Posts

Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge jihad massacre

There is no reason why this couldn’t be so; the Islamic State has many times called upon Muslims to murder random civilians in Western countries. If they didn’t do this one, they’ll keep trying.

“Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge attack,” Reuters, November 30, 2019:

Islamic State said the London Bridge attack on Friday was carried out by one of its fighters, the group’s Amaq news agency reported on Saturday. The group did not provide any evidence.

It added that the attack was made in response to Islamic State calls to target countries that have been part of a coalition fighting the jihadist group.

British police on Friday shot dead a man wearing a fake suicide vest who stabbed two people to death in London and wounded three more before being wrestled to the ground by bystanders, in what the authorities called a terrorist attack.

The attacker went on the rampage just before 2 p.m., attacking people at a premises near London Bridge in the heart of the city’s financial district – the scene of a deadly attack by Islamist militants two years ago.
Half a dozen bystanders tackled the suspect to the ground and grabbed his knife. A video posted on Twitter showed police dragging one man off the suspect before an officer took careful aim. Two shots rang out. The man stopped moving….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Two more muslim murderous terror attacks that we know of today

UK: London Bridge jihad murderer belonged to Muslim group that admired Hitler

UK: Schoolmate of London Bridge jihadi says he turned to the Islamic State after being bullied at school

UK: London Bridge jihad murderer was son of Muslim migrants, wanted to bomb London Stock Exchange

UK: London jihadi stabbed man at deradicalization event, victim’s father hopes killing won’t be used as a “pretext”

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

UK: Police Commissioner Suggests Value of Armed Citizenry, is Quickly Rebuffed

Every once in a great while, an independent-minded United Kingdom official is overcome with a bout of common sense on firearms. However, such outbursts of reason are typically short-lived, as the gun control apostate becomes the immediate target of the country’s anti-gun establishment politicians and media. Such was the case in 2014, when former Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party and Member of the European Parliament Nigel Farage had the temerity to point out that the UK’s handgun ban is “ludicrous” and call for its repeal.

Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez

Following the recent terror attacks in Manchester and London, Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez was taken by a similar case of logic. During a June 12 appearance on BBC Radio Cornwall, Hernandez suggested that armed citizens could provide an important response to a terrorist violence.

According to an account and audio of Hernandez’s BBC appearance made available by the Guardian, a caller – who is a firearms dealer — to the radio show asked the police commissioner, “If there should ever be a terrorist attack, what happens if I and other people try to defend themselves using those guns? What would be the repercussions?” After lauding the caller’s question, Hernandez responded that such an armed response “might be some of our solution to our issues.”

The audibly dumbfounded BBC host, called the caller’s proposal “vigilantism,” going on to question the caller’s ability to properly handle and use firearms. Even after the host’s initial derisive comments, Hernandez defended her position stating, “I’m just saying, let’s officially have a look at that and see what would be the implications of it…. We work with businesses to keep our communities safe. I’d really be interested in exploring that with the chief constable.”

Unfortunately, Hernandez’s rational position was lost on Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer and Deputy Chief Constable Paul Netherton. The same day as Hernandez’s interview, Netherton issued a response to the police commissioner’s comments that appears to foreclose even a discussion about the use of private firearms to stop a terrorist threat.

In the release, Netherton noted that during an attack, “highly trained police firearms officers and Special Forces will be deployed to protect our communities,” and that “Under no circumstances would we want members of the public to arm themselves with firearms, not least because officers responding would not know who the offenders were, and quite obviously they would not have the time to ask.”

Netherton also reiterated official UK response policy, stating, “Our message to the public is a simple one: to run, to hide and to tell.” This charge is a noticeably neutered version of the United States Department of Homeland Security’s “Run, Hide, Fight.”

Just as disturbing as the UK’s disrespect of the fundamental right to self-defense is the ongoing effort by the UK’s political and media establishment to preclude any debate on the topic. Nigel Farage’s comments on the handgun ban were met with “fury,” with one opposing lawmaker dismissing Farage’s Ukip party as “extremely dangerous.” The BBC host dismissed Hernandez’s comments and the caller’s question out of hand. Likewise, Netherton released a statement refuting Hernandez’s position without exploration or discussion. Far from radical, Hernandez’s thoughts on fighting terrorism are shared by former Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble.

Such foreclosure of discourse is unbecoming a so-called liberal democracy. Today’s UK would do well to rediscover the great English classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, as his work on the merits of free thought and vigorous discourse appears to be foreign to most of its subjects.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Will the Brits Ever Learn, an Armed Citizenry is a Safe Citizenry

Ex-MI5 boss: People ask, why didn’t you follow all these people … on your radar?

Hezbollah flags fly in London on a Sunday afternoon anti-Israel march

Rep. Steve Scalise Introduces Bill to Relax Restrictions on Interstate Firearm Sales

When Christianity is Removed All Hell Breaks Out

bus-640x480Just recently, when perusing news stories, I happened upon a most heartbreaking story headline.  It proclaimed “London’s iconic red buses to declare glory to Allah.”  After getting over the initial shock I was a bit embarrassed.  Considering the massive evil in-roads the devoted Muslims have made making deep intrusions into British society for decades, I should not have been shocked one little bit.

The dangerous habit of western societies to sacrifice their own well-being just to appease those who have pledged to convert them or destroy them is miles beyond stupid. Britain’s largest Islamic charity says it wants to “break down barriers” and portray Islam positively by launching a new advertising campaign which will slap the phrase “glory to Allah on the sides of London buses.  Muslims reading the advertisements are told to “gather the rewards of Ramadan,” that they must donate Islamic relief.  That is a Muslim organization which used to have an account with banking giant HSBC.  The accounts were closed due to major “concerns that cash for aid could end up with Muslim terrorist groups throughout the world.”

Public transport has been chosen for the Islamic re-branding in London, Manchester, Leicester, Birmingham, and Bradford.  All of the locations have large growing bigoted Muslim populations.  That the announcement of the new campaign came a day after London “foolishly” crowned it’s first Muslim mayor Sadig Khan.  Islamic Relief called it a “nice irony” that the two events coincided.  “Uh yeah”  Imran Madden, a British traitor “cough” convert to Islam and director of Islamic Relief’s United Kingdom branch said, “there is a lot of negativity around Muslims at the moment involving things such as counterterrorism issues.  “We want to change for the better the perception of Islam.  The London bus campaign is about breaking down barriers and challenging misconceptions.”

I could only laugh at Mr. Imran Madden’s little message about changing the perceptions of Islam.  Because, if Muslims were serious about changing the perception of Islam, they would have to stop being Muslims.  Because Muslims are instructed in the little quaran’ that it is permissible to be cruel to non Muslims.  Whether it is through DHIMMI status, where in Muslim cultures, non-Muslims are not allowed to build new places of worship, not possess arms; they have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings.  That is only three out of the 20 major restrictions against non-Muslims who reside where Muslims have taken over.

Ironically, Christian groups have fared less well when it comes to advertising on London buses.  For example, Former London mayor Boris Johnson stepped in to ban a positive message by a Christian organization in response to a pro-homosexual advertising Campaign.  After it is all said and done, Christian groups have for many years been denied access to purchase advertising space on London buses and elsewhere.

The sad thing about all of this that for too long, Christians have been a soft touch in London, throughout Europe, Africa and America.  Unfortunately, Christians have bought into the misnomer that loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek means allowing yourself to be abused and pushed around.

Both Great Britain and the United States at one time were greatly influenced by Christian principles.  Thus both nations were blessed beyond compare.  In fact, at one time the saying was “the sun never sets upon the British Empire.”  Her land holdings spanned entirely around the globe.  Before the ascent of the United States, Great Britain was the standard of the world.  But something very foolish happen in 1957.  Stupidity overtook wisdom and England gave up it’s major Seagate, the Suez Canal which opened the door to the ultimate destruction of British invincibility.  At the same time the Brits  turned away from the God of Christianity as fast as someone turns their nose away from a bottle of bleach.  Thus the decline of Britain became etched in stone.

In life, if you move your feet, you lose your seat.  Or if you give up your God given wisdom and authority, someone else becomes the boss.  It is plain to see that the good elements that paved the way toward building the great city of London and the once mighty empire of Britain have been replaced.  In their place are the deceptive, brutish and nation killing elements that are disintegrating one of the greatest civilizations in human history.  In many cases, both the British and Christians have no one to blame but themselves for the horrors British society is experiencing today.  Gosh do I miss the likes of the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Until Britain and the United States decide to stand up for themselves and reconnect with the principles and the influences of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob they will continue to be torn down by the followers of the death God of Islam.

London’s Muslim mayor pledges to help Hillary beat Trump

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in America take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun.” How absolutely grand. The hard-Left routinely derides those who are concerned about jihad terrorism for their “fear,” as if being afraid of being murdered by Islamic jihadis were some kind of character defect. Very well. They elected Sadiq Khan, and Hillary Clinton may well be elected also by campaigning against “fear,” and we will all march unafraid into our glorious multicultural future. Including, of course, Islamic jihad terrorists.

Sadiq Khan MP at Westminster, London, Britain - 11 Oct 2012

“Sadiq Khan pledges to help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump,” by Jon Stone, The Independent, May 12, 2016:

Sadiq Khan has offered to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump – pledging his successful campaign as a “template” to hers.

Mr Khan, the new Mayor of London, said he had successfully beaten the Conservatives’ “Donald Trump approach” to elections in last weeks’ vote.

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in American [sic] take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun,” he told reporters at the capital’s City Hall, according to the Politico website.

He said he was planning to travel to the US before the end of the year due to the threat of Mr Trump’s proposed policy of banning all Muslims from traveling to the US.

Mr Khan’s election has attracted interest from around the world on account of his election as the first Muslim mayor of a major western capital city.

Mr Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican presidential candidacy, commented on Mr Khan’s election by saying he would make an exception for him to visit the US.

But Mr Khan rejected the offer. “The idea of making an exception for me because I’m the Mayor of London demonstrates how little they understand,” he said.

Like failed Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith, Mr Trump has been accused of running a “racist” campaign by singling out people for travel bans on account of their faith.

Mr Goldsmith was accused of using “dog whistle” tactics to repeatedly draw attention to Mr Khan’s Muslim faith – as well as attempts to link him with Islamic extremists….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim “Sharia patrols” terrorize Copenhagen bars in “Sharia zone”

Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”

London Muslim mayor: ‘Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe’

Well, that didn’t take long. London elects a Muslim who opposes “extremism” as mayor, and almost immediately he issues a veiled threat: Trump must drop his “ignorant view of Islam,” i.e., he must change his stance regarding Muslim immigration, or else the U.S. and the U.K. will be less safe. So a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration in order to try to prevent jihad terror attacks in the U.S. will only lead to jihad terror attacks in the U.S. Khan is in effect saying “Let Muslims in — or else.” Yet letting in Muslim immigrants, in light of the fact that there is no way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, will also lead to jihad terror attacks.

Also, what “ignorant view of Islam” has Donald Trump ever expressed? He has simply made the quite sensible and true observation that there is no way to keep jihadis out while letting Muslims in. Can Sadiq Khan dispute that? Would he even care to?

What an interesting statement, in any case: for Khan, ignorance of Islam is unsafe. One must have “knowledge” of Islam, that is, one must adhere to the politically correct Islam-Is-Peace and Muslims-Are-Victims line in order to be safe.

The implications of this are far-reaching. Presumably then to point out that Islam has doctrines mandating warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation renders one unsafe — and unsafe in what way? Why, it makes you liable to be attacked by Muslims who are enraged because you don’t believe Islam is peaceful. So for Khan, one must believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, or risk being attacked by violent Muslims.

Sadiq-Khan2

Sadiq Khan

“London’s New Mayor Warns Trump: Let In Muslims Or They Will Attack America,” by Blake Neff, Daily Caller, May 10, 2016 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

…“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete. A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As Iran repeats that US is its chief enemy, Kerry tries to drum up some business in Europe for Iran

Germany: Muslim migrant sexually assaults 6-year-old boy in changing room

RELATED VIDEO: Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL!

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?

During the election, questions arose about Sadiq Khan’s long history of association with extremists.

Majid Nawaz’s assessment of London’s new Muslim mayor, the newly elected Sadiq Khan, is that he is not an Islamist extremist. He is merely a manipulative politician willing to use guile and duplicity to achieve his electoral aims — not so different from the average politician.

Leading up to the mayoral vote, questions arose about Khan’s association with extremists, which constitutes a long list in the new mayor’s political history.

Consider:

  • In 2001, Khan was the lawyer for the American radical Islamist group Nation of Islam, successfully arguing in front of the UK’s High Court to overturn the ban on its leader, Louis Farrakhan.
  • In 2003, Khan appeared at a conference with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the banned al-Muhajiroun group that was founded by hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad (now prohibited from entering the UK) and led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary (whose many organizations have been said to have contributed “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history”). Sajeel also ran a terrorist training camp in Pakistan attended by 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.
  • In 2004, Khan testified to the House of Commons as head of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee. As council legal head, Khan argued in parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.” Qaradawi (also banned in the UK for his extremist views) advocates, among other sharia principles, for wife beating and suicide bombings against Israeli citizens. After the murder of an Ahmadi Muslim in Scotland for wishing his Christian customers a peaceful Easter, the council “condemned” the incident by pointing out that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
  • Khan was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist and confessed member of Al Qaeda.
  • Khan attended events for the extremist group CAGE and wrote a forward for one of their reports. CAGE is a primary supporter of the Islamic State executioner known as “Jihadi John,” who they described as a “beautiful young man.”
  • Khan appeared on panels with Muslim community leader and cleric Suliman Gani, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), no less than nine times.
  • In 2010, Khan shamelessly played the Ahmadi card, flaring up sectarian hatred in his reelection bid to the parliament when faced with stiff competition from Nasser Butt, an Ahmadi who had opposed the war in Iraq unlike Khan who had voted in favor of it.

Defending himself against charges of extremism, Khan points to his record on supporting rights for homosexual and transsexual rights. Since he was first elected to parliament in 2005, that support has been unwavering.

Khan has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism. Most recently, he stated he was “embarrassed and sorrowful” about the glaring anti-Semitism that has been spotlighted in his own party.

As the Muslim Public Affairs Committee in the UK (MPAC-UK) derogatorily pointed out in a comment piece on their website posted just two days before the election, “A Vote for Sadiq Khan in the London Mayor Elections is a Vote for Israel.”

Much to MPAC-UK’s chagrin and dismay, Khan is an opponent of the anti-Israel BDS movement. Although he called for sanctions against Israel in 2009, he says he has since changed his mind.

On the last day of his campaign, it was revealed that in an interview Khan gave in 2009 on Iranian television, he referred to Muslims fighting extremism as “Uncle Toms.”  (He has since apologized.)

Still, Majid Nawaz insists that Khan is no extremist. Khan was Nawaz’s lawyer when he was arrested in Egypt for working for the banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nawaz, now a prominent counter extremism campaigner, says he is forever indebted to Khan for visiting him in Egypt’s Mazra Tora prison, “while the world gave up on me.”

Ironically, it was Nawaz’s counter-extremism foundation Quilliam that were targeted by Khan in his “Uncle Tom” remarks.

Nawaz refrained from commenting on Khan and his electoral bid until after the election. In his first piece penned after the election, Nawaz paints a picture of Khan as a realist (read: opportunistic) and consummate politician.

“When push comes to shove, gaining power becomes more important for politicians from all parties, than defending principles,” writes Nawaz. “And sadly, extremists remain among the most powerful organized forces in Britain’s Muslim grassroots.”

Nawaz explains the unfortunate political climate in today’s Britain: “By 2009, extremism had grown so rife among my own British Muslim community that, in a sign of our times, a Muslim government minister for Social Cohesion [Khan] would find it politically expedient to call a group of Muslims, who were not in government, ‘Uncle Toms’ simply for criticizing extremism.”

Yet, Nawaz doesn’t give Khan a free pass, saying, “It did not need to be like this. As a column in the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ‘Other Muslim leaders took a different approach.’

“The struggles that reforming liberal and ex-Muslims face every day, the dehumanization, the delegitimization, the excommunication, the outcasting, the threats, intimidation and the violence makes this inexcusable … Why is it okay for a mayor to have shared panels with all manner of Muslim extremists, while actively distancing himself from, and smearing, counter-extremist Muslims?”

A good question it would behoove the new mayor to answer.

ABOUT MEIRA SVIRSKY

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Anti-Semite Elected London Mayor Jihad Khan Defended 9/11 Terrorists

UK Student Union President Opposed Condemning ISIS

UK Arrests Five Terror Suspects

What Do Young British Muslims Think About the Caliphate?

Shock Poll: 23% of British Muslims Want Sharia Rules in UK

Obama Addresses Terror Linked Baltimore Mosque which Practices ‘Gender Apartheid’

President  Obama went to Baltimore for a friendly gathering at the Islamic Center of Baltimore Mosque in Catonsville, Maryland. He was there  to convey a message that Muslims are as American as apple pie. Problem is that he chose a Mosque deep into political Islam, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Islamic Society of North America , supporting suicide bombers  and professing  hate  for U.S. ally Israel.  All despite the FBI file sent to the White House confirming this information. No matter. It was a photo op moment to show support for embattled American Muslims  given statements from Republican  hopeful, Donald Trump that he would stop immigration of Muslims.

The scene was replete with introduction by a hijab swathed college student on track for a medical career. The President in his remarks pointed out another  hijab wearing  fencing marvel that may be carrying the U.S. flag at the Olympic Games in Rio de Janiero this summer. The President spoke of the kind comments of  founding Fathers John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who purportedly included Mohammedans in the ambit of freedom of worship in America guaranteed by our First Amendment.

Problem is that he forgot to mention the real reason Thomas Jefferson had a copy of a Qur’an in his library at Monticello. A Qur’an, upon which , the first elected U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) swore a private oath of office on January 4, 2007. I know I passed by his office with a clutch of TV cameramen recording this for posterity. Ellison was at the ISB gathering,  as was the second elected Muslim Congressmen, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN).  Doubtless, as this was the President’s alleged first visit to an American Mosque, there may have been notables at the Mosque in Catonsville from CAIR and ISNA.  But not too worry this was kumbaya day at the ISB.

Watch the You Tube video of the President’s expansive, yet, cautionary message of support for American Muslims:

American Muslims  that he pointed out  in his remarks  assembled Ford automobiles in Michigan, built the first  continuous Mosque in  Cedar Rapids,, Iowa, served  honorably in the US military and some were buried in the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery. Yes, there were those small pockets of extremists in the Muslim Ummah like ISIS or ISIL as he likes to call it with its self-declared Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Barbarically beheading Christians, enslaving minority Yazidi women and children, destroying ancient cultures in the name of Allah, their God.  Then there are the extremist Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan killing women, homosexuals and Christian infidels. Oh, we forgot the Mahdist Shia in Tehran who the President makes deals with to prevent a nuclear war, he thinks. Last year, they only executed 1,000 for crimes of gender, homosexuality and heterodox beliefs.

As to the reason why Jefferson had a Qur’an in his library, just recall their encounter in London with the Tripolitanian Ambassador in their roles as US Commissioners trying to understand why the Bey of Tripoli enslaved American sailors he seized along with their ships in the Mediterranean. Note this  Notable and Quotable in the Wall Street Journal:

From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:

We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Clearly, Adams and Jefferson knew something that President Obama doesn’t choose to admit in public.  That Islam is not the religion of peace and tolerance that its religious theocrats make it out to be.  Subsequently, as the Third President of the US, Jefferson would conduct a covert war that freed American hostages with a few Marines at the fabled ‘walls of Tripoli’ from the likes of the Sharia-mad Bey.

Leo Hohmann at WND, cited an Investigative Project Report by Steve Emerson giving details on why the FBI thought the ISB was a poor choice for the President for this encounter, “Obama.” Hohman cites Emerson  saying:

IPT founder and executive director  Steve Emerson told WND his organization was told by FBI sources that Obama was presented the evidence against the Islamic Society of Baltimore.

According to Emerson’s investigation, federal law enforcement officials told him they were asked about whether the Baltimore mosque had engaged in radical politics or was connected in any way to terrorism in the past.

“They prepared memos for the president’s aides that specifically laid out the sordid history and nexus to terrorism of the Islamic Society of Baltimore,” Emerson told WND.

So what did the president do?

“As he has done so many times in the past, he decided to ignore this evidence and still continue his plans to confer legitimacy on a mosque that has a history of having officials connected to Islamic terrorism and to this day still has officials making outrageously pro-terrorist statements that would seem to conflict with the president’s policies,” Emerson said.

The mosque is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA, which has its own sordid history.

ISNA was started by members of the international Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is banned in many countries as an extremist organization.

“One can only conclude that the selection of this mosque by the president was made as part of his consistent policy to not even utter the term ‘radical Islam’ and the simultaneous policy of inviting only radical Islamist groups and leaders to the White House that FBI documents clearly show were derived from the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas,” Emerson told WND.

But there was another problem with the  choice of the ISB, the occurrence of gender apartheid prior to this auspicious occasion.

The media was  atwitter about the President’s  presentation at the Islamic Society of Baltimore. All of those media pundits should read this New York Times op ed by a leader of the Muslim Reform Movement (MRM), Asra Nomani and Ify Okoye, a disaffected member of the Mosque, about the gender apartheid practiced at the ISB, “Obama’s mosque visit demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form of gender apartheid.”

We have interviewed colleagues of Asra Nomani, Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser and Canadian leader of MRM, Raheel Raza who recently returned from a successful trip to Israel on The Lisa Benson Show. We hope to bring back Raza and introduce Ms. Nomani to discuss what the MRM is advocating and doing. Note what Nomani and Okoye wrote:

At the Islamic Society of Baltimore this past Sunday, the air was filled with the scent of Sherwin-Williams paint that workers were rolling onto the walls of the run-down balcony section where women and girls are usually segregated, unable to see the imam unless they peek over the balcony’s edge. A sign outside the door to the balcony said, “STOP Please. No Shoes. No Strollers. No Diaper Change. Beyond this point.”

Asra slipped into the mosque’s main hall to join the “halaqa,” or study circle. There, the study circle leader, teaching a half dozen men gathered around him, talked about the virtues of the first Muslim community in Medina, saying that a society isn’t “civilized” just because it’s technological.

Then, a young man, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned “Who Do You Love?” piped up, “So that means the West isn’t civilized.”

“That’s right,” the study circle leader said.

Another man railed against the West and its “atheists.”

Asra took a deep breath, listening to the sound of the crew white-washing the mosque for the president’s visit. “That’s a very unfair conclusion,” she said. “You are sitting in the West and railing against the West as not being civilized? It is not fair to make the assumption that the West ‘isn’t civilized.’”

The men tried to backtrack. They spoke with more nuance, before the study leader digressed again into the idea that those who aren’t Muslim act out of “self-interest,” while Muslims act out of an “order from God to do righteousness,” a point that Asra also politely refuted as motivated by “self-interest” and as an unfair representation of the many good people who aren’t Muslim.

As women and girls, we should be supported by policies that allow us to be part of such conversations. The president can support this urgent cause by speaking out against gender segregation in American mosques. In the spirit of the civil rights moment when whites stood with blacks, we hope men and women will refuse the privilege that “interfaith” events give them, and, in act of solidarity, stand outside with us on Johnnycake Road and the other pathways leading to the mosques in our world, advocating for equal rights for all.

So,  the President did what he wanted to do  with the ISB visit; show solidarity with the plight of American Muslims, sidelined by GOP hopeful Donald Trump.  He chose to avoid the advice of the FBI busily tracking down and arresting ISIS inspired lone wolves out to kill Americans on the streets here in the US that he Mosque leaders consorted with terrorist networks. That would upset  the President’s  alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood seeking their active participation in countering violent extremism and conducted a less than strenuous war against the Islamic State inspiring  tens of thousands from across the Ummah to join and practice the pure Islam in the self declared Caliphate.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of President Obama at the Islamic Center of Baltimore in Catonsville, Maryland, February 3, 2016 – Source: Reuters.

A Victory In Lawfare

This has not been a good year.  From the start of January when gunmen walked into the offices of Charlie Hebdo to last month when suicide bombers walked into a concert hall in the same city, the terror and bloodshed may have returned to France but in the meantime it circled the entire globe.  From California to Tunisia and Texas to Mosul this year has been one of atrocities and barbarism of a scale almost too appalling to consider.

At the same time our politicians have struggled to even get some consensus on what to do about the human tide which has flowed across the continent and begun a process of change which will take decades to play out.  In the Middle East we have prevaricated and then patted ourselves on the back for doing little and late.  In the international arena we have seen Vladimir Putin begin to look like a world leader, while the President of the United States has been reduced to something like a global commentator. Everywhere the world looks more unstable and uncertain and the future more troubling than it has at any year’s end for a long time.

In such a situation one has to look for points of light.  One such point came this week in a small but important victory in the UK.  It is a year and a half since David Cameron ordered a review into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK.  Since the conclusion of that report’s findings and its writing-up earlier this year the Brotherhood has three times tried to stop the report’s findings from being released.  They have attempted injunctions in March, in the summer and then again this week, just one day before the publication of the findings, though not the full report.

That such an organisation can even think of being able to use the British courts to silence the British government says much about why the global battle against Islamic extremism is going backwards.  But the UK government won out and its findings are immensely helpful to pushing back the tide of extremism at home.  While deciding that the Brotherhood does not meet the level of violence required to justify outright proscription it does find that the group is one that possibly leads to extremism and that new measures should therefore be put in place to tackle those groups and individuals associated with the movement.

When the review began a team of our top researchers at HJS were invited in to give evidence about the activities of the Brotherhood in the UK and in Europe.  It was a great pleasure and honour to do so and to be able to name some of those who have been named and identified in the final report’s conclusions.  This makes the fight against the group’s affiliates in the UK very significantly easier.  Much of the challenge in this area in recent years has been fighting to ensure that extremist groups are identified as such by the authorities so that it cannot be lowered to a ‘he-says, she-say’ debate between non-governmental organisations.

Much more will be needed to turn events around globally, but keeping our own stable clean in the UK and Europe is a very important part of changing around that global tide.  This is a very long conflict, and although the set-backs can be swift, progress is always arduous.  Nevertheless, some progress there is and for that we can at least reflect on a year which has ended with a modest victory.


mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK  

This week, yet another bit of hope in the world was extinguished by the Obama Administration. In this case, that the USA would attempt to stick by some principles – as well as sound strategic sense – in its decision making over Syria.

Speaking in Moscow following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Secretary of State John Kerry uttered the fatal words that “The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change” in Syria. In short, that the Butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, could stay in power after all, and despite both destroying his country and occasioning the rise of Islamic State through his murderous behaviour.

This is disappointing, but not surprising. The Obama Administration has after all flunked pretty much every foreign policy test thrown at it, ranging from Russia in Ukraine to the Iranian nuclear agreement.

But it is also a decision that will have serious consequences going forwards. If our declared intention is to defeat Islamic State by bringing the remaining non-jihadist forces together in a political settlement, then keeping Mr Assad will make that harder, not easier to achieve. Syrian rebels who have spent the past few years seeking his removal on account of his dictatorship will not now suddenly rush to embrace him, although they could have been persuaded to ally with Assad’s regime minus a few figureheads. Instead, they will continue their struggle, even if it looks ever more forlorn.

Assad has become a symbol of oppression. And in acquiescing to that symbol’s survival, the US has betrayed its principles as a bastion of liberty in the world. You can be certain that Islamic State will use this declaration to pump propaganda material out to its Muslim targets in the West, entreating them to join its jihad because the Western powers have shown they are happy to tolerate repression.

But the true victors from this policy shift will be the Iranian revolutionary regime. Assad’s dependency on Iran is well-established. If his regime wins, then so does Iran. And if Iran wins in Syria, it will be able to extend its push for dominance in the region through territorial control linking Lebanon to Iran through a direct land corridor that will take in Syria and a Shia dominated Iraqi state. Which will be bad for Western allies in the region, and ultimately for the West itself.

Congratulations therefore to President Obama and Mr Kerry. It is a rare feat to be both strategically shortsighted and morally bereft. But they have managed it and in some style.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

When will President Obama tell Muslims to stop clinging to their religion and guns?

President Obama has scheduled a broadcast to the nation to address the recent attacks in Paris, Mali, San Bernardino and today in London. His administration has made it a point to never blame Muslims for their individual actions, nor to blame Islam for its hate of non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

Perhaps it is now time for President Obama to face the reality that Muslims cling to their religion and guns. The difference is they use their guns to further their religion. Christians and Jews do not.

Paul R. Hollrah reports:

On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia.  Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promote tolerance, to ensure public safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)

This is the official narrative of the Obama administration.

As I pointed out in my column “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed“:

I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.

Extremism in the name of the collective is the over riding strategy of the neo-Democrat. Radicalism is the tactic. The more extreme the ideal, the more it is embraced. This leads to what some have labeled a form of political insanity. I call it political suicide. History teaches us that tyrants and tyranny ultimately lose the support of the masses. Why? Because the policies implemented harm the masses.

[ … ]

The ideal of collectivism is alive and well in the neo-Democrat Party. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed, those who make up the core of the neo-Democrat Party.

[ … ]

The Democratic Party of JFK has morphed into the neo-Democrat Party by dint of constant pressure from the radicals and the constant retreat of the Jeffersonian Democrats.

Today the Democrat Party has fundamentally transformed into the party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

It is a struggle between the civilized man and the uncivilized man (savage).

dietrich bonhoffer quoteI expect President Obama to defend Muslims and Islam in the name of tolerance and civil rights. But whose tolerance and who’s civil rights? Not those of Christians and Jews.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

I expect President Obama will express more absurdities, which have become his administration’s and the Democrat Party’s official ideology.