the Obama Administration removed all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training; this is a strong step in the right direction, toward once again enabling counterterror analysts to study and understand the motivating ideology of the enemy.

“New White House Counterterrorism Strategy Singles Out ‘Radical Islamists,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, October 4, 2018:

The Trump administration is implementing a new, government-wide counterterrorism strategy that places renewed focus on combatting “radical Islamic terrorist groups,” marking a significant departure from the Obama administration, which implemented a series of policies aimed at deemphasizing the threat of Islamic terror groups.

In releasing the first national counterterrorism strategy since 2011, the Trump administration is working to take a drastically different approach than that of the former administration, according to senior U.S. officials.

While the Obama administration sought to dampen the United States’ focus on Islamic terror threats, the Trump administration has made this battle the centerpiece of its new strategy.

National Security Adviser John Bolton acknowledged in remarks to reporters Thursday afternoon that the new strategy is “a departure” from the former administration’s strategy, which has been characterized as a failure by Republican foreign policy voices due to the increasing number of domestic terror attacks and plots across the United States

“Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad,” Bolton said.

“The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology,” Bolton said. “This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

“One may hope that the ideological fervor disappears, but sad to report, it remains strong all around the world, and even with the defeat of the ISIS territorial caliphate, we see the threat spreading to other countries,” Bolton added.

The Trump administration strategy also shifts the focus to Iran, characterizing the country as the foremost state sponsor of terror across the globe.

“The United States faces terrorist threats from Iran, which remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism that, really, the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” Bolton said. “And from other terrorist groups. Iran-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad, continue to pose a threat to the United States and our interests.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Sophie Keen on Unsplash.

Under Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law, Weinstein Could Walk

The Harvey Weinstein exposé has opened a can of worms. The news is filled on a daily basis about sexual abuse and harassment in the workplace. If the West were ruled by Sharia, however, it would likely not be in the news. First, under strict Sharia, women would not be in the workplace if men were there. No women, no groping.

Furthermore, there would be no rape to report. Why? Under Sharia, rape can only be proven if there are four male witnesses. If a man rapes a women in private, no witnesses, no problem. But wait.  Can’t the woman report the crime? Yes she can, but in a Sharia court, her testimony has only half the value of a male witness. Result? No conviction.

There is another reason that there would be no news about sexual abuse in the workplace. Under Sharia, a woman is seen as the cause of the molestation. She is so attractive to a man that he can’t control himself. She is the perpetrator. The man is the victim.

Conclusion? Sharia could solve the problem of these news headlines, but at the cost of inhumanity towards women.

Totalitarian Islam

Mohammed practiced totalitarianism. All people around him had to submit to his demands. After Arabia submitted, Mohammed left Arabia and began his mission to have Sharia rule the world. Just as in the year 632, after Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Political Islam, a totalitarian doctrine

The True History of Muslim Conquests

Google, Facebook and Twitter sued for aiding and abetting ISIS

Good. I hope they win a massive settlement and drive them all out of business. Each one has been cutting off its platform to foes of jihad terror. In February, referrals from Facebook and Twitter to Jihad Watch dropped by 90% and have never recovered. Google has changed its search results so that when one searches for topics related to Islam and jihad, only results whitewashing Islam’s links to terrorism come up. Meanwhile jihad terrorists, as is clear from this case, have free rein. These monopolies need to be broken up, and the sooner the better, as they are actively working against the freedom of speech.

“Daughters of California man killed in Barcelona terror attack sue Google, Facebook and Twitter ‘for aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources’ to ISIS,” by Julian Robinson, MailOnline, October 6, 2017:

The family of a California man killed in the terror attack in Barcelona is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google for their part in ‘aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources’ to ISIS, it has emerged

Jared Tucker, from Walnut Creek, was one of 13 people who died when a van mowed down pedestrians on the Spanish city’s packed La Rambla on August 17.

The three daughters of the 42-year-old, who was celebrating his one year anniversary with wife Heidi Nunes-Tucker in Barcelona when he was killed, have now filed a lawsuit against the tech giants.

According to the New York Post, the complaint claims the firms have ‘for years knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts to use its social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.’…

RELATED ARTICLES:

LEAK: Google Employees Defend Discrimination Against Conservatives

UK: Viewers of “jihadi websites” or “far-right propaganda” to get 15 years in prison

Eyewitness of Barcelona jihad attack: No priest came to comfort wounded, but Cardinal declared all religions peaceful

Afghan security forces tipped off Taliban in failed attempt to kill Secretary of Defense Mattis

“NBC spoke with two unidentified Taliban commanders, who claimed sources in Afghanistan’s security apparatus tipped them off to Mattis’s visit. Mattis…told reporters that Afghan forces would strongly oppose the action.”…”They will find Afghan security forces against them.”

Maybe they will. But will they find Afghan security forces for them? Why not? Afghan forces supposedly on our side have been responsible for numerous attacks on their U.S. “allies.” There remains no reliable way to distinguish Afghan jihadis from “moderates.” What is Mattis doing to address that? Nothing? Why not? Would it be too “Islamophobic” to explore that problem realistically?

“Taliban Tries To Kill Mattis During Surprise Afghanistan Visit,” by Thomas Phippen, Daily Caller, September 27, 2017:

The Taliban claimed responsibility for an attack on Kabul International Airport Wednesday morning targeting Defense Secretary Jim Mattis who was making an unscheduled visit to Afghanistan.

Mattis had left the airport by the time the attack started, NBC News reports, and no casualties have been reported….

“At 11.36 am two missiles were fired on Kabul International Airport from Deh Sabz district, damaging the air force hangers and destroying one helicopter and damaging three other helicopters, but there were no casualties,” airport chief Yaqub Rassouli said according to USA Today….

“We fired six rockets and planned to hit the plane of U.S. secretary of defense and other U.S. and NATO military officials,” one Taliban commander told NBC News. “We were told by our insiders that some losses were caused to their installations but we are not sure about James Mattis.”

NBC spoke with two unidentified Taliban commanders, who claimed sources in Afghanistan’s security apparatus tipped them off to Mattis’s visit.

Mattis was holding a press conference away from the airport at the time of the attack, and told reporters that Afghan forces would strongly oppose the action.

“If in fact there was an attack … his is a classic statement to what Taliban are up to,” Mattis said. “If in fact this is what they have done, they will find Afghan security forces against them.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Oklahoma Beheading Trial: Is Obeying the Qur’an a Form of Mental Illness?

Minnesota: Leftists in city of jihad stabbing spree protest Iranian ex-Muslim’s speech: “Islamophobia is White Supremacy”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. General John Nicholson, the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission, saluting U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis upon arrival at NATO’s headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 27, 2017.

Trump administration considering dropping Pakistan as an ally

Long overdue and much needed.

“US weighs dropping Pakistan as an ally,” by Katrina Manson, Financial Times, September 15, 2017:

The Trump administration is considering dropping Pakistan as an ally as it examines tough measures to quell more than 20 terrorist groups it says are based in the country.

Officials familiar with the Pakistan prong of Washington’s new “AfPak” strategy — which involves an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and praise for India — say it has yet to be fleshed out. But they have plenty of levers.

President Donald Trump last month promised to get tough on Pakistan, accusing it of “housing the very terrorists that we are fighting”. It was the most public breach yet in an often rocky relationship.

“No US president has come out on American national television and said such things about Pakistan,” said Husain Haqqani, former Pakistan ambassador to the US.

“US policymakers are at the end of their tethers about what they see as Pakistan not helping them while promising to help them.”

The administration has already put $255m in military aid on hold after Mr Trump announced the policy shift. It is eyeing an escalating series of threats, which include cutting some civilian aid, conducting unilateral drone strikes on Pakistani soil and imposing travel bans on suspect officers of the ISI, the country’s intelligence agency. It could also revoke Pakistan’s status as a major non-Nato ally or designate it a state sponsor of terrorism.

The latter options would limit weapons sales and probably affect billions of dollars in IMF and World Bank loans, along with access to global finance….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer: Trump Is Right — Pakistan Is No Ally

Iran decries “cowboy” Trump’s “ignorant hate speech” at UN

EDITORS NOTE: According to the Center for Global Development, “The United States began providing economic assistance along and military aid to Pakistan shortly after the country’s creation in 1947. In total, the United States obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. The levels year to year have waxed and waned for decades as US geopolitical interests in the region have shifted. Peaks in aid have followed years of neglect. In several periods, including as recently as the 1990s, US halted aid entirely and shut the doors of the USAID offices. This pattern has rendered the United States a far cry from a reliable and unwavering partner to Pakistan over the years.” Read more.

Muslims at the Hajj are worried about Donald Trump and his policies

…..but, not a word about the responsibility of Muslims to rein-in their terrorist element.

Screenshot (808)

These Hajj Muslims seem to think our concern about Muslim migration is completely lacking in any rational calculation. Don’t miss Raheem Kassam’s good report on Islamic terrorism attacks in ‘welcoming’ Europe and how more Americans need to wake up.  …And, here they are in Saudi Arabia which will never let them stay and become citizens of that Muslim country!

Victims, always victims!

Reuters:

MECCA/RIYADH (Reuters) – Even at Islam’s holiest sites and during the most sacred time of year for Muslims, some people cannot stop talking about Donald Trump.

Among one group of American, Canadian and British pilgrims in Mecca this week for the annual haj, the U.S. president and policies they say target Muslims and immigrants are a regular conversation topic.

“People are irritated, angry, somber, a little bit worried,” said Yasir Qadhi, an Islamic scholar who traveled from Tennessee for his fourteenth pilgrimage.

Haj

“No one that I know is happy at the current circumstances or the current administration. No one, not a single person in this entire gathering.”

As a candidate, Trump proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States. In office, he ordered temporary bans on people from several Muslim-majority countries, which have been blocked by courts that ruled they were discriminatory.

His administration has denied any intention of religious discrimination in the travel ban, saying it is intended purely as a national security measure.

But sharp rhetoric about the threat posed by “radical Islam” which was a central part of his campaign has also drawn accusations he risks alienating more than three million Americans who practise Islam peacefully. [So where are the peaceful Muslims standing up at the Haj to to speak against and discourage the violent ones?—ed]

Many American Muslims say his stance has fueled an atmosphere in which some may feel they can voice prejudices or attack Muslims without fear of retribution.

‘STOP ATTACKING ISLAM’

Reuters apparently didn’t find anyone to speak up against their own terrorist element, but they found this guy!

Baha al-Deen, a pilgrim from ex-Soviet Georgia, said any labeling of Muslims as terrorists should stop.

“God gave us minds and tongues so we can understand each other and talk about our problems,” he said. “Otherwise we will fight like animals.”

Oh, that is going to inspire communication—NOT!

More here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Administration has kept refugee flow relatively low, but real test coming

Here is what the ‘Refugee Act of 1980’ says the President and Congress must do right now…

New Charleston, WV refugee resettlement office will not open

What about America’s own refugees!

Just A Note On Macron-Management by Hugh Fitzgerald

It has just been revealed that Emmanuel Macron, President of France, has in the first three months of his presidency spent more than $30,000 on make-up services. That would be a remarkable sum for anyone to spend, but what makes it even more remarkable is that Macron is only 39, the youngest French President ever, and therefore, one might assume, someone who would be least in need of such services, and certainly not to this expensive extent.

Even before this embarrassment, Macron had been stumbling. Just a few months ago, a political neophyte, he had defeated Marine Le Pen for the French presidency with an astonishing 65% of the vote. Now his popularity has plummeted to 36%. What explains this colossal drop? Partly it has to do with Macron’s authoritarian personality, revealed only after the election, and most evident in the curt way he treated the army chief of staff, who objected to defense cuts, leading to the general’s resignation. Partly it has to do with his proposed cut of 10 billion euros to spending on research, health, and housing, and on his controversial proposal to revamp the labor laws, making it easier for employers both to hire and fire.

But Macron’s rather cavalier views on Islam may also have played a part in his drop in popularity. During the election, he said little on the subject of terrorism. It was enough for voters that he was not Marine le Pen, who had been endlessly maligned in the media, labelled an “Islamophobe’ for expressing alarm both about what the Islamic texts and teachings inculcate, and about the observable attitudes and behavior of too many Muslims. But the little that candidate Macron did say on Islamic terrorism was disturbing. “We have a share of responsibility,” he warned, “because this totalitarianism feeds on the mistrust that we have allowed to settle in society…. and if tomorrow we do not take care, it will divide them [the Muslims] from us even more.”

So for Macron, it was “we” — the French — who must acknowledge responsibility for Muslim terrorism, because it is our mistrust of Muslims that causes them, in turn, to subscribe to Islamic “totalitarianism.” We must force ourselves not to “mistrust” them. But that’s an attitude that cannot be commanded. How should the French react, after each attack by Muslim terrorists, at Charlie Hebdo, at the kosher market, along the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, at the Bataclan nightclub? How should they react as each thwarted attack — along the Champs-Elysees, outside the Louvre, in front of Notre Dame, beside the Eiffel Tower — is announced? With so much murder and so much mayhem, how can they not mistrust the Muslims in their midst? Macron followed up this impossible demand with a sentiment worthy of Pope Francis: To lessen this “mistrust,” Macron said, French society “must change and be more open.” More open to what? To Islam, of course.

On April 20, 2017, during the campaign, after an Islamic terrorist killed one police officer and wounded two others in Paris, Macron said: “I am not going to invent an anti-terrorist program in one night.” He had been a government official during two years of continuous terrorist attacks on French territory. Didn’t the public have a right to assume that he would have given some thought to anti-terrorist measures to be taken? Instead of insinuating that he was being unfairly asked to suddenly come up with “an anti-terrorist program in one night” (he was being asked no such thing), shouldn’t he at least have shown the French people that he had been thinking carefully about how to deal with the terrorist threat, and here were some of his thoughts?

Also disturbing was the revelation, during the campaign, that there were some doubtful Muslims on his staff. One of these was Mohamed Saou, who was discovered to have promoted on Twitter the Islamic statement: “I am not Charlie.” Sensing a potential scandal, Macron felt compelled to dismiss Saou on April 6. But on April 14, on a Muslim French radio station, Macron was caught on a “hot mic” describing Saou as a “good guy, a very good guy.” Is a Muslim who insists he would never express solidarity with the murdered cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo a “very good guy”?

On April 28, Mohamed Louizi, author of the book Why I Quit the Muslim Brotherhood, released a detailed article on Facebook that accused Macron of being a “hostage of the Islamist vote.” Republished by Dreuz, a Christian anti-jihad website, Louizi’s article gave names and dates, and explained how Macron’s political movement had been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants. Since Macron has not refuted the article’s facts, we can assume it is correct. And if it is correct, then we have to worry about Macron, and it’s he who, with the election behind him, has to convince the French public that he recognizes the meaning, and menace, of Islam. It’s the only way to calm their fears.

Since being elected, Macron has announced the formation of a task force on terrorism, consisting of around 20 people, chiefly intelligence analysts, who will supervise and oversee all counter-terrorism efforts directly under the president’s authority. But this, while laudable, is not nearly enough; he has to express a different vision of France, one that has no room for a supposed “amalgame” with Islam.

Is Macron an open promoter of Islam in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a “globalist” and an “open promoter of multiculturalism.” He does not want to think of France as too French. For he wants to deny the French that heightened sense of their own country, with a specific history, art, literature, politics — a French civilization — of which they have always been proud. Instead, he thinks of Islam as part of this new, multicultural amalgam that he claims France has become. When he visited London last February 22, he told an audience of expatriates that “French culture does not exist, there is a culture in France and it is diverse.” The same day he dared to dismiss one of the greatest sources of French national pride: “French art? I never met it.” Clouet, Chardin, Manet, Monet, Cezanne, Gauguin, Derain, Bonnard, Matisse, then, are apparently not French artists, for there is no such thing as “French art.”

If France is for Macron nothing but a cultural amalgam or olla-podrida, and there is no longer anything specifically French about that county’s civilization, then the Muslims in France are just as “French” with their Muslim culture as the French are with French culture. But the Muslims do not accept the idea of an “amalgam.” They do not celebrate multiculturalism. They want not a mixture of cultures, but for Islam to dominate. Macron fails to realize that it has not been the French who rejected the Muslims; France has made great efforts, teaching its language and its culture to many different kinds of immigrants. The country has been open and welcoming to these migrants and tried, with great success in most cases, to integrate them. That program of integration worked with immigrants from Portugal in the 1950s, from the French Antilles in the 1960s and, in the half-century since, with immigrants from all over: Eastern Europeans, Hindus from India, Filipinos, Brazilians, Andean Indians, Vietnamese Buddhists, and sub-Saharan African Christians. Only the Muslims have failed to integrate, that is have failed to willingly accept the laws, customs, understandings of the Infidel French. In French schools, it is Muslim students who refuse to study topics they deem anti-Muslim, as the Crusades or the history of the French monarchy, or as likely to encourage sympathy for the Jews, as the Holocaust. Meanwhile, Muslims press for ever greater attention being given in those same schools to the study of Islam.

In May, Macron visited West Africa, where French troops are engaged in a campaign against Islamic militants in Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mauritania, and where he promised to be “uncompromising” in the fight against the Jihadists. One wonders why he can be so forthright and clear-headed about the Islamic threat in West Africa, and at the same time fail to recognize the threat within metropolitan France from those millions of Muslims whose religion teaches them to hate the Kuffar, who are commanded to wage Jihad until the entire world is subjugated, and Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. The fact that not all Muslims follow the Qur’an’s commands is slight consolation, for that may reflect not moral but prudential considerations. The time may not be ripe, as Muslims still constitute less than 10% of the French population. But the duty does not dissipate, and Muslims are patient. Macron recognizes a Muslim menace, but so far only in a not-in-my-backyard, limited-to-west-africa sort of way.

At this point, Macron has little to lose in taking a strong anti-Islam position. Everything that has happened since he won the election on May 7 has only increased alarm in France and in Europe. Just two weeks after he was elected, there was a major attack at a concert in Manchester. Other attacks have taken place since then in France, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Finland. Jihadist attacks include the Barcelona van attack, a car attack on French police, a car attack on police in Belgium, a knife attack in Paris, a knife attack in Hamburg, an attempted bombing in Brussels, a car attack in Paris, a knife attack in London, a knife attack attempt in the United Kingdom, a knife attack in London, a hammer attack in France, a vehicle attack with knives at London Bridge, a machete attack attempt outside Buckingham Palace, a machete attack in Brussels, a second machete attack attempt in Brussels, a stabbing attack in Turku, a machete attack outside Buckingham Palace…and these are only the ones that come instantly to mind.

President Macron is surely aware of all this. It’s time he started to talk about Jihadists in Paris the way he talked about them in West Africa. He needs to stop painting his face, and start telling his own people, the French people, that this entirely factitious ‘“amalgame” of Muslim and French culture does not exist, that French civilization — its politics, its art, its literature, its music, its philosophy — is eminently worth defending, and that if Muslims have their way, France would end up looking, at best, like one of the dreary North African countries. What Macron needs most is not all that expensive makeup and the services of some pretty esthetician, but a makeover in his understanding, so that he will sound the way in these parlous times he ought to sound, which is to say, a lot less like Tariq Ramadan, and a lot more like Charles De Gaulle.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu tells UN top dog that Iran is building missile sites in Syria, Lebanon to strike Israel

Gorka: McMaster “sees the threat of Islam through an Obama administration lens”

Organization of Islamic Cooperation strategizing to silence free speech

The OIC is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which represents 57 Muslim countries world wide and they know that to advance Islam (and Shariah law) worldwide they have to silence any criticism of Islam in the media.  To that end they held a conference two weeks ago in (no surprise) London to strategize on how to silence anyone standing in their way.

When I read this story by Leo Hohmann at WND, the french novel ‘Submission’ came immediately to mind.  It is a dark, disgusting book, but probably worth reading because its title tells us exactly how Islam/Shariah could triumph—instead of a cataclysmic battle of titans (a possible physical battle), we simply get worn down and give up.

Beating people up over speech would be an important element in bringing us to submission.

From Hohmann:

A group of international Islamist organizations led by the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, recently held a two-day conference on countering “Islamophobia” in which it recommends imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the media worldwide.

Monks in Burma fighting against Islamic blasphemy laws.

Under Islamic law, it is considered a serious offense to criticize Allah, Muhammad or Islam. In countries like Pakistan, a Muslim can take a non-Muslim to court and claim he was “offended” by something that was said, resulting in a trial and jail time, even death, for the non-Muslim.

Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan and other Muslim-dominated countries with significant Christian minorities have been the targets of brutal persecution, with the blasphemy laws often serving as the catalyst for their incarceration. Christians have been jailed, stoned, beheaded, and even had acid thrown in their faces for violating the blasphemy laws.

But the OIC, which consists of 57 Muslim-majority countries and boasts the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, is not satisfied with its own people living under threat of arrest for offending Islam by something that is said, written or posted on the Internet.

The July 15-16 symposium, held at London’s Central Mosque Trust and Islamic Cultural Center, was attended by lawyers, media leaders, politicians, academics from European universities and diplomats from various embassies. It was titled: “Mechanisms to challenge Islamophobia legally and through the media.”

Continue reading here.

Is the SPLC carrying the water for the OIC, here. You betcha!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Even Kushner Knows Negotiation Can’t Solve the Palestinian Conflict

“Palestinian” Muslim Who Slaughtered Israeli Family to Receive $3,120 Per Month Reward From Palestinian Authority

Marquette University pays for faculty to attend ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ workshop

It also “will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.”

When will Marquette pay faculty to attend a workshop about the ideological and theological roots of jihad terrorism? Why, that would be inconceivable. And so would any honest discussion of the jihad terror threat at Marquette or most, if not all, other universities in the U.S. today, especially Catholic universities. They are radioactive centers of hard-Left indoctrination, not institutions of higher learning in any genuine sense.

The real “Islamophobia” industry, the one dedicated to fooling people into thinking that “Islamophobia” is a genuine problem, operates by deliberately conflating two quite distinct phenomena: vigilante attacks against innocent Muslims, which are rare but never justified under any circumstances, and honest examination of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. By lumping the two together, “Islamophobia” victimhood propagandists hope to inhibit all examination of the jihad doctrine, and to demonize and marginalize all those who engage in such examination.

“University Offers To Pay For Faculty Attending ‘Overcoming Islamophobia’ Workshop,” by Rob Shimshock, Daily Caller, July 17, 2017 (thanks to Tom):

A Wisconsin university announced Monday that it will cover costs for its faculty to attend an anti-Islamophobia workshop, and will offer a graduate credit for attendees that also submit a written assignment.

Marquette University will pay the $30 registration fee for faculty that choose to attend “Overcoming Islamophobia: Creating a Positive Classroom Culture,” hosted at Alverno College in August. The fee will also cover lunch at the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.

The event is co-sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Alverno College, the Milwaukee Muslim Women’s Coalition and the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Marquette University will grant attendees that submit a written assignment pertaining to Islamophobia an Alverno graduate credit….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim cop tells friends, not investigators, he was “startled” by unarmed woman he killed

Boston to hang 50 posters addressing public harassment, “Islamophobia” around city

Jihad Violence by any other name is still Jihad Violence

Words matter. Language is the foundation for community living – it is the means by which individuals make themselves understood within groups and why translators are necessary to make themselves understood outside the group. One of the most powerful weapons of war is the deliberate confusion of the meaning of words within a group. In Islam there is a name for this tactic – taqiyya – it means lying in the service of Islam. Radical socialist Saul Alinsky introduced the concept to America in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals when he instructed his students to cut their hair, put on a suit, and blend in so that no one would suspect they were trying to overthrow the government of American capitalism and impose socialism.

There is no equivalent word in the English language for this deliberate deception so I have coined the new word Alinskiyya. Barack Obama, a student of Alinsky, practiced Alinskiyya when he disguised his radical socialist agenda and promised “hope and change” to an unsuspecting American public. Obama practiced Alinskiyya when he deliberately rebranded terrorism as workplace violence and scrubbed all mention of Islamic jihad from national security manuals and training. Radical Islamic terrorism is a military expression of Islam’s goal of world dominion and changing the meaning of words (taqiyya) is stealth jihad. The word “peace” for an Islamist means when the whole world is Muslim and when sharia law governs the world. Words matter. Redefining jihad terrorism as mental illness is a powerful political tactic used to deliberately confuse the public and engage their humanitarian selves to view the terrorist as a victim who needs understanding and refuge instead of recognizing the existential threat he poses. WHY?

Why would civilized Western societies deliberately rebrand terrorism as mental illness and become apologists for the barbarity of terrorists and sharia law? To make sense of the nonsensical it is necessary to examine the motives of the participants. Left-wing liberal leaders across the world in Germany, Sweden, England, Canada, Australia, and the Democratic party in the US believe in internationalism and one-world government. Their political platforms reject national sovereignty and seek to destroy Western capitalist infrastructure and establish socialism in its place. President Donald Trump is an unapologetic America-first nationalist who embraces capitalism, rejects socialism, and fully intends to strengthen American sovereignty against one-world government.

The consortium of left-wing liberal politicians here and abroad require the social chaos and instability created by anarchists and terrorists to dupe the unsuspecting public into surrendering their freedoms in exchange for promised government “safety.” Once the government imposes martial law to quell the chaos it is a very short step to internationalizing the police force and imposing one-world government.

Here is the problem. The anarchists including Soros’ paid political protesters believe they will realize their dream of one-world government, social justice, and everyone singing kumbaya. The Islamists believe they will realize their dream of one-world caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. What neither group realizes is that they are the useful idiots for the globalist elite who are manipulating both groups so that the elite can impose their own dystopian one-world government.

Lord Bertrand Russell wrote a book titled The Impact of Science on Society in 1952 which unapologetically describes in chilling detail the intention of the few globalist elites in England and America including the Rothschilds and the Rockefeller’s to impose one-world government as the answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth’s resources being unable to sustain population growth. There is no national sovereignty, no middle class, no upward mobility, and no individual freedoms.The globalist elites envision a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves where they are the ruling elite served by an enslaved population – everyone else is eliminated. “World population needs to be decreased by 50%”– Henry Kissinger.

Bertrand Russell’s book The Impact of Science on Society is a shockingly immoral supremacist view of the world that fully intends to use science and technology to eliminate the “useless eaters.” Henry Kissinger pointed out “The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.” Kissinger stated, “The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.” In 1991 at the Bilderberg Conference Kissinger said,

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government”.

The social chaos that Henry Kissinger describes is fomented by the globalist elite and implemented by gullible left-wing liberal globalist leaders who are too arrogant to realize they are just useful idiots. In case anyone doubts the reality of the elitist one-world government intention just read David Rockefeller’s own words on the New World Order (NWO) in his book Memoirs where he admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a new world order. These are not unhinged conspiracy theories – they are the sinister plans of a determined few to enslave and rule the world.

Memoirs, pg 405: “Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Personally, I do not want Bertrand Russell, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, or their useful idiot puppets Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Angela Merkel, etc etc etc determining the course of my life.

RELATED VIDEO: New World Order Quotes.

Hawaii: Rogue judge once again rules for the Imam, attempts to thwart Trump on refugees

Judge Derrick Watson

This latest was predicted and reported here by Michael Leahy at Breitbart two days ago.

Judge Derrick Watson took advantage of the mess the Supreme Court made in its recent ruling (as Justice Thomas predicted) to once again attempt to stop President Trump from carrying out a simple 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement in order to analyze the program and determine whether security screening is sufficient.

The Supreme Court literally unconstitutionally legislated when it created a way to go around a Presidentially-determined ceiling as defined by over 3 decades of refugee law and said refugees with a “bona fide relationship” to a family member or to an “entity” could come in over the 50,000 ceiling reached yesterday (here).

BTW, today we have now exceeded the 50,000 ceiling by 168. We are at 50,168 this morning.

Before I give you Politico’s version of the judge’s decision in Hawaii yesterday, let me be clear!

The US State Department under Sec. of State Rex Tillerson must ignore this decision!

(They should have ignored this rogue judge’s earlier decision as well! You should write to the White House and tell Trump to stand against this runaway judiciary!)

One Hawaiian judge deciding for one Imam (and the refugee-rejecting state of Hawaii!) should not be the one to define “bona fide” a wholly new legal term and a new construct for resettlement thanks to the overzealous SCOTUS.  Where the hell is Congress, btw? Writing law is their job!

Here is Politico:

A federal judge in Hawaii ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to allow grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and other relatives of people in the U.S. to circumvent the travel ban policy, dealing a temporary blow to one of the president’s signature initiatives.

Along with the State of Hawaii, Imam Ismail Elshikh is a plaintiff in the case.

In an order issued Thursday evening local time in Honolulu, Judge Derrick Watson also prohibited the administration from blocking refugees with a commitment from a resettlement agency in the U.S., a move that could revive the flow of refugee admissions this year.

The decision was a victory for opponents of the travel ban, who hoped to broaden the universe of people who could bypass the president’s policy, which temporarily bars travelers from six majority-Muslim nations and suspends the refugee resettlement program.

The Supreme Court issued an order on June 26 that allowed the embattled measure to go into effect, but included the caveat that affected travelers with “bona fide” ties to a person or entity in the U.S. should not be subject to the ban.

[….]

In the realm of refugee resettlement, the administration stood by the contention that a connection to a resettlement agency alone would not meet the criteria to avoid the ban.

[….]

The federal judge added that a refugee with a commitment from a resettlement agency met the standard for a “bona fide” relationship spelled out in the Supreme Court order.

[….]

“It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” he wrote. [Don’t let the refugee contractors*** fool you, here we have it, this is about their compensation by you, the American taxpayer!–ed]

“Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”

[….]
On Twitter, an attorney for the plaintiffs, the state of Hawaii and a local imam, celebrated the momentary legal win, which could be met with appeals by the federal government.

Appeals! The Administration better simply ignore this single judge and the Imam!

This post is filed in my ‘Supreme Court’ category, click here for other stories on the hash the Supreme Court has made of refugee law.

***Federal contractors/middlemen/lobbyists/community organizers paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities.  Because their income is largely dependent on taxpayer dollars based on the number of refugees admitted to the US, the only way for real reform of how the US admits refugees is to remove the contractors from the process.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump puts brakes on Obama immigration plan

Trump favors Christian refugees over Muslims, 50%-38%, says State data

Germany reaping the whirlwind of infectious diseases admitted to the country along with the migrants