Not a good sign for future U.S. relations with Israel. But this is also a sign of how topsy-turvy the world is today. Biden wouldn’t be caught dead naming someone who had noted that Islam is not a religion of peace to any position at all in his administration. Such a person would be poison to the Democrats and to most Republicans. But demonize Israel and justify murder of civilians? Welcome aboard!
“Reema Dodin to be first Palestinian-American White House staffer,” by Tzvi Joffre, Jerusalem Post, November 24, 2020:
Reema Dodin, a Palestinian-American, will serve alongside Shuwanza Goff as a deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, President-elect Joe Biden announced on Monday. Dodin will be the first Palestinian-American to serve as a White House staffer, according to Palestinian media.
The new White House staffer was born to Jordanian-Palestinian immigrants in the US. Dodin’s family is originally from Dura, near Hebron, according to Palestinian media.
Dodin served as deputy chief of staff to Democratic Senator Richard Durbin and has also served on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, among other positions.
She is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is also a Truman National Security Fellow, a New Leaders Council Fellow, an Aspen Socrates alum, a former term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Jenkins Hill Society – a consortium of women in politics supporting female politicians.
During the Second Intifada, in 2002, Dodin spoke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with residents of Lodi, California, saying that “suicide bombers were the last resort of a desperate people,” according to the Lodi News-Sentinel.
In 2001, Dodin took part in a demonstration at UC Berkeley calling for the university to divest from Israel, according to the Berkeley Daily Planet, a local news publication. The demonstrators compared Israel to apartheid South Africa….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-11-25 04:10:312021-10-07 21:20:21Biden names ‘Palestinian’ who justified jihad suicide bombings as deputy director of Office of Legislative Affairs
The Qur’an? Didn’t Faisal Mohammad know that, as Pope Francis has told us, “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”?
Despite the fact that Mohammad “was found to have an image of the ISIS flag, a handwritten manifesto with instructions on how to behead someone, and reminders to pray to Allah,” everyone who participated was sure that his stabbings had something to do with “images of masculinity” and nothing to do with Islam, and that only “Islamophobes” thought otherwise. This is no surprise. The University of California Merced is no different from any other campus all over the country: full of indoctrinated bots who have been thoroughly imbued with the notion that when Islamic jihadists attack us, it is our fault.
“FBI releases 2015 attack plan of radicalized California university student who stabbed 4 on campus,” Associated Press, November 18, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
MERCED, Calif. – A troubled California university freshman who burst into a classroom in 2015, stabbing four people before police shot him dead, planned to praise Allah while slitting the throats of classmates and use a gun taken from an ambushed officer to kill more, according to records released by the FBI.
Authorities determined that Faisal Mohammad, an 18-year-old freshman at the University of California, Merced had no connections to organized hate or terror groups and no past behavior to suggest violence.
Still, records released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Daily Beast publication include a chilling, handwritten 31-step plan for the Nov. 4 attack with names of people to target.
The plan included putting on a balaclava at 7:45 a.m. and saying “in the name of Allah” before stepping into his classroom and ordering students to use zip-ties he provided to bind their hands.
Mohammad also planned to make a fake 911 distress call to report a suicidal guy [sic; this is how they write at AP these days] and wait for police outside the classroom before ambushing from behind “and slit calmly yet forcefully one of the officers with guns.”
He planned to take a gun from an officer and kill classmates before making another fake distress call to 911 to report the shootings. Step 26 was to read the Quran until he heard sirens, and then “take calm shot after shot” with the gun as authorities arrive….
…investigators said the perpetrators were influenced by the Islamic State group, but not directly connected to it. Families in both cases said they had no clue of their relatives’ radicalization.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-11-21 03:39:162021-10-07 21:20:34California: Muslim stabbed four ‘in the name of Allah,’ planned to read Qur’an until cops arrived, then shoot them
President Trump is withdrawing a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is livid. According to AP, McConnell “warned against a potentially ‘humiliating’ pullout from Afghanistan that he said would be worse than President Barack Obama’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975.” Not to be outdone, Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican leader on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted: “We need to ensure a residual force is maintained for the foreseeable future to protect U.S. national and homeland security interests and to help secure peace for Afghanistan.” But McConnell and McCaul are advocating for a failed policy. It is long past time to leave Afghanistan.
In his State of the Union address on February 5, 2019, President Trump stated: “As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Epitomizing the need to do this was what happened when Trump first moved to end America’s longest endless war, the war in Afghanistan, with a treaty with the group that the U.S. entered Afghanistan in order to topple, the Taliban, in February 2020. The ink was still fresh on the signed document when the Taliban launched a new attack against Afghan government forces, killing twenty Afghan soldiers and police officers.
The attack was a fitting symbol of the fruitlessness of these endless wars and the bankruptcy of the assumptions and policies that had led to their being waged.
After all these years, we have little to show for all our efforts in the nation that has been ominously dubbed the “graveyard of empires.” The U.S. has sacrificed the lives of numerous heroic service members and squandered trillions for nearly two decades in the fond hope that it could remake Afghanistan into a stable, Western-style republic that would respect the human rights of all its citizens. That’s still the plan, as far as the architects of our intervention are concerned: One foreign policy establishment wonk counseled patience, saying that Afghanistan “is not going to become Switzerland overnight,” a fact that is as obvious as Joe Biden’s dementia.
Great. So we know now after almost twenty years that it isn’t going to happen overnight, but how long exactly is it going to take? To that question the advocates of endless intervention have no definite answer. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in late 2019: “We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave.”
All right, but what’s it going to take? Do Rumsfeld, McConnell, and McCaul really think that after nearly twenty years, one more year, or five more years, or ten more years, will do the job?
Afghanistan will never be a Western-style republic and will likely never be free of the Taliban without a massive transformation of Afghan society, no matter how long we stay, and such a transformation is not on the horizon. This was clear relatively early in the conflict, but the obviousness of this fact did not make successive Republican and Democratic administrations rethink the wisdom of being there.
And so after all this American expenditure of personnel, money, and materiel, there is absolutely no doubt that once we leave, the Taliban will make gains and may even regain control of the Afghan government.
Did that mean that America had to keep troops there for fifty years? A hundred years? Should we just make Afghanistan the fifty-first state and seal our commitment there forever? Or should the U.S. instead focus on what is best for America in Afghanistan, working to contain the jihad there and to ensure that the Taliban does not and cannot engage in international jihad terror activity, while otherwise leaving the Afghans to their own devices?
America’s tragic misadventure in Afghanistan makes it clear that a new foreign policy strategy is urgently needed, and that the ideas and assumptions that have governed U.S. foreign policy for nearly a century needed to be consigned to the dustbin of history. President Trump had proposed to do that. Now we are likely to see instead a retrenchment of the forces that made the tragedy of two decades of war in Afghanistan happen in the first place. President Biden, or President Harris, or President Pelosi, or whatever horror show we may be facing next, could send the troops that Trump withdraws right back into the belly of the beast.
After all, as Trump said last September, “the top people in the Pentagon…want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars, you know how we’re doing.” He is getting us out. Others, wanting to keep the Masters of War happy, may get us right back in.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-11-21 03:24:172021-10-07 21:20:34Trump is Right: Our Exit from Afghanistan is Long Overdue
I’m not in favor of the burning of any book, and I believe that people ought to read and understand the Qur’an rather than burn it. However, note that Stengel is calling for legal “guardrails” against “speech that incites hate.”
If someone burns a Bible, no one cares. If someone burns a Qur’an, there are riots and death threats. So for Stengel, burning a Bible would not be “speech that incites hate,” but burning a Qur’an would be. Saying that “speech that incites hate” must be criminalized is tantamount to calling for the heckler’s veto to be enshrined in law. Stengel says: “Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.”
So if Muslims riot over burned Qur’ans, we must outlaw burning Qur’ans. That would only signal to Muslims that they can get us to bend to their will by threatening violence, and ensure that we will see many more such threats. In Richard Stengel’s ideal world, non-Muslims are cowed into silence by Muslims who threaten to kill them if they get out of line, and by non-Muslim officials who react to the threats by giving the Muslims what they want.
Note also that Leftist and Islamic groups in the U.S. have for years insisted, with no pushback from any mainstream politician or media figure, that essentially any and all criticism of Islam, including analysis of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, is “hate speech” and “speech that incites hate.” Thus Richard Stengel will silence that as well, and the global jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded.
In a year or two I might have told you “I warned you this was coming,” but by then I probably won’t be able to.
“Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions,” by Steven Nelson, New York Post, November 13, 2020:
President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make “hate speech” a crime.
Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.
He wrote: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”
Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of “false narratives” by Russia during the 2016 election.
“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.
“It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”…
“Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation,” Stengel wrote.
“I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites ‘imminent lawless action’ or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?”…
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-11-16 06:35:392021-10-07 21:20:49Biden transition official wants speech restrictions, criminalization of burning of Qur’an
It doesn’t take a genius or “expert” to recognize that Joe Biden would be a better president from the standpoint of the Iranian mullahs. The surprising and embarrassing aspect of this is that so many seem to be ignorant of it or indifferent to it, even as Zarif acknowledges it openly. Biden and the Democrats are a boon for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is seeking to expand its influence in the West and elsewhere, and will be enabled to do just that by Biden and his team.
“Why Iran sees Biden as the “more promising” candidate in the U.S. election,” by Elizabeth Palmer and Tucker Reals, CBS News, November 2, 2020:
Tehran — Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has indicated to CBS News that the Islamic Republic’s leadership would prefer Joe Biden win the U.S. election. It was a first for a country that has been reluctant to tip its hand.
Zarif first insisted that Iran‘s government has no preference between President Donald Trump or Biden, but pushed to respond, Zarif said that “the statements by the Biden camp have been more promising, but we will have to wait and see.”…
“What is important for us is how the White House behaves after the election, not what promises are there, what slogans are made. The behavior of the U.S. is important. If the U.S. decides to stop its malign behavior against Iran, then it will be a different story no matter who sits in the White House,” the U.S.-educated diplomat said.
U.S.-Iran relations have disintegrated since President Trump’s unilateral move in 2018 to pull out of the nuclear deal reached with Iran under former President Barack Obama. The Trump administration not only withdrew from that agreement but has since hit Iran with a series of harsh economic sanctions — a “maximum pressure” bid to force Iran to renegotiate the nuclear deal.
The Biden camp has signaled that, if he wins, his administration would attempt to renegotiate the deal hashed out when he was vice president, but the Iranian Foreign Minister insisted to us that that is not Tehran’s hope.
“If we wanted to do that [renegotiate], we would have done it with President Trump four years ago,” Zarif told CBS News, adding that “under no circumstances” would Tehran consider renegotiating the terms of a deal which has since been adopted as a United Nations Security Council Resolution….
“We can find a way to reengage, obviously. But reengagement does not mean renegotiation,” he said. “It means the U.S. coming back to the negotiating table.”…
“I know that Vice President Biden understands that that won’t happen [renegotiate the terms of the nuclear deal], and may act differently,” said the Iranian foreign minister. He expressed hope, however, that Mr. Trump, too, “is capable of acting differently.”…
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-11-08 03:26:202021-10-07 21:21:14Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif: Biden ‘more promising’ for the Islamic Republic than Trump
Returning to the old arrangement: pressuring our only reliable ally in the Middle East, while coddling and enabling those who would conquer and subjugate us.
“Exclusive: Q&A with Kamala Harris ahead of election,” Arab American News, October 28, 2020:
DEARBORN — Democratic vice presidential nominee and California Senator Kamala Harris visited Metro Detroit last Sunday, making a notable, unannounced stop in Dearborn to grab dinner at the Khalaf Grill. The visit by Joe Biden’s running mate was just one of several visits by both prominent Democratic and Republican candidates in the last few weeks ahead of the critical upcoming general election….
Many Arab voters in Dearborn and Hamtramck hold foreign policy issues important, particularly the Israel and Palestine conflict, Syria, the war on Yemen and others. What can a Biden presidency mean for lasting peace and demands for human rights in the Mid East region? Could we see an end to continued U.S. military engagements in the region?
Joe and I are committed to helping the people of the Arab world meet the challenges they face. The United States cannot dictate the outcomes in other countries, but we do have a responsibility to advance human rights and democratic principles on behalf of all people. We have an obligation to promote universal values and work toward a more peaceful and secure world.
Joe and I also believe in the worth and value of every Palestinian and every Israeli and we will work to ensure that Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity and democracy. We are committed to a two-state solution, and we will oppose any unilateral steps that undermine that goal. We will also oppose annexation and settlement expansion. And we will take immediate steps to restore economic and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, reopen the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem and work to reopen the PLO mission in Washington.
In Syria, Joe and I will once again stand with civil society and pro-democracy partners in Syria, and help advance a political settlement where the Syrian people have a voice. We will work to protect the most vulnerable Syrians and lead the global coalition to defeat ISIS. And instead of standing by as the government of Saudi Arabia pursues disastrous, dangerous policies, including the ongoing war in Yemen, we will reassess the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and end support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-11-03 04:33:302021-10-07 21:17:09Kamala Harris: Biden will restore aid to ‘Palestinians’, reopen East Jerusalem consulate and PLO office in D.C.
President Trump has a very clear idea of what a Joe Biden presidency would mean for America’s security in the face of of the Islamic jihad terror threat. “Biden,” Trump said at a rally in Tampa on Thursday, “wants to terminate our travel bans and surge refugees from the most dangerous places in the world. He will open the floodgate to radical Islamic terrorism – and you saw three days ago what happened the beheading in France, and today it happened again.” Trump was referring to the beheading of French teacher Samuel Paty for showing a Muhammad cartoon, and the beheading Thursday of a woman in a Lyons church in yet another jihad attack.
“Under the Biden plan,” Trump warned, “the horrifying attacks in France will come to our cities and our towns….These Radical Islamic terrorist attacks must stop immediately. No country, France or otherwise, can long put up with it!”
Trump had a point. After the latest attack in France, Biden said Friday: “A Biden-Harris administration will work with our allies and partners to prevent extremist violence in all forms.” The fact that he did not name jihad violence specifically was portentous. On October 15, Biden released a video message to Muslim Advocates, the association of Muslim lawyers that bears the primary responsibility for demanding, back in 2010, that the Obama administration remove all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training and refer to an undefined “extremism” rather than to jihad terrorism. Obama, of course, immediately complied, despite the fact that this would hamstring the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to understand, and defeat, jihadists.
Biden also declared: “As president, I’ll work with you to rip the poison of hate from our society, honor your contributions and seek your ideas. My administration will look like America, Muslim Americans serving at every level.”
This was not reassuring, but ominous in light another Biden engagement with Muslims last summer. Biden stated last July: “One of the things I think is important, I wish we taught more in our schools about the Islamic faith.” He clearly mean apologetic information, not accurate discussion of Islamic jihad activity. Even worse, Biden’s call for this came as he addressed the “Million Muslim Votes Summit,” a call hosted by Emgage Action, which says it is the largest Muslim PAC in the United States. According to the Washington Free Beacon, it is also “a George Soros-backed Muslim group” that serves as an “official cohost of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conferences. ISNA was previously revealed to be part of the Muslim Brotherhood network—though it claims it is no longer associated with the group.”
Would Emgage or groups like it be tasked with choosing the Muslims who would staff Biden’s administration? Almost certainly.
Biden made a promise that Trump referred to on Thursday: “If I have the honor of being president, I will end the Muslim ban on day one, day one.” There is no “Muslim ban,” but Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies insist on calling the Trump administration’s travel bans on nationals from 13 countries a “Muslim ban,” even though five of those countries, Burma, Eritrea, Tanzania, North Korea, and Venezuela, are not Muslim countries, and there are 49 other Muslim countries upon which there is no ban at all.
The ban exists because these countries cannot or will not provide accurate information about prospective immigrants. The list of countries was devised during the Obama administration, while Biden was vice president. But that didn’t stop Biden from casting it in racial terms, declaring: “Muslim communities were the first to feel Donald Trump’s assault on black and brown communities in this country with his vile Muslim ban.”
It’s a peculiar “assault on black and brown communities” that leaves untouched scores of countries inhabited by “black and brown communities,” but the Left is working on the gut level of rage and hatred, not rational consideration. This kind of language from Biden is also extraordinarily irresponsible, stoking racial resentment at a time when racial tensions are high.
Internationally, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly expressed their preference for Biden, hoping that if he is elected, the Trump-brokered peace deals between Israel and several Muslim Arab states will be repudiated, and their jihad against Israel will gain a renewed impetus.
Biden appears to accept the post-9/11 contention of Leftists and Islamic supremacists alike: that opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women is “hate.” As a result, a Biden/Harris administration would almost certainly leave America more vulnerable to jihad attacks, and do nothing to halt the expanding influence of Sharia in the workplace and the educational system. As Palestinian leaders have shown, Biden presidency would be welcomed by jihadis worldwide.
Sudan has become the third Arab country to agree to normalize relations with Israel. The Palestinians are most unhappy: “Palestinians condemn ‘shameful’ Israel-Sudan accord,” by Khaled Abu Toameh and Celia Jean, Jerusalem Post, October 24, 2020:
The Palestinian Authority said on Friday that it “condemns and rejects” the normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel.
A statement by the PA presidency in Ramallah said that normalization with Israel is in violation of the Arab summit resolutions and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative….
Friday’s statement by the PA, however, did not accuse Sudan of betraying the Palestinians or stabbing the Palestinian people in the back, as was the case with the UAE and Bahrain.
Mahmoud Abbas has apparently figured out that the curses and insults that he and his cronies flung at the UAE and Bahrain when they normalized relations with Israel, did the Palestinians no good, but merely inflamed passions against them. With the Sudan, they’re trying a different, more-in-sorrow approach: How can you do this to us? Don’t you feel our pain?
“No one has the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian issue,” the statement added. “The path to a just and comprehensive peace should be based on international law and legitimacy so as to end the Israeli occupation of the land of the State of Palestine and achieve independence for the Palestinian people in their state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership will take the necessary decisions to protect the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”
But Sudan did not arrogate to itself the “right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian issue.” It said nothing at all about the “Palestinians” in its agreement to normalize relations with Israel. It was only addressing, and promoting in two ways, its own national interest. First, to obtain this agreement, the U.S. has removed the Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. That will give it access to foreign investors, and to loans from the World Bank, the IMF, and other institutions. Second, Israel will be eager to prove to the Sudan that it made the right choice, by helping it where it most could use Israeli help: in agriculture. Israel is a world leader in drip irrigation, in wastewater management, and in solar energy, all of which could be of great help to Sudanese farmers.
While not in the official PA statement, Wasel Abu Youssef from the Palestinian Liberation Front, a small faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said that Sudan joining “others who normalized ties with the state of the Israeli occupation represents a new stab in the back of the Palestinian people and a betrayal of the just Palestinian cause.”
“A new stab in the back”? Oh dear. It sounds as if Wasel Abu Youssef of the PLF did not get the memo from Mahmoud Abbas calling for a kinder, gentler approach to Sudan. This kind of charge only infuriated the UAE and Bahrain when it was made about them by the PA; the Sudanese are just as unlikely to be pleased to be described as back-stabbers. The Palestinians really ought to do a better job of coordinating their responses; this mixed-messaging will never do.
Abbas Zaki, a senior official of the ruling Fatah faction, said that Sudan would not gain anything from the normalization accord with Israel….
“Sudan would not gain anything from the normalization accord”? But Sudan has already gained something. It has been removed from the American list of state sponsors of terrorism; that removal will greatly improve Sudan’s ability to attract foreign investment, and will now enable Sudan to receive loans from the IMF, the World Bank, and other financial institutions that were previously impossible to obtain. And then there is the extensive Israeli aid that will be given to Sudanese farmers, just as soon as the agreement goes into effect. Abbas Zaki is whistling in the dark.
Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that the agreement was “not compatible with Sudan’s record of supporting the Palestinians.”
But that “record of supporting the Palestinians” took place under the long and terrible rule of Omar al-Bashir, the dictator of Sudan from 1989 to 2019. Bashir was an ardent supporter of Hamas, allowing it to operate freely in the country. Bashir also gave refuge to Osama bin Laden, who lived securely in the Sudan for four years. The new regime in Sudan wants to end any hint of the country’s previous connection to terrorists; it wants to reconnect with the West, attract investors, and build its economy, especially agriculture. It has gotten nothing from its “record of supporting the Palestinians” except being placed on the list of state sponsors of terror. Now, by normalizing relations with Israel, it has already been taken off that list, allowing it to attract investors, be again eligible for foreign aid, and be able to obtain loans from major financial institutions such as the IMF. Israel is ready to share with Sudanese farmers the benefits of its expertise and advances in at least three key areas – solar energy, drip irrigation, and wastewater management – where it is a world leader.
PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] spokesman Daoud Shehab accused Sudan of presenting Israel with a “free gift” in order to appease the US.
“This is a black day in the history of Sudan,” Shehab added. “The agreement jeopardizes Sudan’s future and identity and is a betrayal of the Arabs and Muslims.”
The PIJ official expressed confidence that the Sudanese people would not accept this “betrayal.”…
It is Israel that will be giving gifts to the Sudan, in the form of aid to its agricultural sector. As for Shehab’s claim that the normalization agreement “jeopardizes Sudan’s future and identity,” since when did the Palestinians become the judges as to the “Arab” identity of others? Because the Sudanese are black, is there possibly an attempt here to hint at doubt as to their “Arab” identity unless they fall back into line with what the Palestinians demand? And what exactly was the “betrayal” by the Sudan? Did it owe the Palestinians anything? Have the Palestinians ever done anything for the Sudan, other than land the country on the list of state sponsors of terrorism?
There is certainly domestic opposition in the Sudan to this new agreement. But the opponents of normalization surely know that the Sudanese quid for that significant American quo was Sudan’s agreeing to normalize relations with Israel. And if they are willing to “give peace a chance,” they will find the new connection with Israel will pay ample dividends, for the Israelis want to make sure that the “early adopters” of normalization realize economic benefits quickly. In the case of Sudan, as bears repeating, that means Israeli help to Sudanese farmers, mainly by sharing Israeli advances in drip irrigation, in waste water management, and in solar energy.
Commending the agreement from the Arab world was Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who tweeted that he welcomed the joint efforts of all three states involved in the agreement.
He added that he also values “all efforts aimed at achieving regional stability and peace.”…
El-Sisi has for a long time been cooperating with Israel on security matters, especially against Jihadis in the Sinai and, naturally, against the Muslim Brotherhood that is the sworn enemy of his regime. He previously praised both the UAE and Bahrain for their normalization agreements with Israel. It is not surprising, but is still heartening, that the most populous Arab state, and Sudan’s immediate northern neighbor, has come out foursquare for the agreement.
The Palestinian Arabs continue to believe that they should have a veto power over the policy toward Israel of all the other Arabs. They seek to deny the Arab states the possibility of making their own arrangements with Israel, arrangements that further their own national interests. The UAE and Bahrain dismissed the Palestinian objections, and went ahead in normalizing relations with the Jewish state. They have had only curses and insults heaped on them by the Palestinians, which only makes them more determined to promote both economic and people-to-people ties with the Israelis – “a warm peace.” Meanwhile, the entire nation of Israel seems ready to make sure their new Arab interlocutors benefit from such normalization; Israeli businessmen, entrepreneurs, scientists, academics, and tourists have gone to the UAE and Bahrain, while Emiratis and Bahrainis are doing the same in the Jewish state. And now, to complete the Trump Administration’s geopolitical hat trick, Sudan has just become the third Arab state to announce its intention to normalize relations with Israel. Abbas rages in Ramallah, for he can do no other, and the caravan moves on.
Militant #antifa Britney Erica Austin, previously known as Eric Austin, & now goes by Sumayyah Dawud, once tried to sue @PhoenixPolice for removing her burqa. @CAIRAZ dropped her as a client after they found out she's trans. She was also kicked out of women's section at a mosque. https://t.co/XcMcclu6lLpic.twitter.com/eilo3w6y6n
About Saturday night's arrest, the false felony charges, police violence & repression, and transphobic & Islamophobic jail conditions stemming from the protest against police violence. #AbolishThePolice#AbolishPrisons#ACABhttps://t.co/lJ9zTygaRK
Noor Salman was the wife of Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 people in a jihad massacre that he said was for the Islamic State. The Orlando Sentinel reported on March 30, 2018 that “the foreman of the Noor Salman jury contacted the Orlando Sentinel with a statement about what the three days of deliberations were like for the 12 people who acquitted the widow of the Pulse shooter, Omar Mateen.” The foreman’s statement:
As foreperson of the jury in the Noor Salman trial I felt it important that I present a juror’s perspective of the verdicts. I am giving you my perspective, and not speaking for the entire jury. My initial inclination was not to communicate with the news media at all, however once I returned home a watched the news coverage of the reactions to the verdicts I felt compelled to at least clarify several misconceptions….
…I want to make several things very clear. A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know. She may not have known what day, or what location, but she knew. However, we were not tasked with deciding if she was aware of a potential attack. The charges were aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. I felt the both the prosecution and the defense did an excellent job presenting their case. I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements. The bottom line is that, based on the letter of the law, and the detailed instructions provided by the court, we were presented with no option but to return a verdict of not guilty.
But Keith Ellison, Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hassan Shibly, and “Islamophobia” propagandist Hatem Bazian can appear at this “black tie charity gala” alongside Noor Salman, knowing that they will suffer no fallout as a result, because the establishment media will cover for them. Imagine if a foe of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women appeared at an event with the wife of someone who had killed 49 people in the name of any other cause: these same people — Ellison, Shibly, Bazian — would be leading the charge to defame and destroy that foe of jihad terror as a result. But this? No problem.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-10-16 03:28:292020-10-16 03:33:35Muslim Legal Fund of America features wife of Orlando Pulse Nightclub Jihad Mass Murderer
After Obama gave them billions, it’s easy to see why the Mullahs think America is a pushover. My latest in FrontPage:
Iran, said President Trump on the Rush Limbaugh show on Friday, has been “put on notice.” The President elaborated: “If you f–k around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are gonna do things to you that have never been done before.” Amid all the pearl-clutching on the Left over the President’s language (as if any Leftist politician speaksdemurely by comparison), the point has been lost that Trump’s tough stance toward the Islamic Republic of Iran has been effective in a way that Obama’s billions never were.
Back in April, for example, Trump tweeted: “I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea.” This came after, according to Business Insider, “nearly a dozen Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy vessels sailed out Wednesday to harass a collection of US Navy and Coast Guard vessels conducting operations in international waters.”
The U.S. Navy stated that eleven Iranian boats of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) “conducted dangerous and harassing approaches,” and added that “the IRGCN’s dangerous and provocative actions increased the risk of miscalculation and collision.” The Iranians, said the Navy statement, were violating the “rules of the road.”
But then came Trump’s threat, and lo and behold, the Iranian harassment of American ships ended. Trump has demonstrated again and again that being strong with Iran, instead of pursuing appeasement as Obama did, works. As Obama (who stopped Israel from going after Quds Force commander Qasim Soleimani) concluded his notorious nuclear deal with Iran, Iranian political analyst Ali Wambold pointed out that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic “proclaims ‘the ideological mission of jihad,’ which it defines as ‘extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world,’ through Iran’s Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.” Thus, he said, “to treat with the Islamic Republic over the particulars of its weaponry while failing to address the very purpose of its bellicosity is delusional. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action does nothing to change the fact that, in plain Farsi, Iran is committed to world conquest by Islam, with its clerics as warlords. Those to be conquered include America (the ‘Great Satan’), Israel (the ‘Little Satan’) and the Sunni-led Gulf States.”
The nuke deal did nothing to change that aspiration because it cannot be changed. Iran’s Brigadier General Qolamhossein Qeib-parvar of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has declared: “There are only two things that would end enmity between us and the US. Either the US president and EU leaders should convert to Islam and imitate the Supreme Leader, or Iran should abandon Islam and the Islamic revolution. If they are not going to turn Muslim, we are not going to abandon Islam or the revolution either. But I do not know why some people believe that some day we will make peace with the US and start relations with them.”
On September 23, 2015, two months after the nuke deal was finalized, Khamenei published an article entitled “The Idols Will Be Shattered,” illustrated with a drawing of the Statue of Liberty shattered in pieces. In it he declared, “The idol of the soul, the idol of pride, [and] the idol of sexual lust; the idol of tyranny and subservience; the idol of global tyranny [that is, the U.S.]; the idol of sloth and irresponsibility; and the other idols that shame the precious human soul—a plan that will spring forth from the depths of the heart will shatter them.”
But then Donald Trump became President. Iran continued its adventurism, and got new sanctions. Nonetheless, it persisted, and Soleimani was killed. Do the mullahs really doubt that Trump will act swiftly and decisively in response to further Iranian provocations? The Left’s outrage over the President’s language may be designed to obscure the fact that his strategy is working. Islamic supremacists and jihadis generally understand the world in terms of strength and weakness. They respect strength and despise weakness, and they see appeasement and accommodation as weakness. When Obama gave them billions and a pathway to nuclear weapons within ten years, they became more aggressive than ever. When Trump spoke and acted more firmly, they have curbed their activities.
But will the establishment media ever grasp the change, or report it to the American people? Of course not. They would much rather f**k with the President.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-10-14 05:41:422020-10-14 05:43:11Trump to Iran: ‘Do Not F**k Around with Us’
It is a staple of the Muslim victimhood industry to complain that Hollywood frequently features Muslim terrorist villains, and seldom depicts Muslims as anything other than terrorists. Reality is just the opposite: can you think of even one major motion picture that featured Islamic terrorists as the villains? In a typical instance, Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears, jihadis were the villains, but when the book was made into a movie, the villains were changed to neo-Nazis. Moviemakers routinely shy away from depicting the grim reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others. But not Cyrus Nowrasteh.
Nowrasteh, who gave us the eye-opening and heart-rending 2009 film The Stoning of Soraya M., which focused on an honor killing, has written, directed, and produced the new movie Infidel, starring Jim Caviezel, Claudia Karvan, and Hal Ozsan. Infidel is as startling, on many levels, as it is gripping. Caviezel plays a Christian blogger who is kidnapped by a Hizballah cell (headed up by a cheerfully villainous and thoroughly engaging Ozsan) and taken to Iran.
That this is the storyline is in itself remarkable. Were Infidel the production of virtually any director besides Nowrasteh, Caviezel’s Christian character Doug Rawlins would turn out to be stupid, evil, or both, while Ozsan’s Ramzi, even while being a Hizballah kidnapper, would be depicted as wise, noble, or even heroic. Muslims are victims of Islamophobic, racist, redneck American yahoos — that’s the general Hollywood narrative, played out in innumerable films.
Infidel instead opts to be more realistic, recalling actual events that seldom gain Hollywood’s notice, such as the 1987 kidnapping of journalist Charles Glass by Hizballah in Lebanon. Infidel unflinchingly portrays the gleeful brutality and inhumanity of Rawlins’ captors, as well as his own struggles to maintain his Christian faith amid torture and isolation. Amid all this, the film’s realism is thoroughgoing: once the movie’s perspective was established, it was refreshing to see Caviezel portray Rawlins as alternately angry, afraid, and confused, rather than as a plaster saint, above the fray and singing hymns even as he is being beaten and verbally abused.
Nor is that all. Besides being one of the few feature films to portray the reality of jihad terror in a realistic manner, Infidel is also one of the first, if not the first, major motion pictures to depict the pervasive but seldom-noticed reality of secret Christians in majority-Muslim countries, as well as the Sharia death penalty for leaving Islam, honor killings, and even the “Islamophobia” scam. Early in the movie, before Rawlins has left the U.S. and been kidnapped, investigators are searching the home of Javid, a Muslim friend of Rawlins. They find that Javid’s basement is filled with unmistakable evidence that he is a jihad terrorist, or at very least a terrorist sympathizer. All the while, however, a lawyer does her best to impede the search, proclaiming that it is “Islamophobia” to think that anything is amiss with Javid at all.
That is a recurring reality of life in America today: for years now it has been routine that any honest examination of jihad terror and Sharia oppression, and any effort to impede it, is “Islamophobic” and hence to be eschewed by all decent people. Up to now, the closest movies got to this phenomenon was their producers’ own fear of being tarred with the “Islamophobic” label if they got too close to depicting jihad violence in an accurate manner, or at very least without some kind of assurance to the audience that Islam is really not like that, but gentle, peaceful, and altogether benign. For a film to show how the “Islamophobia” weapon is actually wielded in order to stymie counterterror efforts is nothing short of astonishing.
But Infidel is much more than the sum of the topics that are usually ignored or obfuscated, and that it dares to depict. Infidel is, above all, a terrific story, well-acted and superbly presented – a story of love, of passion, of hatred, of commitment, of self-sacrifice, and much more. I would have written that they don’t make them like this anymore, but clearly, as long as Cyrus Nowrasteh is writing, directing, and producing movies, they still do.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-10-08 06:54:392020-10-08 06:56:45‘Infidel’: At Last, a Film That Deals Realistically with Islamic Terrorism
Farrakhan has said many egregious things, and he is also a traitor: “Mr. Trump killed my brother Qassem Soleimani. Mrs. Clinton killed my other brother Muammar Qaddafi.”
Will Biden pull these ads and disavow Jeezy? Not on your life. This is playing to his base.
“Joe Biden Ad Features Rapper Who Called Nation Of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan His ‘Mentor,’”
by Chuck Ross, Daily Caller, October 2, 2020 (thanks to Henry):
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign released an ad this week narrated by a popular rapper who has called Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan his “mentor” and a “great guy.”
The ad, narrated by Jeezy, aims to boost black voter turnout as part of the campaign’s “Shop Talk” series.
“If you are out there marching in these streets, exercising your rights, you need to exercise your right to vote, too,” Jeezy says in the ad, which is posted to the Biden campaign’s YouTube channel.
“It’s the only way to make sure we get the change we’re looking for. And I do mean we. Us. Better jobs, education, health care, and criminal justice reform.”
Jeezy, born Jay Jenkins, directs listeners to the voter registration website “I Will Vote.”
Jeezy, who began his career in Atlanta, has been open about his close relationship with Farrakhan. Numerous rappers and Democratic politicians have embraced the Nation of Islam leader despite his many anti-Semitic and anti-white statements over the years.
Farrakhan has blamed Jewish people for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the Holocaust, and referred to them as “satanic.” He also praised Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.”
At a Nation of Islam event in February 2018, Farrakhan asserted that “Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men.”
“White folks are going down,” he also said, according to CNN. “And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”
Jeezy himself has not made anti-Semitic statements, but he has heaped praise on Farrakhan in interviews and met with him on multiple occasions.
“Meeting of the minds, with my mentor. The Honorable Minister Farrakhan,” Jeezy wrote on Twitter April 17, 2015.
He called Farrakhan a “great guy” in an interview in October 2015 with Marc Lamont Hill, a former CNN contributor….
“I just want you to know the enemy’s watching you,” Jeezy recalled Farrakhan saying.
Farrakhan has cited an unspecified “enemy” in the past when criticizing the U.S. government and the entertainment industry in Hollywood. In one video posted on Facebook, Farrakhan blamed the “enemy” for promoting interracial marriage, which he said “mongrelized” the black race.
Jeezy was arrested in August 2014 on a weapons charge in connection with a murder following a concert for fellow rapper Wiz Khalifa. The charges were dropped in December 2014 due to a lack of evidence.
In another interview in October 2015, Jeezy said that Farrakhan had warned him that the so-called “enemy” would eventually go after him because of a shift in the message in his music. Jeezy was an early pioneer of “trap” music, a genre of rap that originated in the south and glorifies drug dealing. His music has taken a more political tone in recent years along with many other artists in the industry….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-10-06 05:33:002020-10-06 07:30:35WATCH: Joe Biden Ad Features Rapper who called anti-Semitic Racist Nation of Islam’s Farrakhan his ‘Mentor’
Has there ever been another time in history when the powerful, moneyed, cosseted elites achieved and maintained that elite status by claiming to be despised, discriminated against and marginalized? The latest example of this fetishization of outcast status came from Yale University’s Council on Middle East Studies last Thursday, when it presented a discussion by associate professor Zareena Grewal on her book Islam Is a Foreign Country: American Muslims and the Global Crisis of Authority.
“At the talk,” reported the Yale Daily News, “Grewal spoke about her first book — which will soon have a second edition — and her next book.” So it appears that Grewal has done quite well: she holds a professorship at Yale, her first book was successful enough to warrant a second edition, and to make her writing attractive enough to publishers that she was able to sign a contract for a second book.
Zareena Grewal has, in short, been successful and prosperous. Her work has received accolades. She got a plum job at an Ivy League university. But to hear her tell it, she lives a terrifying life cowering in fear of the racist, redneck yahoos who are bent on denying her and others like her their just rewards for their labors. Grewal complains that “the pandemic impacts us in such uneven ways reflective of structural racism and disenfranchisement.” On top of that, “we have the escalation of state violence against Black and indigenous people, the climate crisis, the fascist suppression of protestors and voters, a rise in white supremacist movements, the collapsing of institutions, and the very threat of a coup.”
Wait, which side was doing the coup again? Never mind. You’ll be happy to learn that Grewal has learned to cope with all the many, many ways in which she has been victimized: “In these dark times, I rely on what I learned about the nature of crises in writing that book over ten years ago to help me slow down and metabolize all the things we are hit with every day.” Yes, metabolize. That’s how academics these days talk, you unwashed rube.
Grewal is an experienced player of the victimhood game. “During the talk,” says the Yale Daily News, “Grewal emphasized that she wrote her first book in the context of how the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the Arab Spring Revolution affected Gen X Muslim youth.” The 9/11 attacks affected many people other than Muslims, but it has been commonplace for victimhood propagandists to claim that Muslims were the primary victims of the attacks. Several weeks ago, on the nineteenth anniversary of the attacks, the Los Angeles chapter Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release to complain of supposed bias against Muslims in the teaching about 9/11 in schools. CAIR-LA Civil Rights Managing Attorney Amr Shabaik wrote that those biases primarily involved conflating “the entire religion of Islam with the tragic events of 9/11.”
Never mind that the 9/11 hijackers and plotters repeatedly conflated their actions with the religion of Islam. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 plotters several years ago penned a lengthy Islamic defense for their actions, which included a closely reasoned explanation of why the 9/11 attacks were justified from the standpoint of Islamic doctrine and belief.
As far as Grewal, as well as CAIR is concerned, such material doesn’t exist. What we have instead is “the Trump Presidency, the possibility of a second term of the Trump Presidency, the transformation of a series of policies in the Middle East, the brutal suppression of those revolutionary movements that I am describing at the end of the book, and how has that impacted American Muslim communities.”
Associate Professor of Religious Studies Travis Zadeh, who hosted the event, highlighted the importance of Grewal’s work in light of efforts to police the borders and control who enters the United States. Zadeh noted that Grewal’s “writing on the containment and exclusion of Muslims takes on heightened meaning in the current context of ultranationalism. In this paramedic state of closed borders, the debate over who belongs where is all the more pressing.”
Who belongs where – that’s a good question. For all their talk of marginalization and exclusion, Zareena Grewal and Travis Zadeh are in the in-crowd, and their talk of how much they are victims is the ticket to success and adulation in today’s academic world and among the intelligentsia in general. In contrast, what about an academic who is not Marxist, anti-American, and obsessed with imagined racism and victimhood? Would such an academic get featured at Yale University’s Council on Middle East Studies? Would such an academic even get hired at Yale in the first place?
The answers are clear. And so in their most inmost of inner circles, Grewal, Zadeh and their ilk will continue whining about how they’re discriminated against, and will be rewarded with prestige, positions, money, fame, and influence for doing so, while genuine academics are genuinely excluded, and must hunt for jobs far outside the academic world. Today, if you can play the victim convincingly enough, how far can you advance? The sky’s the limit.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-10-05 06:40:002020-10-05 06:42:01Want to Be Rich, Powerful, and Influential Today? Play the Victim.
One of the most revealing moments of last night’s debate was one that most people probably missed. BuzzFeed’s Hamed Aleaziz was overjoyed, tweeting that it was “a historic moment in America.” Over at Slate, Aymann Ismail added that “as terrible as this debate night was, at least a few of us had this moment.”
This glorious occasion came when Donald Trump stated that he would eventually release his tax returns: “I’ve paid millions of dollars, and you’ll get to see it.” Joe Biden responded: “When? Inshallah,” using Arabic for “God willing,” a phrase that is often used in the context of procrastination.
Some Muslims were excited about Biden’s colloquial use of the phrase, so as to mean “This is not likely to happen.” “Interfaith and anti-racism educator” Hind Makki tweeted: “Whenever someone who’s not Muslim drops an inshallah in conversation, I assume they have Muslim colleagues. When they know to use it colloquially [sarcastically], I know they have close Muslim friends.”
These were just the sort of reactions Biden was doubtless hoping for. Arabic-speaking Christians as well as Muslims say “Inshallah,” but in saying this, Biden was not pandering to Arabic-speaking Christians; he was pandering to the part of his base (Muslim and non-Muslim) that believes that counterterror efforts are largely just an exercise in “Islamophobia” and supports the likes of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. With the world watching, Biden was demonstrating his support for the Left’s favored religion, Islam. He wouldn’t have said the phrase in English, “God willing,” because his point was not primarily to emphasize that Trump was going to procrastinate in releasing his tax returns; it was to show in a concise, albeit indirect fashion that he was a worthy candidate of the anti-American hard left, a reliable foe of the alleged “Muslim ban,” and a fervent proponent of mass migration.
For Biden has to earn the love of the increasingly dominant hard-left wing of his party. Trump several times last night maneuvered Biden into repudiating pet causes of the far left, notably the Green New Deal, for which Biden affirms support on his own website. This is likely to cause him some difficulty with the most radical of his supporters, for they have already made clear that they’ve got the Democratic nominee on a short leash.
The notorious anti-Semite and former Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour made that clear in July when she declared “I choose Biden” and then immediately began making clear that her support was decidedly conditional: “But I choose him as my opponent in the White House. I want him to defeat Trump so we can mobilize our movements to hold him accountable and push him to do and be better. We can’t do that with Trump.”
Sarsour explained that she and her supporters had supported Bernie Sanders “because he earned our votes & we need Biden to continue to do the same.” She elaborated: “When Joe Biden does the right thing, you better believe Linda Sarsour’s going to say, ‘You know what? Thank you so much President Joe Biden for doing the right thing.’ And when President Joe Biden doesn’t do the right thing our community needs to come together and hold him accountable.”
Biden may have been trying to relieve some of this pressure and win more of the confidence of the far-left by making use of this expression that is common among the adherents of the religion that leftists love most, but it didn’t work with everyone. Journalist Tamer El-Ghobashy huffed: “Biden’s use of inshallah was kinda colonial and derogatory if you ask me.” El-Ghobashy added: “The sarcasm of it reminded me of every mid-level state department dweeb I ever met in Iraq.”
Poor old Joe. What does he have to do or say to allay suspicions that he will not be a faithful servant of the socialist, internationalist, pro-migration, anti-counterterror agenda? His repudiation of the Green New Deal and more last night will not help him with the adherents of that agenda, but they likely understand that Joe was simply saying what he had to say to get out of the corner Trump had backed him into.
They understand, after all, the helpful principle enunciated by that master politician, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam: “War is deceit.” Joe Biden very clearly has grasped that principle as well.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2020-10-02 04:10:352020-10-02 12:05:03Why Biden Said ‘Inshallah’ During the Debate
