Posts

VIDEO: Islamic Immigration

Islamic immigration [Hijra] is unlike any other form of immigration. The political doctrine of Islam started with Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina. After Mohammed went to Medina his message changed from pure religion to politics and jihad. Only 150 Arabs in Mecca converted, but after 10 years of jihad, every Arab became Muslim.

The migration from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, since it was migration that produced success.

There are 91 verses that command Muslims to imitate Mohammed. Therefore, every Muslim has the duty to bring the Sharia to the host country, in order to Islamicize it.

Islamic jihadists tweet Pamela Geller’s home address, call for her murder

Islamic jihadists want to make an example of Pamela Geller, showing that they will enforce Sharia’s death penalty for blasphemy upon non-Muslims with impunity. U.S. authorities, in response, are busy kowtowing, instead of declaring that Pamela Geller will be protected and the freedom of speech defended. Capitulation is the order of the day — but the cowards call it “respect” and “refraining from deliberate provocation.”

“Extremists tweet home address of US liberties campaigner Pamela Geller,” by Alexander Ward, Independent, June 14, 2015:

Pamela Geller, the President of the American Freedom Defence Initiative (AFDI), has been targeted by Islamic extremists after they tweeted her home address in New York.

Ms Geller has previously organised controversial “Draw the Prophet” events in Texas which resulted in a deadly attack when gunmen tried to gain access to the event.

Actually, there was just one such event so far, and it was not called “Draw the Prophet,” as we do not acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet. The event was intended to stand for the freedom of speech against attempts to use threats of violence to force non-Muslims to obey Sharia blasphemy laws.

The tweet, which was posted by an account linked to Abu Hussain al-Britani, a British man fighting for Isis, showed Ms Geller’s home address followed by #GoForth. The account has since been suspended by Twitter.

In May, two gunmen were killed and a security guard injured, when they attacked the “Draw the Prophet” event in Garland.

The contest had been organised in the months after the January attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

In the aftermath of the shooting the AFDI attempted have the cartoon published on Washington DC subway network, a move which was blocked by transport authorities.

At the time, Ms Geller told NBC: “There is nothing about this cartoon that incites violence, it is within the established American tradition of satire.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK waterpark bans bikinis, orders visitors to wear ‘Islamically appropriate’ clothes

UK Muslim medical student urges Muslim doctors to join the Islamic State

Muhammad drawing exhibition BANNED in Denmark

Al Azhar distributing free book dedicated to discrediting Christianity, the “failed religion”

Al Azhar—arguably the Islamic world’s most prestigious Islamic university—continues to incite Egypt’s Muslims against Christians.  Most recently the university was exposed distributing a free booklet dedicated to discrediting Christianity, chock full of direct attacks on Christianity in general and the nation’s Coptic Christians in particular.

Christianity is referred to as a “failed religion,” while Islam  is hailed as the true and superior religion.

Because the “seeds of weakness” are inherent in Christianity and the Bible, says the booklet, Islam was easily able to supplant it in the Middle East.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egypt summons U.S. ambassador over D.C. Muslim Brotherhood meetings

Turkey: Christian schools shut down for distributing Bibles to Muslim refugees from Syria

‘The Butterfly Effect’ – Obama, Climate Change, and Islam’s War against the World by Ralph Sidway

If even the wings of a butterfly have weight and shared causality, then what of the teachings and example of a seventh century desert prophet?

President Obama, during his recent address at the Coast Guard Commencement ceremonies, again offered his profound views on the myriad vectors shaping global unrest and chaos. Ranking high among the primal forces threatening us — high enough to be emphasized by the President of the most powerful nation on the planet — is that bane of mankind, “climate change.”  Lest there be any doubt of the gravity of the situation, or of his authority in such matters, Mr. Obama predicates his mission with a great “I am” statement:

“I am here to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and make no mistake, will impact how our military defends our country.”

The Obama Administration is consistent and adamant on this topic. This past February, Vice-President Biden told college students in Iowa that “global warming is the greatest threat of anything at all, across the board,” and Secretary of State Kerry has likewise been beating the same drum. (Never mind that the data shows we have been in a “global warming pause” for nearly two decades, and that climate-change IPCC scientists resorted to manipulating the data in order to create the fraudulent “hockey-stick graph” and advance their agenda.)

Curiously, the Administration’s emphasis on the threat from “climate change” seems to roughly balance its insistence that the Islamic State Caliphate is “not Islamic” and is not much of a threat anyway.  One might be tempted to think that the “war against climate change” is being used as a tool to deflect attention away from Islam’s war against us.

But let’s allow, for the sake of argument (and in deference to the great Ray Bradbury’s short story,“A Sound of Thunder”), that there is some validity to “The Butterfly Effect,” the chaos theory corollary which postulates that events of great consequence may be set in motion by much smaller events separated by vast scales of time and distance. “Change one thing — Change everything,” says the tag for the 2004 Ashton Kutcher film of the same name.

So, in the Obama narrative, chaotic weather shifts are contributing to drought, floods, poverty, inequity, and a host of other effects, all triggers generating global violent extremism, as disenfranchised groups duke it out for dwindling resources — or something like that.

But no matter how you dress it up with fancy words and phony analysis, the Obama narrative of “Blame it on the weather” is not only incorrect, it is downright deceitful.

Let’s rather explore “the Butterfly Effect” and take a quick ride in Ray Bradbury’s time machine back to the early 7th century. Let’s set the dials for shortly after Muhammad makes his hijra to Medina (Year 1, in the Islamic calendar). Let’s listen to the prophet and watch his actions. But take care not to step off the path.

The first thing we might hear would be recitations of early, Meccan-period, Quran verses such as these:

50:45. We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur’an, him who fears My Threat.

109:1. Say: “O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers)!

109:2. “I worship not that which you worship,

109:3. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.

109:4. “And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

109:5. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.

109:6. “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islam).”

That sounds reasonable enough. Muhammad was not a tyrant – the Quran tells us so! Islam is a “live and let live” religion.  Yes, this is what the experts and the president say Islam is.

We might even be around to hear Muhammad share this verse, from early in the Medinan period:

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

I remember those Islam experts telling us this, yes! Here is the religion of peace in its formative years… How wonderful!

But let’s stay on the path and keep watching and listening.

Wait… What’s this? This sounds totally at odds with what we heard after first arriving in the Way-Back machine:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush…

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone…

8:12 I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).

What? This isn’t the Islam I was told about by Obama and the experts at all! Fighting, killing and domination, supposedly the literal commands of God!?  Why, that would mean the words are eternal, unchanging…

But stay on the path… Let’s keep watching, it’s not just about the words. Surely they were taken out of context…

Wait… What’s this? Raids on caravans? A battle at Badr? More raids on different tribes? Battle after battle… And new revelations endorsing this, killing the vanquished, deceit and treachery, taking sex slaves and booty!

We saw other tribes exiled by Muhammad, but now, after his victory at Medina, we can hardly believe our eyes!  Muhammad ordering the beheading of hundreds of men from the Bani Quraiza! The Muslims cheering and beheading them in huge groups. Muhammad himself setting the chief example! All the blood and carnage… Unbelievable! It’s like ISIS times twenty!

Returning to our own time, we look around at the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban. We see the beheadings, the taking of captives, the slavery, the booty. We see thousands of Muslims from Europe and North America, Australia and Central Asia, flocking to join the Islamic State. We see the persecution of non-Muslims in Indonesia (which President Obama told us is modern and moderate!), Malaysia (another moderate Islamic country!), Egypt, Turkey…

And we hear and read of them justifying what they’re doing using the Quran itself…

Why, this is exactly what we saw and heard being commanded in our time travel back to Muhammad’s day. This is exactly what Muhammad did and preached!  The Islamic State ISIslamic!

No matter how often we check our boots, there is no dead butterfly crushed in the treads, no alternate blame to be laid on some shift in the timeline, nor on the forces of nature or even “human-caused global warming.”

The causes of “violent extremism” — Alas! — are now clear to us after seeing it with our own eyes. It is Muhammad himself who set all this in motion, fourteen centuries ago. It is Muhammad’s own example and the words he claimed were from God which devout Muslims today are following.

Of course, there is no time travel in the literal sense of the word. But our hypothetical journey to the seventh century in search of the Butterfly Effect was based entirely upon the Quran and the life of Muhammad as collected by his followers and as set down by his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq. Islam’s own revered texts provide the Way-Back machine, the lens into the past, which reveals to us the prophet and what he was like.

Sorry, Mr. Obama, you almost had us fooled, but no more. Sure, maybe the weather can impact human societies, but now we have seen with our own eyes the real cause of Islam’s war against the world.

And now we know it is Muhammad and the Quran.

And the sound we hear all around us… a sound of thunder.

ABOUT RALPH SIDWAY:

Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

RELATED ARTICLES:

75% of U.S. bombing runs targeting Islamic State returned without firing a shot

Islamic State propagandist, a Muslim from Boston, killed in Iraqi airstrike

The dreaded Diet Coke of Islamophobia

Muslim woman calls for airline boycott over can of Diet Coke for ‘tears of humiliation from discrimination’

Federal Refugee Program Brings Jihadi Threat to America

According to the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project (Pew Research) there are an estimated 2.7 million Muslims in America. Pew Research reported in 2013 over I million legal immigrants entered the U.S. of which 100,000 were Muslim. More than 1.3 million Muslims have been brought into the U.S. via the billion dollar U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (U.S. RAP). Annually the U.S. RAP brings in 70,000 refugees allotted by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR). These annual USRAP allotments are virtually controlled by the UNHCR, which designates refugee populations most at risk. The current USRAP allotment exceeds that of all other countries combined. Separate from the U.S. RAP are other legal avenues for Muslim immigration that include the asylum program that converts illegal border crossers into legal immigrants with benefits equivalent to refugees, the Diversity “Green Card” Lottery and the investor EB-5 Visa Program.

According to Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  (RRW) blog,  this UN refugee agency “virtually calls the shots”  for the U.S. RAP that provides legal refugee immigrants with a veritable smorgasbord of cash welfare, Social Security benefits for elderly refugees, Medicaid, educational  assistance and a pathway to ultimate citizenship. Including both federal and state level benefits; some experts estimate that the annual total cost of the U.S. RAP could be upwards of $12 to $20 billion annually.

The tripartite US RAP is administered by: the US Department of State, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration (BPRM) that admits and contracts with voluntary agencies to process refugees; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allegedly screens refugees abroad; and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the US Department of Health and Human Services that funds grants to program contractors and refugee ethnic groups for community absorption. The President, upon advice from the State Department BPRM, sends Congress an annual directive conveying these UNHCR refugee allotments that are virtually “rubber stamped” by immigration and border security subcommittees of Congress. A network of 9 major religious and secular voluntary agencies (VOLAG), supported by 350 subcontractors places refugees in more than 190 cities, often without any opportunity for review by localities. These contractors include:

  • Church World Services (CWS)
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC)
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries
  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
  • International Rescue Committee (IRC)
  • U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
  • World Relief Corporation (WR).

Based on 2012 IRS Form 990 submissions, the top U.S. RAP funded Volag was the IRC that received more than $332 millions in federal grants and contracts accounting for more than 73% of annual revenue. Next in rank was the USCCB that received $71 million in federal grants and contracts accounting for 98% of their annual revenue.

The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions Program through hearings and recommendations. The U.S. RAP has been used punitively against political critics. One example is the assignment of large numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota

The U.S. RAP has been fraught with fraud facilitating the entry of Muslim Jihadis from countries that hate us; Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Rampant fraud was detected from DHS DNA samples taken among Somali applicants for screening under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years. 20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued or ejected. Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department refugee program let in to the US hundreds of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.

Poised to add to this troubling mix is a stream of 17,000 Syrian refugees, who are predominately Muslim, discriminating against admissions of endangered Middle East Christians. Doubtless they and growing number of Muslim refugees from elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia will be “seeded” in American cities under the Fostering Community Engagement and Welcoming Communities Project of theORR with the Soros-backed NGO, “Welcoming America.“

There are rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that has operated for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Corcoran of RRW believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting hundreds of potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Now there is pushback by American cities, as witnessed by concerns expressed in letters to Secretary of State Kerry by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Judiciary Sub Committee on Immigration and Border Security. Both The House Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) hold annual hearings over refugee allotments. Gowdy’s letter of April 13, 2015 was prompted by constituent complaints in Spartanburg, South Carolina over the establishment of a VOLAG office dedicated to the processing of Syrian refugees. He wrote Secretary Kerry seeking answers as to why the office was being established and had not been reviewed with state and local agencies.

The US RAP is a virtual Trojan Horse facilitating immigration under the Islamic doctrine of Dar al Hijra- immigration that constitutes civilizational jihad. This is the subject of a book by former Islamic jurist and convert to Christianity, Sam Solomon, and co-author E Al MaqdisiModern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration – accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  The authors drew attention to the Islamic imperative behind migration allegedly attributed to the prophet Mohammed:

Migration cannot be ended as long as there is kufr (unbelief) or as long as there is an enemy that resists (kenz al Umak 4627). In other words, as long as there are communities out there that are non-Muslim, where Islam is not regarded as a supreme system, then jihad must continue.

Hence, Mohammed made it clear that migration is a duty that needs to be upheld forever or until the earth has submitted to the Islamic hegemony.

The authors note that the hadith (alleged sayings of Mohammed) demand that Muslim migrants not assimilate and remain separate adhering to Sharia “advancing the cause of Islam”:

In other words: “no integration with the host country.” Now if one’s entry visa or livelihood is based on showing some kind of integration … then it must be in appearance only and temporary until the Islamization objective is achieved.

Corcoran is featured in a brief video on the problematic Muslim refugee resettlement in the US produced by the Center for Security Policy. It has gone viral since posted on YouTube April 20, 2015. As of May 29, 2015 the Corcoran video had more than 537,122 hits which continue to climb every day. Clearly, Corcoran’s message has resonated among concerned Americans. Watch it on YouTube:

The CSP YouTube video is a complement to her recently published book on the problems confronting America over the threat of Muslim migration that has transformed Europe and now troubles grass roots America, Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”

Corcoran and her RRW team of activists chronicle news and developments about this issue on the blog where she is editor, Refugee Resettlement Watch. In our May 2015 NER interview with Erick Stakelbeck ofCBN’s The Watchman program, ISIS Threat to America, he drew attention to the Somali refugee communities in the American heartland sending jihadi terrorists to Somalia and Syria. He spoke of young Somali émigré men who have joined up with Al Shabaab in Somalia, and now the Islamic State. We have drawn attention to the problems of Somali Refugee Resettlement in NER articles and Iconoclast posts over the past eight years. They have covered severe cultural and integration problems in the American heartland in places like Shelbyville, TennesseeEmporia, KansasGreeley , ColoradoMinneapolis, MinnesotaColumbus, Ohio, and Lewiston, Maine.

The Somali émigré jihadis aren’t the only terrorists among admitted refugees. Six Bosnian refugees were arrested in January 2015 and charged with providing material support to the Islamic State. Think of the brothers Tsarnaev who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. See our NER article, “Refugee Jihad Terror in Boston.” An ABC investigation reported that dozens of terrorists have been admitted fraudulently under the U.S. RAP.

Another example was two Iraqi refugees, al Qaeda operatives, arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2011 and convicted in 2013. They were charged with sending weapons and cash to Al Qaeda. They lied on their Federal Refugee Admission forms about their prior terrorist involvements in Iraq. One had constructed IEDs, involved in killing four members of a Pennsylvania National Guard unit in 2006 in Iraq. A check of fingerprints on the shards of the IED caught the perpetrator. Watch this 2013 ABC Report. Recently, one of those convicted, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction because his counsel said he wouldn’t get life. That episode briefly raised the ire of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

In late May 2015 Democrat Senators Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and 12 others have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to admit a flood of 65,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees “suggested” by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):

The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration.

On the same day, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called the resettlement effort a “serious mistake” because of the security risks it poses.

Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon reported May 23, 2015 that the DHS admitted that several hundred terrorist supporters entered the U.S. illegally, and subsequently were admitted as refugees giving rise to Congressional demands for information and a likely hearing:

Congress is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) release documents detailing how many foreigners seeking asylum in the United States have been found to have ties to terror groups, according to a recent letter sent to the agency by leading lawmakers.

The letter comes on the heels of revelations by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that at least 638 aliens seeking asylum in America have been found to have connections to terrorists.

Against this background, we arranged to interview Ann Corcoran of RRW.

Mike Bates

Mike Bates:  Good afternoon and welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. This half hour is a special conversation about a topic that I think is safe to say almost no one in America is aware of. Certainly the percentage of people who are aware is in single digits. Joining me, Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog, The Iconoclast. Welcome, Jerry.

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Good to be here, Mike.

Bates:  And joining us by telephone is Ann Corcoran. She’s editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch, and the author of the book Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America. Ann. Welcome.

Ann Corcoran:  Thank you so much for having me.

Bates:  Ann, I’d like to build this pyramid from the ground up with a very broad based question. What refugee resettlement are you watching?

Corcoran:  I’m watching a very complicated, secretive program, where we bring in approximately 70,000 refugees a year from various countries around the world, and the U.N. is basically calling the shots as to who gets into the country.

Bates:  Are you concerned about refugees from the entire planet, or a specific segment that is of greater concern?

Corcoran:  I can tell you the truth; it’s quite shocking for most people to realize that we are bringing in tens of thousands of refugees every year from countries where people hate us; Somalia, Iraq and soon Syria will be on the list. It is those refugees that I’m most concerned about.

There are also economic reasons why we should cut the numbers of refugees, generally.

Gordon:  Ann, I want to read you a quotation from Mo, our friend, the Prophet Mohammed.

Bates:  May peace be upon him.

Gordon:  This is courtesy of one of the more reliable commentators, Bukhari. “Accordingly, there can be no Hijra – which means migration – after the conquest, but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle, then spread out.”

How important is this Islamic doctrine behind the mushrooming effect of Muslim immigration to America?  There have been roughly 350,000 to 400,000 Muslims who have come to the U.S. as refugees from some of these countries you just enumerated that hate us; 100,000, for example, originally from Somalia; another 100,000 from Iraq, and another 100,000 from Bosnia.

Out of these groups have emerged “known or lone wolves or terrorists against us.” We saw that in the case of the Chechen refugees, the Tsarnaev brothers who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing. Then in Bowling Green, Kentucky, you had not one, but two Iraqis who came in as refugees lying on their admission forms who were actually Al Qaeda operatives. They were trying to ship weapons and money to Al Qaeda.

One of them, amazingly, got fingered, literally, because his prints were on the shards of IED’s that he made in Iraq. Are there hundreds if not thousands of these folks among these “refugees from countries that hate us”?

Corcoran:  Well there certainly could be. One of my larger concerns, aside from the terrorists who are getting in here, is we can’t properly screen them. Recently the FBI testified in the House Homeland Security Committee that they can’t screen the Syrians because they are coming from a failed state. Which is only common sense as you wouldn’t be able to screen people from countries that don’t have records of them; particularly countries like Somalia. I’m also concerned about the civilizational Jihad; the pressure that comes on our western societies when Islamic population reaches certain levels. It doesn’t even have to reach high levels for the pressure to be put on for us to accommodate Sharia, Islamic law and the Islamic way of life.

Bates:  Jerry cited the instruction from the Prophet Mohammed – may peace be upon him – so I completely understand why the Muslims’ wish to immigrate to the United States. But why are we taking them? Is this something that we’re doing voluntarily? Is this a policy of this administration? Is this a long standing policy of the United States? Why are we allowing so many refugees into the U.S.?

Corcoran:  This is a program that has been in place for 35 years; most people are surprised to find that out.  The Refugee Act of 1980 was the brain child of -this won’t surprise you – the late Senator Ted Kennedy and former Senator, now Vice President Joe Biden. Jimmy Carter signed it into law.

This has been going on as I said for 35 years, with the United Nations calling the shots more and more. In recent years, we are seeing more refugees being taken from countries in the Middle East – of course, that’s where much of the turmoil is – and from Africa.

We all know there are millions of refugees in the world. We could be taking them from other places if we so chose. However, we are taking a large number now from Iraq, Somalia and soon Syria.

Bates:  I know that the Refugee Act of 1980 allows the United Nations to designate the number of refugees to be resettled in certain countries – they get to call the shots. But do we as a sovereign nation have the ability to say no to what the U.N. says we have to do?

Corcoran:  We absolutely do. However, I’m afraid to say the United States and the U.S. State Department does whatever the U.N. tells it to do. This is not just something that occurred in the Obama administration. This was going on during the Bush administration as well.

I have only been following the refugee program since 2007. That was triggered when refugees landed in my rural county in Maryland and I wanted to understand how this worked. Each year the President sends a determination letter to Congress and designates how many refugees from each part of the world we are going to receive.

Congress could come back and say, “No we aren’t.” However, they never do. They just rubber stamp it and the President concurs on how many come from which parts of the world based on what the United Nations is pressuring us to do.

Gordon:  Recently we had an outburst of concern about the acceptance of Syrian refugees that triggered a series of letters between US Rep. Trey Gowdy to Secretary of State Kerry. We know Gowdy because of his involvement with the Benghazi affair and other matters. What role does he play in the House in terms of reviewing these determinations about how many refugees enter this country, and what was the concern?

Corcoran:  Trey Gowdy is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the House Judiciary Committee. His Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Refugee Act of 1980 and how it is administered; and they could be holding oversight hearings.

In my years of following this, I’ve never seen Congress lift a finger to examine this program. Now Gowdy is involved because refugees were – surprise, surprise – being planned to enter his Congressional district.

We saw the U.S. State Department do this in other Congressional Districts; most notably Michele Bachmann’s district in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Now, they are planning to, bring in refugees to Gowdy’s district and so he is now involved, thank goodness.

So, we would love for him to hold hearings. I think that is what needs to be done now for this program.

Bates:  Is there a concern in Congress beyond just Trey Gowdy?

Corcoran:  Is anybody concerned in Congress? Anyone else besides Trey Gowdy? No.

Bates:  We don’t hear much about it. I don’t hear very many people complaining about it. I think most of the country is ignorant about it. Are most Congressmen ignorant about it?

Corcoran:  Yes, they are frankly ignorant about it. I had one of my activists, contact Senator Enzi from Wyoming. One of Enzi’s staff wrote back about a completely different immigration program. They didn’t even understand what the refugee program is. I found that to be the case all over the place. There has been a virtual silence out of Congress on this program.

Gordon:  Ann, who is placing these refugees that we just talked about in communities like Spartanburg, South Carolina, Shelbyville, Tennessee, Minneapolis, Minnesota or Greeley, Colorado? Which groups are actually involved with setting up offices, screening and processing them and making money out of it?

Corcoran:  That is the part that shocks the public the most when they learn this. The U.S. State Department brings in the refugees that the U.N. has largely chosen for us, and Homeland Security are supposed to screen them. I mean, how do you screen somebody from a failed state when you don’t even know who they are? Then, these are divvied up, literally, between nine major contractors that include groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, World Lutheran Service and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. There are six of them that are supposedly religious charities, exclusively funded by the U.S. taxpayer. They then divide up their allotment of refugees among 350 subcontractors in 190 U.S. cities. They literally compete with each other for these refugees, because money comes along with each refugee.

Gordon:  Ann there is a new wrinkle in the seeding of refugees in these communities. It has to do with a group out of Atlanta called “Welcoming America,” which has been, funded in part by none other than George Soros.  What is their angle and who are they contracted with?

Corcoran:  I first came across “Welcoming America” in 2013 when I went to an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) stakeholder meeting. Now stakeholders are everybody who has a piece of this refugee resettlement program. It doesn’t mean the average citizen can normally go to these events held in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

When I first heard about “Welcoming America” at the ORR stakeholder meeting and I heard the phrase used by the federal program presenter about “pockets of resistance forming in America.” To deal with these “pockets of resistance” the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funded “Welcoming America” with a grant to go around the country and make sure these pockets of resistance were straightened out.

Gordon:  Ann, what kind of benefits are these refugees receiving, and are they on some sort of fast track towards citizenship?

Corcoran:  Refugees are the only category of legal immigrants that can come right into the country and be signed up for various social service programs. I’m talking about food stamps, subsidized housing, education for the kids, and health insurance right from the start.

Most legal immigrants have to be here for a number of years before they can access those welfare benefits. Even elderly refugees receive Supplementary Security Income (SSI) from Social Security as well. On the matter of fast track for citizenship, within a year following their entry into the US, they are given green card like permanent resident aliens. That allows them to be processed for citizenship. These same contractors that I’m talking about, the nine voluntary agencies and their 350 subcontractors receive grant money from the federal government to help them guide refugee clients through the citizenship process, literally holding their hands.

Gordon:  When you and I were first writing about this “secret program,” there was an event that occurred that shut down the Family Reunification Visa Program for nearly three years. It concerned fraud in Somali refugee camps prior to coming here. Can you tell us about that?

Corcoran:  In 2008, the U.S. State Department discovered – surprise surprise – that Somalis applying to enter the U.S. to reunite with their families here were not related to the families here in the first place.

The U.S. State Department had to shut down the whole P-3 Visa program for Family Reunification for about three or four years to try to get this straightened out. Teams from the DHS did sample DNA tests and discovered the massive amount of fraud that was going on.

At one point the U.S. State Department was saying 20,000 Somalis got into the United States illegally and nothing was ever done to find them and remove them.

Now, the P-3 Visa program is back up and running and we’re bringing Somalis into the United States at the rate of 700 to 800 a month. I’d like you to consider why we are bringing any Somalis into the United States at all. We are bringing them in at a rate almost on par with the Bush Administration, which saw the highest rates of Somalis entering the US.

Bates:  They’re not just coming into the country for temporary refugee status. This is permanent relocation. Given that we do not have any clue where these people are coming from? Are they terrorists? Does this pose a national security problem for the United States?

Corcoran:  It absolutely does pose a national security problem. Who are these people that we are bringing in? They say they screen them, but how can they screen them? One of the great shocks that I discovered a few years ago was illegal migrants coming across the Mediterranean that we are now reading about in our news.

Many illegal Somali migrants got to the tiny island nation of Malta in the Mediterranean. Starting in the Bush administration we were bringing in 700 to 1,000 of those illegal Somali migrants who got to Malta to the United States as refugees.

How on earth do we know who these people are who got on boats and came across the Mediterranean and then we brought from Malta to the US? It makes absolutely no sense.

Gordon:  Ann, prior to this interview we were speaking about why countries in the Gulf region, the wealthy Emirates, Saudi Arabia, aren’t backing this refugee program setting up camps in their locale. You mentioned what happened to a group of Somalis who made it to Saudi Arabia. What happened in that case?

Corcoran:  Actually, there was more than one case. Any Somalis who have entered illegally into Saudi Arabia are immediately put on a plane and sent back to Mogadishu, and the United Nations hasn’t said a word about this.

You can just imagine what ruckus would be made in the media if the United States decided to start rounding up Somalis putting them on a plane and sending them back to the failed state of Somalia. But Saudi Arabia can do it and there’s not a word out of anyone, whether at the UN or here in the US.

Bates:  What I find so disconcerting about this is twofold: one, are they terrorists because so many in the Muslim world are, and the other aspect of it is culturally. It used to be that immigrants would come to America and they would assimilate into the culture, but most of these refugees are not assimilating into the culture.

They are just forming their own distinct neighborhoods living very deliberately separate from the American culture. Is that not a problem?

Corcoran:  Yes, it’s definitely a problem. By the way, assimilate is a dirty word now. The Obama administration has basically banned the word. It is not allowed. The Obama administration has a taskforce on new Americans where they literally discuss seeding American towns with immigrants, but the word assimilation is verboten.

It is only, the soil or the community that must change to accommodate the seedling. So, the term assimilation is not allowed any longer.

Bates:  This is incredibly foolish. It is a Trojan horse of the worst kind, given the problems with mass Muslim immigration and the lack of assimilation of Muslim communities in Europe that are, in many cases, violent.

I don’t just mean Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish bakery in Paris attacks, but even the protests and other kinds of violence that is occurring there. Of course it’s always reported as youth but never Muslim youth.

It’s not like we don’t know where this is going. Europe has done this to its own detriment. Why do we follow in the footsteps of this foolishness?

Corcoran:  I wish I had an answer to that question because, it blows my mind. All you have to do is to look to Europe to see what might be our future. Why? Probably, because we have no leadership that is able to stand up to this. They’re all so afraid of being called racist xenophobes or Islamophobes.

To be frank, we have no leadership in Congress. We have no one who is going to stand up to this, speak about what’s happened in Europe and say, “Let’s not have it happen here.” Let me say what one of the other things that I am annoyed about with this program. That is the secrecy behind which communities in America are being slated to receive refugees and yet they are not included in the process at all.

I contend that if this was such a fabulous program, put all the cards on the table in every community the State Department and ORR is targeting for refugees. Explain where they will be living, going to school, working and what impacts and costs are involved. But the federal and voluntary agencies involved with the refugee programs appear not to be able to resolve the problems without being secretive about it.

Gordon:  Ann, one of the most disturbing parts of this U.N. controlled program is the patent discrimination against endangered Christian refugees, legitimately, from places like Syria, Iraq and other locations. What is the evidence of that?

Corcoran:  Let’s just take the Syrian refugee issue. So far the State Department has brought in a small number of Syrians, relatively speaking, into the country. One would think that we would be choosing first and foremost the Christians who are in real danger. But we are bringing mostly Sunni Muslims. There were about 800 Syrians who have been brought into the country in the last few years. Now the State Department and the U.N. have 11,000 in the pipeline waiting to come into the U.S.

But of the 800 that have come in so far, approximately 700 are Sunni Muslims, there were only 43 Christians among the Syrian refugees that have come in so far. That translates to approximately 92 percent of refugees coming in from Syria are Muslims.

I’m told that that is mostly because we are bringing them in from U.N. camps, where the Muslims are found.  Christians do not go to the U.N. camps, but to Turkey if they get out of Syria at all, where they’re taken care of by the Syriac church.

Gordon:  You talked about possible options for reform of this secretive program administered by the State Department and Department of Health and Human Services. What are the top of the list alternatives that we could possibly consider to rein in this program?

Corcoran:  You mean if I were queen for a day and I could wipe out the whole program? That would be one way to start. Clearly the refugee program has to be completely revamped. This whole system of turning these refugees over to these non-governmental organizations that are calling the shots is just outrageous.

I would go back to a day when we resettled refugees, with the help of individual churches and other civic groups. Where a civic group or a church would have to take a refugee family under its wing for a year or two, get them assimilated and settled, and without tapping into taxpayer funds to accomplish it.

That is what I would like to see if, we were going to continue the refugee program. There are serious questions about whether the numbers of refugees are too high from countries that hate us. Perhaps the first thing one could do is to limit the countries from which refugees could come.

There is a lot that could be done to reform this program if there was leadership brave enough to do it.

Bates:  Much more to discuss, Ann, but not much more time. We’ve barely scratched the surface, so I would encourage our listeners to go to your website which is www.refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com. Ann Corcoran. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you Jerry for arranging this important interview.

Listen to the 1330am WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Jihadis don’t show up at Phoenix mosque protest, so no one gets hurt

The Islamic State had threatened to show up and commit mass murder, and specifically threatened the event organizer, but didn’t appear at the event, and so no one was hurt — despite the mainstream media hysteria over “heavily armed protesters” supposedly menacing people at the mosque.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t have held a protest at a mosque, as there are people there just going about their business who have nothing to do with whatever jihad activity may have been taking place there. The coverage has, predictably enough, ignored the fact that the protesters were only heavily armed because the jihadis had threatened to show up and kill. No one was going to get killed if the jihadis didn’t show up, and no one did.

Yesterday evening I was amused by the hysteria of Islamic supremacists such as Linda Sarsour and Zahra Billoo on Twitter — many were saying, “Imagine if armed Muslim protesters had shown up at a church!,” as if this were something that never, ever happened. The irony was thick, as most of yesterday, these stories were on the front page of Jihad Watch:

Pakistan: Muslims open fire on Faisalabad church

Islamic State demolishes Christian church in Syria

Egypt: Explosive goes off next to church

And that’s just yesterday. Of course, even to make the comparison suggests that the protesters outside the mosque yesterday were out to do something similar to the mosque, and they weren’t.

Lost in all the coverage, not surprisingly, was the obvious import of this event: when you demonize and marginalize legitimate concerns about jihad terror, including jihad plotting in mosques, you’re not going to bottle people up and make the concerns go away. You’re just going to get more radical protests. Americans are going to defend freedom and stand for the freedom of speech. Whether the authorities and the media elites are going to allow for a free and honest discussion and debate on this is another question.

The mainstream media’s avidity to link Pamela Geller and me to this protest revealed its determination to ignore the reasons why the protest was held at the Phoenix mosque in the first place. Sharon Bernstein of Reuters emailed me and we had this exchange:

1. Bernstein to Spencer:

…We are wondering among other questions whether you or Pamela Geller are involved with this demonstration and what you think of it….

Thanks very much,

Sharon Bernstein
Correspondent
California Politics and Policy
Sacramento, California
Reuters News

2. Spencer to Bernstein:

No, we are not involved in this demonstration.

3. Bernstein to Spencer:

What is your opinion of the event planned? What do you know about the organizer?

4. Spencer to Bernstein:

I am much more interested in the fact that this Phoenix mosque was attended by one of the Garland jihadis for ten years than I am in this rally. Has this mosque been investigated, even after the Garland jihad attack? Did Reuters ask its imam searching questions? If not, why not?

I don’t know anything about the organizer.

Here is Bernstein’s story — she didn’t see fit to mention any of this, but more importantly, has nothing about the mosque, from which not only Ibrahim Simpson, to whom I was referring above, came, but his partner in jihad Nadir Soofi and two other jihadis as well. People are fed up with the authorities turning a blind eye to this problem, when survey after survey shows that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach warfare against unbelievers and the supremacy of Sharia. The more such concerns are dismissed as “bigotry” and “Islamophobia,” the more there will be protests like this one.

“Tempers flare as protesters spar over Islam at Arizona mosque,” by Ryan Van Velzer, Associated Press, May 30, 2015:

PHOENIX (AP) – About 500 protesters gathered outside a Phoenix mosque on Friday as police kept two groups sparring about Islam on separate sides of the street.

The rally initially was organized by a Phoenix man who says he is a former Marine who fought in the Iraq War and believes Islam is a violent religion. About 250 people who carried pistols, assault rifles, American flags and drawings of the Prophet Muhammad rallied on one side of the street outside the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

On the opposite side of the street was another equally sized group of protesters, some holding signs promoting love and peace, who came to show their support for the mosque and Muslim community.

As the two sides argued and yelled, dozens of police officers formed a line between them and kept them separated. There were no reports of injuries or arrests at the protest, which lasted several hours and gained attention around the country on social media. Phoenix police estimated about 500 protesters showed up, roughly 250 on each side.

The protest came about month after a shootout outside a Prophet Muhammad cartoon-drawing contest in a Dallas suburb. Two Phoenix men showed up at the event with assault rifles and were killed by police. The men formerly worshipped at the Phoenix mosque where Friday’s protest took place.

Drawings of the Prophet Muhammad are deemed insulting to many followers of Islam and have sparked violence around the world.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young Muslims trying to reach Syria got instructions from Montreal mosque

Islamic State claims 2nd suicide bombing at Shi’ite mosque in Saudi Arabia

Islamic State in Nigeria murders 10 with jihad suicide bomb in mosque

Islamic State rapidly expanding into Southeast Asia

Canada to strip citizenship of dual-national terror convicts

UK police tell women not to harm their attackers, get a rape alarm

Biker’s Demonstration at Phoenix Mosque

The information contained in this report is tentative and still evolving. Some aspects already aired on social and conventional media are sensationalized. The coordinators of this rally have openly discussed with media that they, and at least 160 others, are coming together outside the same mosque in Phoenix that launched the two shooters in the Garland, Texas incident on May 3rd simply because they are sick and tired of Islamic elements pushing their beliefs, codes, and general way of life onto Americans without any respect for the American culture, Constitution and Rule of Law, and values.

There is a developing belief among citizens responding to this rally cry that Americans better begin to stand for their rights and way of life, or lose them altogether! There is vocal palpable anger from citizens directed toward the growing aggressive Muslim behavior to instill Sharia Law onto Americans doing away with our judicial system. A separate national group with an Arizona Chapter, “Banners across America” has sent communications within Arizona looking to join this rally. Additional information is mentioned below:

Two organizers — Jon Ritzheimer and Flash Nelson — are the organizers of what’s billed as a peaceful demonstration outside the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix. This is the former site of worship for Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, who were killed after opening fire outside a May 3 contest featuring cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in suburban Dallas. Many Muslims consider depictions of Mohammed blaspheme. This event, scheduled for 6:15 p.m. Friday, has urged attendees to take full advantage of their Second Amendment right to carry weapons.

Here’s the Facebook post in full, verbatim:

ROUND 2!!!!!!! This will be a PEACEFUL protest in front of the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix AZ. This is in response to the recent attack in Texas where 2 armed terrorist, with ties to ISIS, attempted Jihad. Everyone is encouraged to bring American Flags and any message that you would like to send to the known acquaintances of the 2 gunmen. This Islamic Community Center is a known place that the 2 terrorist frequented. People are also encouraged to utilize there [sic] second amendment right at this event just incase [sic] our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack.

1. Date will be Friday May 29th @ 6:15pm. This is when they normally host a large prayer.

2. Bikers wil [sic] meet at the Denny’s located at 9030 N Black Canyon Hwy Phoenix, AZ 85051@ 5:00pm. Kick stands up at 6pm.

3. There will be a Muhammad Cartoon Contest and the winner will be announced at the After Party. Participants must show cartoon at the Rally.

4. We will not have food vendors at this event because we don’t want this to turn into a carnival. People can bring snacks and water but please keep the neighborhood clean.

5. There will be an after party starting at 8:30pm at Wild Bills located at 6840 N. 27th Ave Phx, AZ.

Thank you all for your Support.

The rally is a follow-up to one earlier this month, which drew little attention. Facebook reveals little about Nelson, but Ritzheimer’s posts show him to be virulently anti-Muslim. On his personal page, Ritzheimer has photos of him waving an American flag while wearing a “Fuck Islam” T-shirt. He identifies himself as a former Marine and states he works with Dysfunctional Veterans, a group that appears to be a community for former soldiers. He told media in Arizona, “I’m a Marine, and I am far from politically correct.… I’m outspoken, and I’ve just had it.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Armed Bikers Plan to Draw Cartoons of Mohammed Outside a Mosque in Arizona

Garland, Texas imam calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech

That is always the endgame for Islamic supremacists: to destroy the freedom of speech so that Islam cannot be criticized and the jihad cannot be opposed, so that it can advance unimpeded. People have no idea what is at stake in this controversy.

“Group that hosted Prophet Muhammad Cartoon Contest has Houston supporters,” by Joel Eisenbaum, Click2Houston.com, May 13, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

But other Houstonians, including a Houston area Muslim imam, who condemned the Garland attack, but supports restrictions on free speech, believes incendiary language should be restricted by law.

“I think there needs to be a change to the law where people do not disrespect especially high people,” Imam Mobasher Ahmed said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: 10 Muslims arrested at airport on suspicion of leaving to join Islamic State

Islamic State seizes Syrian city of Palmyra, threatening ancient ruins

 

Meet the bravest woman in America

The Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that Pamela Geller and I organized and hosted in Garland, Texas on May 3, along with the jihad attack upon it, has become a defining issue. It has led to a national conversation about the nature of the freedom of speech, its importance, and what should or should not be its limits. It has exposed many people who appeared to be strong defenders of freedom to be cowards and appeasers. It has revealed that many key media players and people in powerful positions of authority have no idea of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and no awareness of the war on free speech — much less any understanding of why the freedom of speech matters at all. It has demonstrated that many important opinion-makers neither appreciate nor value the freedom of speech, and don’t even really grasp what it is. It has likewise revealed others to be unexpectedly strong defenders of freedom. Some people I had thought were strong-minded and open-eyed have proved to be cowardly and blinkered. Other people I had suspected were trimmers and appeasers have shone brightly in their honesty and courage on this issue.

Those who have defended free speech in the wake of the jihad attack while heaping scorn upon Pamela Geller, and those who have fastidiously tried to protect themselves from the Left’s inevitable guilt-by-association smears by throwing in a line like, “Now mind you, I don’t agree with everything Pamela Geller says,” or “Now of course Pamela Geller’s approach is not something I agree with” or some such, quite simply disgust me. Pamela Geller has more clear-sighted awareness of the threat this nation faces, and more courage and resoluteness in facing it, thananyone in America today — especially those who are sitting in their armchairs today and sniffing at her for being “outrageous” and “provocative” while she has to live the rest of her life knowing that at any moment some jihadi maniac will try to get to his virgins by killing her. Yet people are acting these days as if she was the one with the AK-47 outside our event, or as if there would be no jihad threat against America were it not for her and for our Muhammad cartoon contest.

They won’t be able to keep up this denial much longer. It simply won’t be possible. The Islamic State has issued a detailed manual for jihad terror attacks and regular bloodshed in the streets of the United States and the nations of Western Europe. That is coming. To cower and say, “We won’t draw cartoons, we won’t do anything to offend you” not only will not stop this from coming, but it will embolden the jihadis, who always step up their game when they see weakness in their prey.

They see weakness in the U.S. That’s because the U.S. is weak. Not militarily, but societally. Culturally. Fewer and fewer people understand and value the principles upon which a free society is based. Fewer and fewer people are willing to stand to defend those principles. Cowards, trimmers, appeasers and open allies of the enemies of freedom abound.

Pamela Geller is standing for freedoms upon which the free world depends. That so few of power and influence are standing with her shows how severe the crisis really is.

These days are revealing many who were thought to be true to be false, and many who were thought to be false to be true. As a defender of freedom, Pamela Geller is the truest of the true. It is my immense honor to work with her, and to call her my friend.

“Meet the bravest woman in America,” by Joseph Farah, WND, May 15, 2015:

She’s been caricatured.

She’s been verbally tarred and feathered.

She’s been vilified, reviled, smeared, defamed and disparaged.

But something keeps Pam Geller going. Do you know what it is? It’s her love for her country and her passion for liberty.

For weeks now, I’ve been watching my friend Pam Geller taking media punches from the left and right for her private event in Garland, Texas, featuring Geert Wilders, another freedom fighter – an event attacked by armed jihadists who have determined to “slaughter” Pam Geller for her campaign to expose radical Islam’s vicious worldwide crusade against freedom, against women, against Jews, against Christians, against life and against everything but its own peculiar seventh-century view of the world.

Bill O’Reilly had the audacity to accuse Geller of “spurring” the attack with her event promoting freedom of speech.

Really?

So by criticizing a worldwide movement responsible for the ongoing genocide against Christians in the Middle East, the subjugation of women, a pattern of female genital mutilation, the ruthless beheading and crucifying and burning alive of its victims, she was spurring the attack? She was inviting it? She was goading them? Her motivation was to serve as a catalyst to an attack on her and her event?

Donald Trump said essentially the same thing, as did the New York Times and most of the handwringing media elite.

Others were satisfied to call Geller an Islamophobe.

That’s a good one. That’s rich.

This made-up word denotes someone who fears Islam. That’s hardly the case with Geller. It’s probably much more true of Geller’s most vocal critics, who, I suggest, think they buy cover from the violent Islamic radicals by bashing their enemies.

Join Pamela Geller in her fight to retain free-speech rights and the uniquely American culture — read “Stop The Islamization Of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance”

Have you ever wondered by so many leftists are soft on Shariah? Leftists say they support everything that Islam detests – “gay rights,” women’s rights, free expression, peace on earth. But they watch tacitly as Islam runs roughshod over their entire agenda. What gives?

Ultimately, it comes down to the left’s ideological commitment to “multiculturalism,” which began as a back-door assault against Western values and morphed into a war with Judeo-Christian ethics, America and Israel. Suddenly, they found common ground with the barbarians who behead anyone doesn’t lie prostrate before Allah five times a day.

Geller is no Islamophobe, a term which suggests cowardice. That’s a laugh. She’s probably the bravest women in America today.

It’s her critics who are the cowards.

Some of them, I am convinced, are even motivated to criticize her because they fear being associated with her strong stand against hatred, against murder, against torture, against rape and against their unholy war. Perhaps they believe they might be spared the kind of abuse and attacks she has experienced by creating a little space between Geller and themselves. Good luck with that! Radical Islam makes no distinctions between courageous enemies and cowardly ones. It doesn’t discriminate in its scorched-earth policies. They even murder Muslims who disagree with them about the chain of command after Muhammad died.

So throw out the Islamophobe term. It has lost its usefulness, if, indeed, it ever had any.

I’m with Pam Geller. I’m no Islamophobe. It’s just that when I see murder and torture and rape and genocide, I feel compelled to speak out about it, to resist it and to call evil what it is. I don’t know any other way. And neither does Pam Geller.

And that’s why I’m proud to call her my friend.

That’s why she’s the bravest woman in America.

And that’s why she needs and deserves the support of all freedom-loving Americans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spencer, PJM: Some Christians Object to Our Muhammad Cartoon Contest. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.

Australia: “Ordinary everyday teenager” converts to Islam, joins the Islamic State

Pamela Geller “following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773″

Brilliant piece, and no doubt provocative to the cowards who control the public discourse today — not that they will do anything but heap more opprobrium upon Pamela Geller and others who are fighting to defend freedom. Those who say “Yours was a gratuitous event that was needlessly provocative” don’t realize that Islamic supremacists are endlessly offended, endlessly provoked, and endlessly demanding, and those who think that if we just don’t draw cartoons of Muhammad, all will be well, are ignorant (willfully or not) of what Muslims are forcing non-Muslims to stop doing in other countries around the world today, because these actions offend them. Those new demands are coming, lemmings. Get ready to bow down again.

“In Defense of Pamela Geller,” by Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator, May 7, 2015:

The backlash has been considerable.

Pam Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative organized the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that sparked an armed assault by two self-appointed jihadis in Garland, Texas, has come under a withering assault for her actions. From Donald Trump to a crew at Fox that includes Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Susteren, Martha McCallum, Alan Colmes, ex-Bush aide and Fox contributor Brad Blakeman as well as liberal radio host Richard Fowler and doubtless more, Geller has been subjected to a firestorm of criticism.

I respectfully dissent.

According to Newsmax, Ms. Geller has now received an ISIS death threat. Or, as they say in the world of Islam, a “fatwa”:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy,” the message reads. “Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

Note well the word “khanzeer.” The translation is “swine” — as used in the Islamic world when Jews are called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Geller has been making the necessary media rounds to defend herself, including this post in Time magazine. Sean Hannity has come to her defense, saying: “You can’t draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad without expecting this violence? Is this how far we have sunk? That we’ve got to capitulate in this way?” Rush Limbaugh has leapt to her defense.

Megyn Kelly was blunt in her defense. “Even if you hate her message, she was promoting free speech,” Kelly said and told a guest critical of Geller that he was “fundamentally confused and wrong” and that “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in.”

Me too.

The notion that any American anywhere should restrict their own freedom of speech because to do otherwise would provoke violence is a certain path to ending freedom of speech. Let’s go with one of the favorite criticisms of Geller — that what Ms. Geller did holding that conference in Garland, Texas, was the work of a “provocateur.” OK. And?

American history is littered with “provocateurs” whose words or actions “provoked” violence. From the Boston Tea Partiers in 1773 to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, time after time after time words and actions provoked violence. The Declaration of Independence, in fact, didn’t just provoke a little violence — it provoked a seven-year-long war with Great Britain that was said to have produced 25,000 American casualties. That’s before one gets to the estimated 4,000 British soldiers who were killed. Not to mention that the mere election of Abraham Lincoln provoked a string of events which in turn launched the Civil War. Killing some 600,000-plus Americans. Now there’s a provocation.

Just two months ago President Obama and former President Bush joined together in Selma, Alabama, to celebrate the work of “provocateurs” who knew — and were warned — not to march across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge in support of black voting rights in 1965. As history records, Selma’s Sheriff Jim Clark faced the protesters at the head of a collection of billy-club wielding, horseback-riding troopers and used a bull horn to warn that the protesters “are ordered” to return to their homes or churches. Thus warned — quite specifically warned — that they were in danger of provoking violence, the marchers refused to turn back and kept coming. At Clark’s signal the troopers launched — and so ruthlessly inflicted violent beatings on the protesters that the event became known as “Bloody Sunday.”

In the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, a Geller-esque white Detroit housewife named Viola Liuzzo heard the call of Dr. Martin Luther King for Americans to come to Alabama and join the fight for voting rights. Liuzzo did so. And on the night of March 25, 1965, Liuzzo was driving a fellow marcher — a 19-year old black youth named Leroy Morton. Liuzzo’s car was spotted by the Ku Klux Klan. They were white racists who saw the fact of a white woman driving a black man as a provocation that violated the social mores of segregation and white supremacy. In response to this “provocation,” Liuzzo’s car was overtaken by a car filled with Klan members. They fired at Viola Liuzzo, shooting her twice in the head and killing her instantly. The car crashed, Morton played dead and once the Klan had departed went for help. This same white woman-black man combination was exactly the same social provocation cited in the killing of Emmett Till, the young black teenager who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Today Viola Liuzzo and the marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge are seen as heroes. In fact, during his visit to Selma for that fiftieth anniversary tribute the President specifically said: “If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done.” Really? Is the President saying he wants more racial provocations around America? Was he himself acting as a Geller-style “provocateur”?

Should Viola Liuzzo have not gone to Alabama? Should she not have protested for voting rights or had a black man in her car — because what she was doing was “provocative” to the white supremacist view of society and would provoke violence? To listen to today’s chorus of critics of Pamela Geller, apparently the answer is no, Viola Liuzzo should never have gone, and yes, in the end she provoked her own death.

The entirety of the civil rights movement and quite specifically the words and actions of its leaders — most prominently including Dr. King himself — were seen in the day as provocative of violence. In fact, King himself would pay for all those words and actions with his life, shot to death while in Memphis for a 1968 march. Should Dr. King never have marched, spoken, and protested? Should the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never been enacted because it was the result of provocative, violence-inciting Freedom Riders and marches across the South?

There’s another fact here that is ignored. Forget the threat of Islamic radicalism. Take the issue off the table entirely. The uncomfortable fact of life today in a 21st century America drenched in television, films, and social media is that people of prominence, whether they are candidates for office or simply media figures or celebrities, are all too frequently targeted by those who are provoked by their words and actions.

Bill O’Reilly — and I’m not picking on him here but since he has raised the subject himself — is a case in point. Mr. O’Reilly, famously, is the host of Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor, a show with a huge popular following. Five nights a week for 19 years O’Reilly has been delivering a show that is filled with controversial views and frequently controversial people. To his credit, he never holds back in saying what he thinks.

Is what Bill O’Reilly does every night “provocative”? Does Bill O’Reilly invite violence? Well, catch this 2008 CBS interview with O’Reilly himself, as reported by CBS:

“My life is dangerous now,” he said. “You know, I have bodyguards and security. I can’t go many places. I can’t be in certain crowd situations. When I do a book signing, I gotta have a phalanx of state troopers there because there are crazy people. And then there’re the Web sites and all of that, which are just totally out of control.

“They encourage these nuts. You know, I was thinking about John Lennon, you know, and John Lennon was tryin’ to be a nice guy, signing the guy’s thing and [Chapman] pops him. So, that is the worst part of the whole ‘Factor’ experience.”

Got that? What Bill O’Reilly does on his television show is so provocative to some people that his life “is dangerous now” and he has to have “bodyguards and security.” What O’Reilly is saying here is that yes, he too is a “provocateur” — just like Pam Geller. Should O’Reilly quit his show? Should he be seen not as a television host with an interesting show but rather condemned as a deliberately provocative public danger whose very presence anywhere in public could result in violence to innocent bystanders? Should he curtail his First Amendment right to say what he wants on his own television show? Should he be condemned for nightly doing something that is, to use O’Reilly’s description of Geller’s actions, “dumb”?

Absolutely not. That would be dumb.

The disturbing reality here is that, as mentioned, this “provocateur’ phenomenon isn’t limited to Bill O’Reilly or Pam Geller. All kinds of people in the public eye who are not the President of the United States with a retinue of Secret Service agents are targeted by someone Out There as a “provocateur.” As O’Reilly himself mentioned, former Beatle John Lennon’s celebrity alone was enough to provoke a killer. Just the other week, the news brought a recording of a 911 call from a frantic actress, Sandra Bullock. Bullock was locked in a closet in her own home — while a crazed stalker prowled though her home looking for her. Why? For no other reason than Bullock’s movie celebrity had provoked this nut into violently breaking into her home. Should Bullock halt her acting career because it has provoked violence?

What Pamela Geller is about — courageously and boldly — is standing up for freedom. That’s it. That’s all. “My country is in danger,” she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday — and she is right. When O’Reilly says “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid… It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,” he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isn’t Geller’s job to defeat ISIS. That’s the President’s job. It isn’t her job to provoke — or not provoke. It isn’t her job to be smart — or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech — and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny.

What concerns with all this criticism? In effect what the critics are saying is that we should start curtailing American freedoms — the Constitution — to avoid “provoking” or offending someone. Muslims today, gays yesterday, rioting Baltimoreans last week. And so on through some catechism of political correctness.

Where does this stop? Just as Islam forbids images of The Prophet, so too does it forbid homosexuality. If Americans are not supposed to “provoke” Muslims by doing something that offends their religion, does this mean the push that is on now for gay marriage should come to a screeching halt? Should the Supreme Court make gay marriage illegal because to recognize gay marriage would deliberately provoke Muslims across America and around the world? Indeed, isn’t an American approval of any gay “right” a deliberate provocation of Muslim sensibilities?

This is, I would suggest, an untenable place for conservatives to be. It’s an untenable place for liberals to be. It’s an untenable place for Americans to be. It isn’t enough to say some version of “oh sure Pam Geller has the right to do it but she’s provocative and what she did is dumb.” As Sean Hannity has said, Americans cannot slip into the habit of saying “I’m for free speech…but…”

What Pam Geller is doing is bravely standing where so many Americans celebrated today once stood. She is following in the steps of those Sons of Liberty in the Boston Tea Party of 1773 or the signers of the Declaration in 1776 Philadelphia or the civil rights marchers on that Edmund Pettus Bridge or Viola Liuzzo in 1965….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Geller, Wilders, Spencer “fighting the West’s battle for freedom”

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

Trojan House: U.S. State Dept. Program Brings Refugee Jihadis to America costing Billion $

Refugee Resettlement and Hijra jpgMike Bates and I interviewed Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  blog on 1330 AM WEBY’s “Your Turn’ program, Tuesday, May 12, 2015. Corcoran is the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America .“ We noted  early in the interview the importance of Hijra (immigration in Arabic) as a doctrinal imperative for Muslims in one of the Hadith (sayings of Mohammed) according to a reliable commentator, Bukhari:

There can be no Hijra (migration) after the conquest but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle then spread out.

For more see: Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  By Sam Solomon and E. Al Maqdisi.

The focus of our discussion was on  rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement  under the billion dollar secretive US Refugee Admission Program that has operated under the virtual radar screen for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President  Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Based on the interview, Corcoran believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting thousands of  potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Watch Corcoran’s Center for Security Policy You Tube video which has gone viral since its posting on April 20, 2015 with  236,748 hits at last count.

Here are some takeaways from the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Corcoran:

  • The UN High Commissioner for Refugees  “calls the shots”  on the annual allotment of 70,000 refugees that the State Department sends a Presidential Directive  to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC to be ‘rubber stamped’ by Senate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and Border Security.
  • The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions program through hearings and recommendations leading to changes in countries of origin under UN allotments.
  • The Refugee Admissions Program has been used punitively against  political critics. One example is the assignment  of  large  numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota
  • Nearly 400,000 refugees admitted to the US under this State Department program funded by taxpayers came from “countries that hate us”: Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and soon, Syria;
  • Hundreds of terrorists have entered the US as refugees, many fraudulently, whose backgrounds are impossible  to run background checks as their countries of origin are virtual failed states;
  • Among examples of refugee Jihads caught are:

Dozens of Somaliémigré youths arrested and charged with material support for terrorism by attempting or leaving to join Al Shabaab in war torn Somalia or the Islamic State in Syria;

Iraqi Al Qaeda operatives admitted because of fraudulent representations who were convicted of trying to attemptingto ship weapons and funds to Al Qaeda and only caught when fingerprints were found on shards of an IED that killed four Pennsylvania National Guardsmen in Iraq;

The Brothers Tsarneav who perpetrated the Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three and one MIT police officer, injuring over 263, some maimed for life.

  • Rampant fraud was detected  from DNA samples among Somali applicants under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program  resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years.  20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued to eject them.
  • Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department  Refugee program let in to the US  thousands of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.
  • Endangered Middle East Christians are effectively discriminated against for refugee status, because  they do not reside in UNHCR camps, dominated by Sunni Muslims. Of  the initial group of  Syrian refugees brought into the US, 92 percent were Muslims, with the balance Christian.
  • There are upwards of  17,000 Syrians refugees  in the UNHCR pipeline awaiting processing for admission to the US.
  • The State Department contracts with 9 religious and special interest NGOs who place refugees through a network of 350 contractors and compete for significant processing fees and grants for obtaining citizenship.
  • Refugees are legal immigrants and thus have access to a smorgasbord of cash assistance, Medicaid, educational support that run into billions of costs all funded by US taxpayers.
  • The  Federal  Office of Refugee Resettlement  has a contract with a Soros-backed immigration advocacy group, “Welcoming America,” to go into ‘pockets of resistance’ in local communities targeted for refugee allotments.
  • Local communities have virtually no say or review of refugee placements to assess local burden on schools, medical facilities or assisted housing. That has led Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to write Secretary Kerry to put a hold on refugees slated for his district until resettlement questions are answered.

For more, listen to the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.  An article based on this interview will appear in the June edition of the NER.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Pamela Geller — America’s Churchill

When Adolf Hitler published “Mein Kampf” in 1926, he spelled out his vision for Germany’s domination of the world and annihilation of the Jews. Germany would not have lost WWI, he wrote, “if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas.”

In 1933, Hitler’s Nazis took power. The few people who had read Hitler’s manifesto and took him seriously fled in time to save their lives. But most – including most Jews – didn’t. Comfortable, often prominent, and fully accepted, they believed in German society and could not fathom that a madman actually meant what he said and intended to fully carry out his malevolent vision.

Even as things grew increasingly menacing – through Kristallnacht, book burnings, the stultifying restriction of civil liberties, the expulsion of Jewish children from schools, the construction of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other death camps – there were Jews and others who downplayed Hitler’s ominous threat. Worse, they derided and vilified those who took him seriously, calling them fear-mongers and haters and liars. Sound familiar?

Today, the entire world faces the threat of galloping Islamic terrorism. We see this every day in every newscast – grisly individual and mass beheadings, people chained in cages and set on fire, hundreds of schoolgirls kidnapped, raped, and worse; Christian churches burned to the ground with their desperate congregants locked inside; innocent cartoonists shot dead and their colleagues gravely injured in France, Jewish babies murdered in their cribs and strollers. Increasingly, we see “honor killings” in the United States, as well as other freedom-smothering manifestations of Sharia law.

What happened in Germany in the 1930s and ’40s is happening in America today, except the assault on our system is not coming from Nazism, but rather from radical Islam. The mullahs in Iran and their surrogates around the world stand at podiums and declare boldly: Death to America, Death to Israel! They tell us outright that their goal is to create a caliphate in which Sharia law is the law of the land, in which all infidels – anyone who does not practice or has not converted to Islam – are relegated to second-class citizenship, draconian taxes, and groveling servitude, if not outright enslavement. Some of our own elected officials echo their words. All of them, like Hitler, rely on apologists who flagrantly lie about this escalating threat. Shame on them!

During WWII, Winston Churchill was the proverbial canary in the coal mine, repeatedly issuing the earliest warnings to the Western world of Hitler’s psychotic megalomania and evil intentions. Again, few listened, while prominent, educated, and sanctimonious types derided and vilified Churchill and called him a fear-monger and a hater and a liar. Sound familiar?

Since 2004, when she founded the Atlas Shrugs website (now PamelaGeller.com), Pamela Geller has been our Winston Churchill, warning of the increasingly aggressive actions of radical Islamists, the terrifying acts they commit, and their fervent goal to eviscerate our Constitution and Bill of Rights – you know, those little documents that afford us spoiled Americans the right to say what we want, be it in speech, drawings, art, movies, and music, without fear of being murdered!

That is why, as journalist Jonah Goldberg points out, the First Amendment applies to things that people find offensive, for instance Andreas Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” in which the “artist” urinated in a glass and then placed a plastic icon of Jesus on the cross into it, or the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s exhibition of a portrait of the Virgin Mary, which was partly comprised of pornographic pictures and elephant dung.

As I recall, all the holier-than-thou hypocrites who are calling for Geller’s head were bleating their support of “free speech” back then.

That is also why people who cherish the First Amendment agreed that it was okay to have a loathsome Nazi contingent walk the streets of Skokie, Illinois (with its formidable Jewish population) in the mid 1970s, and why other protest movements have been so powerful and important: for instance Patrick Henry’s bold declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death”; the Yo No rebellion in Cuba against its repressive government; the Boston Tea Party’s “no taxation without representation” protest; Susan B. Anthony’s “illegal” vote for women’s suffrage; Henry Thoreau’s demonstrations against slavery; the history-changing actions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks against racial discrimination…the list of heroic people sounding the alarms is endless.

Throughout history, all of these crusaders for freedom have been insulted by the cowardly accommodators among us, the appeasers, the apologists, and the deluded masses who thought, as Churchill said, that “the crocodile [of tyranny, fascism, murder, even genocide] would eat them last.”

Pamela Geller succeeded in literally flushing out the enemy within, two of the many jihadists in our midst. Only days after their failed assassination attempt, ISIS claimed credit for the attack and embarrassed our Department of Homeland Security into increasing security conditions at U.S. military bases and elevating the threat level in the U.S. to BRAVO – not the highest level, but pretty damn high!

But instead of praising Geller for her foresight and courage, cowards and apologists on both the left and right used the tactics of radical Saul Alinsky (described in his own manifesto, “Rules for Radicals”), which are to: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Hurling gratuitous epithets and insults and lying are also in their repertoire.

But in spite of it all, Geller is not intimidated, because like Churchill she has truth on her side! She awarded First Place to a graphic artist who left Islam for the freedom that the First Amendment offers.

Still, it is clear that few people have learned the lessons of September 11th and the 14 years that have followed about the increasingly urgent need for vigilance against a deadly serious enemy, and for the equally compelling need to thank and to celebrate people like Pamela Geller for risking everything to protect our priceless freedoms.

As journalist and author Mark Steyn reminds us, “you’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: ‘Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…and the minute you hear the ‘but,’ none of the build-up to it matters.”

“…all the nice respectable people are now telling us,” Steyn adds, what Mohammed Atta told the passengers on 9/11: “Stay quiet and you’ll be okay.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Renew America.

Pamela Geller’s critics are proving her point

“The fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice.” The proper response to them is not surrender and submission.

“Pamela Geller’s Critics Are Proving Her Point,” by David French, National Review, May 7, 2015:

Let’s be clear: The great freak-out over Pamela Geller’s “draw Muhammad” contest isn’t about love for Islam or for robust and respectful religious pluralism. Indeed, many of those expressing anguish over blasphemy against Islam show no such concern over even the most vile attacks on the Christian faith. Beyond that, they’re among the leaders in movements designed to banish religious liberty — including Muslim religious liberty — to the margins of American life.

Instead, the fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS.

That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladlyburn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy.

Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations.

The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture:

That’s a staggering level of support for a man who not only targeted innocent men, women, and children in the West, but who allied himself with the most medieval Muslim regime in the world: the Taliban. And, ominously, his support waned only as his power waned.Islamists have a new jihadist idol — ISIS.

Further, our elites also know that while ISIS’s brutality certainly repels many Muslims, it attracts many others — that there are Muslim young people who are so captivated by images of beheadings and burnings that they’ll defy the law and their own nations to make their way to the jihadist battlefronts of Iraq and Syria.

Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

In a sane world, our national elites would not only rally unequivocally around free speech, they would point to the events of Garland, Texas, as perfectly symbolic of the way we handle threats against our Constitution and our culture — by defeating our enemies and defending our liberty. Instead, they express fears that provocative speech not only threatens our troops abroad but our cities here at home.

Islam has a serious problem. Silencing Pamela Geller isn’t the solution.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media shares same goal as jihadis: they want to silence Pamela Geller

“Victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ aggression”

Watch Video: Pamela Geller Spars with Judge Jeanine Pirro Over Free Speech

Saturday Night Cinema: Out of the Past

The Real Hero of Garland

“Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong”

Florida event featuring Geert Wilders canceled for fear of Islamic jihadists

UK Imam Anjem Choudary on the Islamic State Attack in Garland, Texas

Anjem Choudary amd I are ideological enemies but both of us are able to listen to each other without screaming and shouting. As sound military doctrine instructs, “Know your enemy.”

The purpose of this extended interview is to understand from a “shariah expert” exactly why Muslims have to kill people when they draw pictures of Muhammad.

Listen very carefully as Choudary articulates the DOCTRINE of Islam which provides the judicial basis for punishment including multiple lashes up to capital death.

In particular Choudary attempts to walk a fine line between endorsing punishment through a shariah court proceeding and immediate implementation of punishment, vis-a-vis, the Garland shooting.

This is an extremely informative and important discussion that enables Americans to understand the complex and dangerous situation that people like Choudary and members of the Islamic State are creating for those individuals who want to exercise their First Amendment rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Do not miss this show!

Kill Bill III — O’Reilly Defiles Islam says UK Imam

mosesAccording to UK Imam Anjem Choudary, Bill O’Reilly has defiled Islam by displaying the image of the Islamic Prophet Isa (Jesus) in his movie and Killing Jesus. Choudary stated, “The depiction of Mohammad, Moses, or Isa requires the death penalty.”

The The United West team, who was a direct target of the two Islamic terrorists that were fatally shot by police for trying to murder us and other attendees in mass execution style in Garland Texas, has recommended that Bill O’Reilly, “donate all his profits from his book and movie to an Islamic charity in order to appease Islam.”

Note: Bill O’Reilly has denounced the sponsors and attendees of the draw Mohammad event in Texas as, “being stupid” for insulting Islam.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jihadis encouraged Texas cartoon jihadi to launch a jihad attack

FBI alerted Garland Police about jihad attacker 3 hours before shooting

Jihad Attacks in Texas, While Obama Keeps U.S. Safe From Iraqi Nuns