Tag Archive for: Robert Spencer

Girl Weeps As Taliban Approaches: ‘We Don’t Count Because We Were Born in Afghanistan. No One Cares About Us.’

/in , , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

On Friday, the courageous Iranian dissident Masih Alinejad, whom the Islamic Republic recently tried to kidnap in New York and take back to imprisonment, torture, and death in Tehran, posted a video on Twitter of a young Afghan woman. As the tears fall down her face, the woman says:

“We don’t count because we were born in Afghanistan. I cannot help crying. I have to wipe my tears to be able to film this video. No one cares about us. We’ll die slowly in history. Isn’t it funny?”

No, it’s as tragic as this woman feels it to be, and the reason why it is happening gets right to the heart of why the American mission in Afghanistan failed so completely, and left young women such as the one in this video without anyone to defend them from the Taliban.

The woman in the video is not wearing a hijab, which gives the immediate impression that she is not an observant, Sharia-adherent Muslim. Political and military realities that are rapidly changing now may have obscured the fact for her, but this woman is not being abandoned now. She was abandoned years ago, in one of the foremost mistakes of our two-decade-long series of mistakes in Afghanistan.

In our early years in Afghanistan, once the Taliban was toppled, we set about nation-building, initially with an eye toward establishing a Western-style constitutional republic in Afghanistan. But State Department foreign policy experts drastically underestimated the Afghan people’s attachment to Islamic law (Sharia), and disastrously discounted Sharia’s political aspects in the naïve belief, fueled by Islamic apologists in the U.S., that Islam was a religion of peace that was perfectly compatible with Western secular models of governance.

The opposition to Sharia quickly gave way to their desire to be culturally sensitive. The Melbourne Forum on Constitution Building noted in 2018 that “most of the external actors, including the United States, American church groups and the United Nations, initially attempted to marginalise the role of Islam and Sharia in favor of liberal rights and freedoms. However, understanding that Islam and Sharia are entrenched parts of Afghan constitutional culture, foreign advisers such as Yash Ghai and Barnett Rubin, who were directly involved in the drafting process convinced external assistance providers to stand aside and leave Afghans to make choices on these sensitive constitutional questions.”

And so the Afghan Constitution that Afghanistan’s then-President Hamid Karzai formally ratified on January 26, 2004, begins “in the name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful” and is written in the name of “We the people of Afghanistan, believing firmly in Almighty God, relying on His divine will and adhering to the Holy religion of Islam.” The Constitution notes its appreciation for the “jihad and just resistance of all the peoples of Afghanistan.” It declares that “Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state,” and that “the sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.” The significance of this is spelled out explicitly: “No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pathetic: Biden Admin Pleads with Taliban to Go Easy, So as to Win Approval of ‘International Community’

Taliban pick up US weaponry left for Afghan military, worth billions of dollars

Taliban leader: ‘I was detained in Guantanamo bay camp for several years’

Afghan president flees, Taliban to declare Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Taliban seizes $6,000,000 US Blackhawk helicopters

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

Basheer Jones Hates America. He Wants to Be Mayor of Cleveland.

/in , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

Basheer Jones is a Cleveland city councilman and a candidate for mayor of Cleveland in the upcoming September 14 primary election. He is also unusually forthright, even for a twenty-first-century Democratic politician, about his contempt for the land in which he seeks elected office.

Jones is a devout, observant Muslim, and already, according to CleveScene, his “personal religious beliefs and organizational ties have become linked with his campaign. Jones made a number of questionable campaign expenditures in 2020 to international Muslim organizations and figures, including expenses likely related to his December travels in Egypt and the sponsorship of a Muslim orphanage there and a Quranic school in Senegal.”

What’s more, “a recent controversial video shows Jones saying, ‘women are not our leaders.’” Jones, like Muslim spokesmen all over the Western world when confronted with statements that are politically inconvenient, insists that his words were “taken out of context.”

But that is not remotely the worst of it. On Sunday, the RAIR Foundation published an exposé on Jones that contained audio of Jones speaking on January 3, 2016, and making fun of Muslim immigrants who were thankful to be in the United States, and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

“Before 9/11,” Jones asserts, “our people, our brothers and sisters from the immigrant communities, like, ‘America is a great place. Oh, it’s the land of the free, home of the brave.’ You’d see the imams, big imams, on the stage, singin’, you know.” Here the crowd starts to laugh softly; Jones chuckles a bit along with them and continues: “‘I pledge allegiance to the flag,’ you know, ‘this is the greatest place in the world.’ And we were tellin’ you, ‘Ah, no it’s not. Ah, we know about this place. This place, we know, we know that guy, somethin’ about him.’ And then 9/11 hit. Everybody started comin’ to us. ‘Brothers, please, come, come march with us, stand –’ Brother, we been tellin’ you, that they’ll change on you just like that, man.”’

Jones was apparently referring to American authorities supposedly turning on Muslim communities after 9/11 and subjecting them to “Islamophobic” counter-terror measures. In any case, his contempt for the grateful immigrants, and I-told-you-so implication that he had somehow been vindicated after 9/11, when America proved to be not so great a place after all, ought to have raised eyebrows among those who backed Jones for Cleveland City Council and are now supporting his mayoral ambitions.

There is no indication, however, that anyone was concerned in the slightest with their candidate’s anti-Americanism. We are, after all, talking about the Democratic Party. This is the party that stood by and did nothing when Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Kabul) tweeted: “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. I asked [Secretary of State Antony Blinken] where people are supposed to go for justice.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

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

Can the Hamas-Linked AP Any Longer Be Considered a News Source?

/in , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

The Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, most respected, most venerable news sources on the planet. It is also increasingly clear that the AP, in these overheated days, has reduced itself to acting as a press agency for Hamas. This tendency has become so pronounced recently that among all the massively biased far-Left propaganda outfits that make up the establishment media, the AP has essentially disqualified itself from being regarded any longer as even close to being a reliable source for news.

The first indication that the AP had run off the rails came during the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, when Israeli forces bombed a building in Gaza that housed a Hamas operations base and an AP office. The AP protested, claiming that it had no idea, none whatsoever, that it was sharing a building with Hamas, and this organization of intrepid journalists was put into the embarrassing position of having to be informed by Israel’s Ambassador to the United States and the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, about the operations of Hamas right under their noses.

But it’s almost certain that they knew already, and said nothing about Hamas’ presence in their building because of sympathy with the jihad terror organization and a shared antipathy to Israel. This became clear again on July 13, when the AP ran a tear-jerker entitled “Israel bars jailed Palestinian from daughter’s funeral,” claiming: “Israel refused to let a prominent jailed Palestinian lawmaker attend her daughter’s funeral on Tuesday, despite a campaign by activists and human rights groups for her to be released on humanitarian grounds.”

Those terrible Israelis! And it gets even worse. According to the AP article, the “jailed lawmaker” was “Khalida Jarrar, 58, a leading member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,” who “has been in and out of Israeli prison in recent years. A military court sentenced her to two years in March for being a member of an outlawed group. With time served, she is set to be released in October.” Her late daughter Suha “worked on issues related to gender and climate change for the Al-Haq human rights group.”

Suha “worked on issues related to gender and climate change”! Why, she was a saint on earth, and the evil Israelis wouldn’t even let her bereaved mother pay her respects! However, the AP left out a few telling details. According to Gidon Ben-zvi in Algemeiner, Suha Jarrar worked for the same terrorist organization of which her mother was a member: “Suha Jarrar worked for al-Haq, a highly controversial organization with ties to the U.S.-designated terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [PFLP], of which her mother was a member. Al-Haq has asserted that terrorists have a ‘right’ to receive salaries from the Palestinian Authority.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

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

CNN Uses Ashli Babbitt to Paint Trump Supporters As Terrorists

/in , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

“To some,” CNN tweeted Friday, “Ashli Babbitt, who was killed in the Capitol riot, was a terrorist. To others, she’s a martyr and seen as a recruiting tool.” Twitter’s legion of blue-check Leftist propagandists immediately protested that other “terrorists” are seen as martyrs as well. Never-Trump former Bush consultant Matthew Dowd likened Babbitt to Hitler, who was responsible for the murder of twelve million people in Europe, and actor Terry Kinney likened her to Mohamed Atta, who was partially responsible for the murder of nearly three thousand people on September 11, 2001. In their indignation, however, they ignored the fact that CNN’s language was clearly designed to lead their tiny remaining audience to take Trump supporters for terrorists.

Of course, the comparisons Dowd and Kinney made were monstrous. How many people did Ashli Babbitt and the Capitol rioters kill on January 6, 2021? None. There isn’t even any actual evidence that their entry into the Capitol building really constituted an “insurrection.” But CNN’s tweet was little better. It was framed in exactly the same way it would have been if CNN had actually been talking about a jihadi: “To some, Osama bin Laden, who was killed in his compound in Pakistan, was a terrorist. To others, he’s a martyr and seen as a recruiting tool.”

Recruiting for what? Those “far-right terror groups” that loom so large in the Left’s imagination, but are so hard to find in reality. CNN’s story that was linked from the tweet makes this explicit: “‘She is going to be used for many, many years,’ said Simon Purdue, a fellow at the UK-based Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, who last month wrote an article on the significance of Babbitt’s supposed martyrdom as a recruiting tool. ‘The more they mention her, the more dangerous her story is going to be.’”

Purdue “drew parallels between the rhetoric surrounding Babbitt’s death and that of Vicki Weaver. Weaver was the wife of White separatist Randy Weaver who was fatally shot by an FBI sniper during a standoff with federal agents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992. The Weavers’ teenage son was also killed a day earlier as was a U.S. marshal. Vicki Weaver’s ‘perceived status as an innocent, white, female victim of “state aggression” instantly placed her on a pedestal.’ Purdue wrote. Her death, in particular, became a rallying cry and recruiting tool on the far right and helped inspire Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.”

The Oklahoma City bombing was in 1995, but we sure are hearing a lot about it lately. That’s how far the establishment media has to go in order to find any really significant “white supremacist” violence, and so it has to be pressed into service to shore up the Left’s narrative, which Old Joe Biden’s handlers put into his mouth on June 1: “Terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scotland’s new hate crime bill doesn’t apply to Muslims

Islamic Republic of Iran’s new president ordered thousands killed in mass executions and tortured pregnant women

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

If No Islamophobic ‘Hate Crimes’ Exist, They Must Be Invented. The Next Target Is Southwest Airlines

/in , , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

If “hate crimes” targeting Muslims do not exist, they must be invented. They’re simply too politically useful to do without. And so it is that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is aiding a Muslim woman, Fatima Altakrouri, who claims that Southwest would not allow her to sit in a plane’s exit row because she was wearing a hijab.

Just for some perspective, in the last few weeks alone, in Nigeria, Islamic jihadis murdered a Christian pastor and his 3-year-old son. Elsewhere in the same country, Muslims screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered 37 Christians, all the while roaming freely in the presence of security personnel, who did nothing to stop them. In Indonesia, eleven Muslims were arrested for plotting jihad massacres at several Christian churches. In South Sudan, thirteen Christians were murdered in a village that, according to the Episcopal Church of South Sudan, “experiences frequent attacks by Arab Islamic militias.” In Pakistan, a Muslim mob murdered a Christian for trying to defend his sister whom Muslims had stripped naked in the street. In Uganda, Muslims beheaded and removed the tongue of a pastor who had debated Muslims and converted some of them to Christianity.

Now, I don’t mean to minimize the gravity of being denied a seat in the exit row, but compared to incidents of that kind, which take place more or less regularly, it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. If this is an example of what CAIR can come up with in terms of “Islamophobia,” it’s pretty thin gruel. Yet “Islamophobia” in the U.S. and Europe gets far more international media attention than the global Muslim persecution of Christians. Now, why is that?

As for Fatima Altakrouri, according to USA Today, she has “filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation, saying she was not allowed to sit in an emergency exit row on a Southwest Airlines flight because she was wearing a hijab, but her sister was allowed to sit there without one.”

Altakrouri claims that after denying her request, a flight attendant mocked her as a terrorist: “As I was walking, I overheard her saying to the passengers in the seats that were around that area, laughing, saying that ‘If we sat her there, she’d bring down the plane in an emergency. You can imagine the shock I was in at that time.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida: Muslim inmates beat guard unconscious for trying to search their Qur’an for contraband

Brooklyn Film Festival premieres documentary about NJ mayor who ‘fights the forces of Islamophobia’

Yemen: Houthi leader claims US fabricated 9/11 in order to target the Islamic world

Afghanistan: 12 civilians murdered in bomb blasts on buses in Shi’a area

Germany: Intelligence agency reports dramatic increase in number of Hizballah members and supporters

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

‘One Mosque Is Erected Every 15 Days in France, While One Christian Building Is Destroyed At the Same Pace’

/in , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media is a VIP article. I am happy to be able to offer you a 5% discount on becoming a VIP member at PJ Media. Just enter the code SPENCER when you sign up here.

Edouard de Lamaze, president of the Observatoire du Patrimoine Religieux (Observatory of Religious Heritage) in Paris, is sounding the alarm about the rapid erosion of France’s cultural heritage. “One mosque is erected every 15 days in France,” he said recently, “while one Christian building is destroyed at the same pace. It creates a tipping point on the territory that should be taken into account.” Yes, it should be taken into account by anyone, Christian or non-Christian, who is concerned about the future of France. But it isn’t.

According to the Catholic News Agency, “Lamaze’s appeal for increased awareness came after a fire destroyed the 16th-century Church of Saint-Pierre in Romilly-la-Puthenaye, Normandy, northern France. The fire, deemed accidental, took place on April 15, exactly two years after the blaze that devastated Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris.” What’s more, “Lamaze told CNA in an interview that in addition to one religious building disappearing every two weeks — by demolition, transformation, destruction by fire, or collapse — two-thirds of fires in religious buildings are due to arson.”

All this was going on, Lamaze noted, against a backdrop of incomprehension and indifference: “The current minister of culture is seeking to establish a protection charter, but the situation is extremely serious and, alas, I don’t see any real awareness growing, nor any sense of responsibility in the face of this crucial challenge for our national heritage.”

There is more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sharia UK: School apologizes, launches inquiry after Muhammad image ‘mistakenly’ shown during assembly

UK: Muslims tell shop not to sell alcohol, it’s against Sharia, Muslim Councillor says shouldn’t get alcohol license

Germany bans Islamic organization after donations for humanitarian purposes were funneled to jihad terror groups

Pakistan: Muslim Rapist Demands Custody of Hindu Minor Who ‘Converted to Islam’ During Rape

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

New York Times Details Horrors of Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban,’ Ignores Victims of Jihad Attacks

/in , , , /by

The New York Times story opens with a scene of unmitigated horror: “On May 30, 2019, Mohamed Abdulrahman Ahmed should have been in class preparing for exams. Instead, neighbors found the gifted high school senior hanging lifeless from a beam in his home in the Dadaab refugee camp in northeastern Kenya. He had taken his own life.” Since this is the New York Times, it comes as no surprise that the ultimate culprit is none other than Donald J. Trump, and his nefarious “Muslim Ban” that his wise successor’s handlers have now consigned to the dustbin of history.

Times author Ty McCormick does his best to tug at our heartstrings as he describes Dadaab, “a sea of sand and thorn scrub and makeshift tarpaulin dwellings” that is “home to more than 200,000 people — a city the size of Richmond, Va., or Spokane, Wash., except without electricity or running water.”

It’s a place absolutely mired in despair, but “over the years, refugees in Dadaab have clung to one hope: resettlement overseas, sometimes in Europe or Canada but mostly in the United States. Tens of thousands of Dadaab’s residents have come to the United States; in 2015, for instance, more than 3,000 people from the camp were resettled there.”

But then came the reign of the Evil One: “Those hopes of a better life were dashed on Jan. 27, 2017, when on his eighth day as president, Donald Trump suspended all refugee admissions and banned entry to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including Somalia. (Restrictions were eventually applied to 13 countries in all.)”

It’s a predictable sob story about how hard the residents of Dadaab have had it since they have been unable to come to America. One is moved to tears, but when one begins to consider the issue rationally, other considerations inevitably intrude: there are people who are having hard times all over the world. In fact, there are even people who are having hard times in the United States of America. There are people who are suffering economically, like the people in Dadaab. There are people who are suffering physically, emotionally, mentally, and in other ways. All over the world, there is suffering and pain. Why, then, is it the moral responsibility of the United States of America to alleviate the suffering of the people of Dadaab? No one in Kenya or Somalia or France or China or Australia or anywhere else is doing a thing to alleviate the sufferings of Americans; why is it up to Americans, all of whom are suffering in various ways themselves, to alleviate the suffering of everyone else?

Meanwhile, what about the suffering of those whose lives were destroyed by Somali migrants who came into the country before Trump’s travel ban came into effect? Can we get a New York Times article on them? Somali Muslim migrant Mohammad Barry in February 2016 stabbed multiple patrons at a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab Christian. When is the New York Times going to interview the people whom Barry stabbed, and publish a piece about how they have suffered, and how their lives forever changed that day? When is the New York Times going to write a piece about the other people who were in the restaurant that day, and explore their trauma, their horror, their terror, and the nightmares and anxiety they have experienced since then?

When does the New York Times plan to profile the victims of Dahir Adan, another Somali Muslim migrant, who in October 2016 stabbed mall shoppers in St. Cloud while screaming “Allahu akbar”? Do Adan’s victims get a New York Times article about their injuries, their healing processes, any operations they may have had to undergo, and their own ongoing trauma and fear?

How about the victims of Abdul Razak Artan, yet another Somali Muslim migrant, who in November 2016 injured nine people with car and knife attacks at Ohio State University? Does the New York Times plan to explain to us how the victims whom Artan tried to run down with his car (in an instance of the common phenomenon of vehicular jihad) now find their hearts racing at the prospect of having to cross the street?

Of course, the New York Times is not going to publish even a single line about the suffering of those people and others like them, or even consider the possibility that Trump’s travel bans did anything but harm. Only the suffering of the people of Dadaab and others like them, not the suffering of victims of jihad attacks, matters to the Times. The suffering of the people of Dadaab is very real, and should be addressed, but is the only solution, or the best solution, really the resettlement in the United States of large numbers of people among whom is an unknowable number of jihad terrorists, who will enter undetected since any vetting to try to discover them will be deemed “Islamophobic”?

There will soon be new victims of Biden’s handlers’ marvelous, multicultural discarding of the “Muslim Ban.” The New York Times will ignore them, while congratulating themselves on how they helped install a president who strikes back against “racism” and “xenophobia.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Puts Anti-Israel BDS Activist in Charge of NSC Intel

Texas: Man converts to Islam, plots jihad massacres at CIA, FBI and DEA headquarters

Polish Catholic Church holds ‘Day of Islam’ to ‘overcome prejudices’

Islamic Republic of Iran strengthening ties with Communist China, both denounce US sanctions

Turkey: 284 women killed in domestic violence in 2020, 56 because they wanted a divorce

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

Grab the Popcorn: Free Speech Foe Gets Threatened with Prison for ‘Blasphemy’

/in , , , , /by

The threat is not surprising, given the authoritarian Islamic character of Pakistan’s government and its vicious hostility to the Ahmadiyya movement, as it forbids Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims and persecutes them in numerous ways. The TrueIslam.com website presents Ahmadi Islam as the pure and genuine form of the religion, despite the fact that the Ahmadiyya movement is regarded as heretical by mainstream Muslims and represents an infinitesimal percentage of the worldwide Muslim population. Zafar and his colleague Amjad Mahmood Khan, who was also threatened, must have known that such a site would ruffle the Pakistani government’s feathers.

But what made this more than just another story about the repressive Pakistani government is the fact that back in January 2013, Zafar published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled, “Making Islamic Sense of Free Speech.” In it, Zafar offered a manifesto for the destruction of the freedom of speech worthy of a true totalitarian.

“The difference between Islam’s view on free speech and the view promoted by free speech advocates these days,” Zafar asserted, “is the intention and ultimate goal each seeks to promote. Whereas many secularists champion individual privileges, Islam promotes the principle of uniting mankind and cultivating love and understanding among people. Both endorse freedom for people to express themselves, but Islam promotes unity, whereas modern-day free speech advocates promote individualism.”

The unity Zafar envisioned involved restrictions on the freedom of speech: “In order to unite mankind, Islam instructs to only use speech to be truthful, do good to others, and be fair and respectful. It attempts to pre-empt [sic] frictions by prescribing rules of conduct which guarantee for all people not only freedom of speech but also fairness, absolute justice, and the right of disagreement.”

So we can have the freedom of speech as long as “fairness” is ensured by Islamic “rules of conduct.” With evident distaste, Zafar continued by claiming that “the most vocal proponents of freedom of speech, however, call us towards a different path, where people can say anything and everything on their mind. With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism. They insist this freedom entitles them the legal privilege to insult others. This is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. It fosters animosity, resentment and disorder.”

Note the sleight of hand: “With no restraint on speech at all, every form of provocation would exist, thereby cultivating confrontation and antagonism.” Zafar was implying that the Muslims who riot and kill because of perceived affronts to Islam were not responsible for their own actions, but that those who supposedly provoked them were.

This is an increasingly widespread confusion in the West, willfully spread by people such as Zafar. In reality, the only person responsible for his actions is the person who is acting, not anyone else. You may provoke me in a hundred ways, but my response is my own, which I choose from a range of possible responses, and only I am responsible for it.

But having established that if someone riots and kills in response to someone else’s speech, the fault lies with the speaker, not the rioter, Zafar drove his point home: speech must be restricted in the interests of “world peace”: “Treating speech as supreme at the expense of world peace and harmony is an incredibly flawed concept. No matter how important the cause of free speech, it still pales in comparison to the cause of world peace and unity.”

And who will decide what speech accords with “world peace and harmony,” and what speech does not? Why, Zafar and his friends, of course. But what if the Pakistani government claimed that right for itself, and decided that what Zafar himself was saying did not accord with “world peace and harmony”?

Harris Zafar could well become the Nikolai Yezhov of our age. Yezhov was the Soviet secret police chief who sent innumerable people to their deaths in the gulag before Stalin decided it was his turn. Nowadays, Zafar has become the first advocate of restrictions on the freedom of speech to run afoul of people who want to take his own freedom of speech away. But as the silencing continues, he will by no means be the last.

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

Seriously? As Trump Announces Another Mideast Peace Deal, Biden Named Person of the Year

/in , , , , /by

Time magazine has named Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “Person of the Year,” in a tacit acknowledgment that they are, for all their individual differences, essentially a single cog in the socialist internationalist machine that is poised to roll all over us. And there is no doubt that driving the American republic to the point of near-death with election chicanery on a breathtaking scale is indeed a significant achievement, but amid all the excitement, it was barely noticed that President Trump had delivered yet another rebuke to the massively failed foreign policy establishment that is poised to get back in the saddle and start failing some more, by engineering peace between Israel and another Arab state, Morocco.

Trump tweeted Thursday: “Another HISTORIC breakthrough today! Our two GREAT friends Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed to full diplomatic relations – a massive breakthrough for peace in the Middle East!” The Morocco deal, like the previous one between Israel and Sudan, seems to be a straightforward bargain. Trump also tweeted Friday: “Today, I signed a proclamation recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara. Morocco’s serious, credible, and realistic autonomy proposal is the ONLY basis for a just and lasting solution for enduring peace and prosperity!” So Morocco gets recognition of its sovereignty over the Western Sahara, and the world gets another step toward peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

That makes four agreements between Israel and Arab nations, something John Kerry confidently stated was not even remotely possible. Isn’t it great that Kerry is about to go back to work for the Person of the Year (what pronouns does that beast with two backs use?) and start showing us how it’s done again?

No one thought it could be done, except, of course, Donald Trump. Back in September, when Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates signed their deals with Israel, Trump stated: “We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history. After decades of division and conflict we mark the dawn of a new Middle East.” This was accurate. These “Abraham Accords” have already changed the entire landscape of the Middle East as, for the first time in decades, pragmatic considerations are taking precedence over the fixed ideas that have guided the foreign policy stances of all the Muslim and Arab countries regarding Israel.

Although this aspect of the conflict has been little noted and is still routinely ignored by foreign policy analysts, the Muslim world’s opposition to Israel has not been based upon conflicting claims for land or anything else, but upon core principles of the Islamic religion. As The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process shows, the Qur’an commands Muslims to “drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191). Even though it is a historical fiction that Israel actually drove Muslim Arabs out, this claim is a staple of pro-Palestinian propaganda, and hence it is a divine imperative, no more negotiable than the Ten Commandments are for Jews and Christians, that Muslims must destroy Israel and “drive out” the Israelis.

That means that as long as pious, believing, knowledgeable Muslims are in charge in Muslim countries, which is by no means always the case, no negotiated settlement will ever establish Israel securely and end the jihad against it. That in turn is why analysts ignore Islam when considering the conflict: people don’t like bad news, or problems that cannot be solved. Nonetheless, this is the reality of the situation, and no good can ever come from ignoring reality.

Why, then, did Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, and now Morocco normalize relations with Israel? Because it was in their interests to do so. Sudan was taken off the terror list in exchange for normalization. The Islamic Republic of Iran has for years claimed Bahrain as Iran’s nineteenth province, and the UAE likewise feels the heat of being in close proximity to one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terror. In a certain sense, these deals with Israel are a byproduct of Barack Obama’s decision to send billions to the mullahs’ tottering regime: a newly secure and empowered mullahcracy threatens Bahrain and the UAE, and so it was in their best interests to look for assistance from a country that Iran also menaces.

Now, with the mullahs expecting The Person of the Year and their minions to prop them up again, there are numerous indications that many in the Islamic world have had quite enough of the Palestinians’ jihadist intransigence and resistance to all peace accords, and are willing to proceed on a pragmatic basis, quite aside from what Islamic doctrine and law say, in order to secure their own countries against the threat from Iran.

And so maybe Old Joe deserves the credit for Middle East peace that the establishment media is certain to give him no matter what: if he hadn’t publicly stated his intention to empower and enable the Islamic Republic, Sunni Arab states wouldn’t see the need to make accords with Israel to protect themselves from the mullahs. Make that man, uh, those people, Person of the Year!

Meanwhile, it’s too bad that there is no unbiased, trustworthy organization giving out prizes for efforts toward world peace. If there were, Trump would be a shoo-in. But that would require a sane world.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Former top general says he fears civil war due to ‘Islamist radicals’

France unveils new law to fight ‘those that distort religion to challenge the values of the Republic’

UK: Manchester jihad bomber’s brother says he supports violent jihad and imposition of Sharia through violence

Osama bin Laden associate is back on UK streets after being freed from US prison for being too fat

Iran Violates 2015 Agreement Again, and Even the Europeans are Alarmed

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

Gingrich: 2020 Election is the ‘Biggest Theft Since 1824’ – But It’s Even Worse Than That

/in , , , , , /by

Newt Gingrich tweeted Friday:

“The more data comes out on vote anomalies that clearly are not legitimate the more it looks like 2020 may be the biggest Presidential theft since Adams and Clay robbed Andrew Jackson in 1824. State legislatures should demand recounts.”

He was right, except for one detail: the stolen election of 2020 is shaping up to be much worse than that of 1824.

Rating America’s Presidents explains that by that year, the Democratic-Republican Party, which was the party of the previous three presidents, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, now included virtually every politician of significance and had split into factions of its own. The congressional caucus that had chosen Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe bypassed the candidate whom many considered to be Monroe’s heir apparent, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Instead, the caucus picked a candidate who stood for the old Republican principles of strict adherence to the Constitution and a weak federal government: William Crawford, who had been a senator from Georgia, minister to France, and secretary of war and secretary of the treasury in the Monroe administration.

The caucus, however, didn’t have the influence in 1824 that it had enjoyed in previous years. Those who favored the positions that had initially been identified with the moribund opposition party, the Federalists, including a strong federal government that funded internal improvements, a centralized Bank of the United States, and high tariffs to protect American industry, were Adams and the speaker of the House, Henry Clay of Kentucky. Then there was General Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 and, more recently, a senator from Tennessee. Jackson had genuine popular support, which was increasingly important, as more and more states were choosing electors by popular vote.

No one, however, knew exactly where Jackson stood on the issues. Adams, whom Jackson would soon count among his bitterest political enemies, actually supported him for vice president, albeit with a quip about Jackson’s volatile character: “The Vice-Presidency was a station in which the General could hang no one, and in which he would need to quarrel with no one.”

One reason why 2020 is worse than 1824 is that everyone in that race, like everyone for the first century and a half of the republic, had an America-first agenda. So there was nothing like the modern-day division of candidates on that score, and voters didn’t have to ask themselves which candidate was less likely to sell America’s interests to the highest international bidder.

What’s more, the positions that were truly best for America in the long run were distributed across factional lines; the Adams party held some, and the Jackson party held others. The gargantuan growth of the federal government today and its increasing interference in the daily lives of its citizens make one long for the era when politicians were determined not just to pay lip service to the idea of limiting its power. One need not acquiesce in that unrestrained and continually growing power in order to accept the Supreme Court’s declaration of the constitutionality of using federal funds for internal improvements as based on the Commerce Clause; nor does this require one to endorse the later abuse of that clause. The Bank placed control of the public funds in private hands, which was never wise, as it risked the possibility of an elected clique, rather than the people, setting the national agenda; we are seeing the consequences of that in other contexts today.

The question of Andrew Jackson’s fitness for office was a key issue in 1824, as it had been for no previous presidential candidate. Jackson was widely considered to be unsuitable to be president, as he had little political experience. Clay sneered, “I cannot believe that killing 2,500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult, and complicated duties of the Chief Magistracy.”

Nevertheless, the election results had Jackson leading the field, winning ninety-nine electoral votes, with eighty-four for Adams, forty-one for Crawford, and thirty-seven for Clay. As none of the candidates had a majority, the election went to the House of Representatives, where the choice was between the three top vote-getters. Clay threw his support to Adams, who prevailed. Adams, as president, then chose Clay as the secretary of state, which was reasonable in light of their agreement on key issues. But Jackson and his supporters charged Adams and Clay with making a “corrupt bargain” to secure the presidency for Adams. Jackson raged: “So you see the Judas of the West [Clay] has closed the contract and will receive his thirty pieces of silver. Was there ever witnessed such bare faced corruption in any country before?”

So it was that the presidency of John Quincy Adams, a man who was distinguished throughout his long political career for his integrity, was tainted from beginning to end by charges of corruption and venality. Adams entered the White House under a cloud that never dissipated. In his inaugural address, Adams appealed to the goodwill of the American people: “Less possessed of your confidence in advance than any of my predecessors, I am deeply conscious of the prospect that I shall stand more and oftener in need of your indulgence.”

He didn’t get it. His victory was so tainted that his presidency was effectively crippled from the start. Of course, he didn’t have the weight of a complicit and compliant media and political establishment behind him. Compared to Donald J. Trump, John Quincy Adams had it easy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Official Palestinian Authority TV: ‘There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand’

Germany: Muslim migrant attacks synagogue, Jewish girl says she is Muslim to avoid assault by Muslim classmates

UK: Muhammed, Mohamed, and Mohammed convicted of ‘terror offences,’ cops withhold info about migration backgrounds

My Journey Out of Islam and Hate

The Death Of Fakhrizadeh, and What’s to Come

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

Trump is Right: Our Exit from Afghanistan is Long Overdue

/in , , , /by

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netherlands: Muslims threaten to murder teacher over Muhammad cartoon, teacher goes into hiding

Pakistan: Five Muslims gang-rape and torture deaf-mute Christian girl for 2 months as police do nothing

Sweden: Discrimination Ombudsman rules that municipality’s ban on hijab, burqa, and niqab is illegal

Philippines: 48-year-old Muslim marries 13-year-old girl

France: Muslims write on walls of two schools ‘You are all dead, you are all dead. Samuel Paty. Allah Akbar.’

Egypt: Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar refutes claim that Islam allows Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men

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

America Was Less Divided During the Civil War Than It Is Today

/in , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

There is growing worry these days about whether or not we are headed for another civil war, and whether the divisions in American society are as bad as they were in the run-up to what is still the bloodiest war in American history. In fact, there is no comparison between the divisions between Americans today and in the run-up to the Civil War. The ones today are far worse. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we are headed for a shooting war, but we certainly may be.

A civil war is by definition a war between citizens of the same country, and the American Civil War was certainly that. Both sides revered Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers. Confederate spokesmen often termed the war their own war for independence, insisting that it was a new iteration of the same desire for self-determination that had led to the American war of independence against Britain.

Both sides respected the United States Constitution to the extent that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America was essentially a copy of that of the nation the Confederates were leaving, with a few minor modifications. It protected the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of religion; it allowed for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” it protected citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, and contained numerous other provisions taken from the earlier Constitution….

No less an authority than Abraham Lincoln noted the similarity of the two sides in his second inaugural address, even as he pointed out the one thing that sharply distinguished them: “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.”…

Rating America’s Presidents shows how Abraham Lincoln’s unique and incisive articulation about what exactly was wrong about slavery, something that was not at all as clear to many of his contemporaries as it is to today’s woke mob, helped break the logjam that had existed in American politics for the previous half-century. It still took a long and bloody civil war to lead to national reconciliation and the binding up of the nation’s wounds….

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

To Know American History is To Be Armed Against Those Who Would Destroy America

A Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Bishop Walked into a Mosque…

Germany: Muslim senator demands ban on alcohol in all Berlin pubs and bars

Brooklyn: Man converts to Islam, distributes bomb-making instructions, encourages ISIS to commit massacres in NYC

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

Trump Stands Between You and the Poverty the Democrats Have Ready for You

/in , , , , , /by

My latest at PJ Media:

Speaking at the Whirlpool Manufacturing Plant in Clyde, Ohio, on Thursday, President Donald Trump once again articulated the guiding principle of his administration: “The duty of a president is to put this nation’s own citizens first. That’s why my administration swears by two simple, but crucial rules, buy American and hire American.” His twilight struggle with the Democrats over the future of the nation, or whether the nation will even have a future at all, is coming down to the question of whether that principle will be upheld and defended, or consigned forever to the dustbin of history.

Trump drew the battle lines sharply at Whirlpool, charging that “on the question of foreign trade, previous leaders were guided by a shameful policy of capitulation, submission, and retreat…. For decades, you watched as politicians let foreign nations steal our jobs, loot our factories, and plunder the crown jewels of the US economy….For eight years, Whirlpool begged the Obama-Biden administration who did nothing to protect American workers from the flagrant dumping of foreign washers, dryers into America. But your cries for help fell on deaf ears. You didn’t see any action. They didn’t act, they didn’t care, and they never will.”

They didn’t care because they were among the beneficiaries of the pole-axing of American workers and the outsourcing of American industries. And it has been known for decades. That noted economist Sid Vicious sang back in 1977 about “a cheap holiday in other people’s misery,” and the leftist establishment moved quickly from cheap holidays in other people’s misery to cheap labor in other people’s misery. The labor is cheaper outside the United States, so American workers had to lose their jobs to provide low prices for rich and powerful socialist internationalists. Another farsighted economist, Bob Dylan, noticed this in 1983, singing about a woman in Brazil crafting furniture for import into the United States and “bringin’ home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve, you know, that’s a lot of money to her.”

This has been a struggle for practically as long as there has been a United States. The new book Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster details how the struggle between advocates of free trade and the supporters of high tariffs has been the key element of numerous presidential elections, including that of 1888, when the Republican platform declared: “We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of protection. We protest against its destruction, as proposed by the President and his party. They serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interests of America.” Republican marchers held aloft banners saying that Democratic candidate Grover “Cleveland Runs Well in England” and “We Are Not Going to Vote Away Our Wages.” They argued that lowering tariffs would mean the end of American prosperity. Although the Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison won the election, this message didn’t exactly resonate with the American voter, who was also hearing from the Democrats that low tariffs would mean low prices.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

You probably haven’t learned American history — even if you thought you had

Sorry, Brits, But Opposition to Jihad Violence and Islamic Supremacism Still Isn’t Racism

Austria: Muslim teen kicks 67-year-old Austrian, victim dies, perp gets 5 years — ‘ridiculous,’ says the widow

Pakistan: Muslim murders his 19-year-old sister in honor killing because she talked to man in the neighborhood

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

Trump Wants Boston Marathon Bomber to Get Death Penalty. Dems Want Him to Vote.

/in , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, an Obama appointee to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, on Friday overturned the death sentence of Boston Marathon jihad bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. President Trump is unhappy. Early Sunday morning he tweeted: “Death penalty! He killed and badly wounded many. Justice!”

Democrats, in contrast, appear to be fine with Thompson’s decision, as some Democratic leaders are on record saying not only that Tsarnaev should not be put to death, but that he should vote.

As far as Trump is concerned, this is still a live issue despite Thompson’s ruling. On Sunday afternoon he followed up his initial tweet with two more, saying: “Rarely has anybody deserved the death penalty more than the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The court agreed that this ‘was one of the worst domestic terrorist attacks since the 9/11 atrocities’. Yet the appellate court tossed out the death sentence. So many lives lost and ruined. The Federal Government must again seek the Death Penalty in a do-over of that chapter of the original trial. Our Country cannot let the appellate decision stand. Also, it is ridiculous that this process is taking so long!”

Trump also took this question right to the Democrats, saying after the ruling was announced on Friday: “They protect criminals and Biden opposes the death penalty, even for cop killers and child murderers.” Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a child murderer, as one of his victims in the Marathon bombings was an eight-year-old boy named Martin Richard.

But the Democrats nevertheless want Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive, well, and voting a straight Democrat ticket. Back in April 2019, Bernie Sanders came out for restoring voting rights for convicted felons. He was asked if he believed that even “terrible people,” including convicted murderers such as Tsarnaev, should have the right to vote. Sanders was unequivocal: “Yes, even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”

Vice Presidential contender Kamala Harris agreed, albeit somewhat more equivocally: “I think we should have that conversation,” she said, adding: “I have long been an advocate of making sure people formerly incarcerated are not denied the right to vote. In some states they’re permanently deprived of the right to vote.”

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

University at Buffalo to remove Millard Fillmore’s name from campus because of “systemic racism”

Philippines: Muslims ask that anti-terror law be dropped, say it’s “based in unfounded fear of Muslims”

‘They took advantage of our tolerance’: Women on Greek island of Lesvos protest inundation of illegal migrants

‘I smell Islamophobia’: Muslims in UK seethe and whine over lockdown imposed hours before Eid al-Adha

Turkey: Top Islamic religious body tells women to accept violence at the hands of their husbands

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer on the significance of the conversion of Hagia Sophia and more

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

Why Isn’t Black Lives Matter Protesting the Slavery That Still Exists Today?

/in , , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

It is, or ought to be, clear to everyone by now that Black Lives Matter is not a genuine movement for racial justice and a more equitable society, but a Marxist organization using real, exaggerated, and imagined racial injustice to try to destroy the United States. Anyone who is still in doubt about this should consider the fact that some blacks are still enslaved today, and Black Lives Matter never has and never will say a word about it, because that organization doesn’t really care about black lives.

If they did actually care about the lives of black people, Black Lives Matter would today be drawing international attention to statements made recently by the Mauritanian anti-slavery activist Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA). According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh stated in a June 18 interview: “Unfortunately, there is still slavery in Mauritania. More than 20% of people in Mauritania suffer from slavery – a situation where a person owns another person and does whatever he wants with him at any given moment. This situation exists here in Mauritania, unfortunately.”

Al-Sheikh further explained that slaves are often even “bequeathed from father to son. A person can own a slave and when that person dies, his children inherit the slave, who is later bequeathed to the grandchildren. This thing exists in Mauritania, unfortunately.” Even worse, “anyone who speaks out is considered a criminal whose natural place in in jail. Until not so long ago, [whoever spoke up] would have been killed.”

As an anti-slavery activist, Al-Sheikh has experienced this herself: “I was arrested and tortured multiple times. I was tortured both mentally and physically. The last time I was arrested, I had a 1.5-year-old baby. They separated us by force. And they weaned him. The Mauritanian state weaned my baby – a 1.5-year-old baby. He was weaned. And they prevented me from seeing him, and they wouldn’t let my husband or relatives visit me.”

Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh’s story is just one of innumerable such accounts. Why does Mauritania continually drag its feet about eradicating slavery, and persecute anti-slavery activists? The dirty little secret here is that it is because slavery is sanctioned in Islam.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar calls for “dismantling” of “our economy and political systems” in the US

Islamic Republic of Iran holds ceremony to unveil book on “Islamophobia” in the US

Switzerland: Muslim migrant indicted for recruiting for the Islamic State

Germany: Muslims attack Armenian Christian with knife on Berlin street

France: Man converts to Islam, becomes torturer and executioner for the Islamic State

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