How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington

Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America 
.

Paul Sperry writes in IBD:

In berating GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson for suggesting a loyalty test for Muslims seeking high office, CNN host Jake Tapper maintained that he doesn’t know a single observant Muslim-American who wants to Islamize America.

“I just don’t know any Muslim-Americans — and I know plenty — who feel that way, even if they are observant Muslims,” he scowled.

Tapper doesn’t get out much. If he did, chances are he’d run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

Maybe they’re all heretics, so let’s see what the enlightened Muslims think.

If Tapper did a little independent research he’d quickly find that America’s most respected Islamic leaders and scholars also want theocracy, not democracy, and even advocate trading the Constitution for the Quran.

These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment in America today.

Hopefully none of them ever runs for president, because here’s what he’d have to say about the U.S. system of government:

• Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

• Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

• CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

• Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

• Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”

These Islamic luminaries, who arguably spend more time with Muslims than Tapper, say the American Muslim community would rather live under a theocracy.

“Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” Shakir said.

Why? Because Islam preaches that Allah’s laws are superior to man-made laws and therefore requires the faithful to not only convert others, but also establish Islamic rule over others.

In this, Islam is unique.

It’s a key departure from Christianity, for one, which instructs followers to respect secular leaders — rendering “unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” — while living godly lives within secular societies.

So for devout Muslims, the Quran is more than just a holy book. It’s a blueprint for government.

While Tapper’s ignorance is breathtaking, it’s par for the course for the inside-the-Beltway crowd.

The Washington punditry continues to harbor dangerously naive assumptions about Islam, which only emboldens Islamic supremacists growing exponentially within our borders.

 

• Sperry, formerly IBD Washington bureau chief, is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all Americans should lose their gun-rights over one Muslim killer?

“You don’t defeat terrorism by taking away our guns. You defeat terrorism by using our guns,” – Ted Cruz.

Along comes slick Willie:

slick_willie

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the former president was asked to respond to Donald Trump’s claim that fewer people would have died at the club if they had firearms.

“Did you see how dark it was?” Clinton said. “It’s likely that more people would have been killed.”–from The Hill

13418718_1145873508797401_4455235477935108388_n

Muslim who said 9/11 “changed the world for good” is on Homeland Security Advisory Council

(It looks more and more like Mr. Trump’s allegations of treason against President Obama are well founded. And Trump isn’t the only one)

How by any stretch of anyone’s imagination can Laila Alawa be seen as someone who cares in the slightest degree about “homeland security”? She is quite obviously on the other side, and if we had a sane political and media culture, her presence on the DHS Advisory Council would be a major scandal.

Laila believes that only “idiots” consider America to be the greatest country in the world, and that speech she deems Islamophobic should be illegal.

Laila Alawa

“Syrian Immigrant Who Said 9/11 ‘Changed The World For Good’ Is A Homeland Security Adviser,” by Peter Hasson, Daily Caller, June 13, 2016

Obama appointing this woman to a national security position is proof that either our president is completely inept when it comes to carrying out his duty to protect our nation, or totally dedicated to annihilating our way of life.

Then again, maybe it’s both.–(Pamela Geller)

Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor is Syrian immigrant who CHEERS 9/11, it ‘CHANGED THE WORLD FOR GOOD…
Our commander-in-chief has appointed none other than Laila Alawa, a Syrian immigrant who praised 9/11 and has repeatedly slammed America on her social media accounts, for a post on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council (Vlad Tepes)
omar-mateen-motive

Obama flashback: don’t tell me words don’t matter

When a Petulant President Presumes to Give Lessons in Language
by Hugh Fitzgerald
.

And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. 

— Barack Obama, Speech about the Fight Against ISIL and the Orlando Attack, June 14, 2016

Don’t tell me words don’t matter.

— Barack Obama, “Don’t Tell Me Words Don’t Matter” speech, February 16, 2008

Continue reading Obama flashback: don’t tell me words don’t matter

No. We must not.

Why Must I?

th-1

We recently posted a piece by the German opinion writer Anabel Schunke. Below is another essay by the same author from Roland Tichy’s blog. Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation:

I don’t have to ANYTHING

by Anabel Schunke

If the state terminates the social contract by not keeping with its duties towards me, and isn’t even capable of protecting me anymore, then I can withdraw my obedience. And I am hereby doing just that.

“Syrians could bring in up to 500,000 family members” the FAZ headline read today. After newest calculations of the Ministry for Migration and Refugees, BAMF, Germany has to expect with hundred of thousands more refugees because of family reunification. Thus the BAMF analysis contradicts every prognosis that had been made in recent months, speaking of higher numbers than this. It’s questionable whether the BAMF calculated number is realistic. And I don’t have to believe anything just because it’s official.

Much more interesting than the number itself, however, Is the daily rhetoric laid bare. Germany MUST. And yes, even months after the asylum crisis I am still not tired of asking: Why exactly MUST Germany? Why does it seem that hundred thousands of people who illegally set foot into Germany have more rights than me and every other German? Why does it seem that in this crisis we only have duties, but never a say in it? Why has nobody yet asked me if I even want that “must” and if I even have to view that “must” as a must?

Strictly speaking, I did not want Angela Merkel, with her selfies and her open borders, to invite everyone into Germany. Why should I now want these people to bring in all of their families? And again: Why do we “have to”, and why do the others not have to anything?

For months I’ve heard nothing else but that we must, even though in Article 16a it says nothing requiring us to accept and grant asylum to people who have traveled through secure third countries. Apart from the fact that our asylum actually only pertains to politically and religiously persecuted people. At this juncture the Geneva refugee convention comes into play. If we don’t have to based on our Constitution, then we have to because of the Geneva refugee convention. But even considering that, it appears that only we have to accept an infinite and uncontrolled amount of refugees, while other countries have long ago set a maximum limit for themselves.

The truth is that there is no legal basis for my “must”. And nevertheless I must, and I have been disenfranchised by my own government. Just like all the others who also were not asked. And I have to pay for it all. With my taxes. Well, I probably will have to pay with entirely different things as well. For instance, with restrictions on our liberal Western values because of the influx of millions of Muslims. And with the transformation of our culture, which I actually found to be great just the way it was. And I pay with my rights and my safety as a woman, which is something that many women during the course of this year have so bitterly had to experience already. And in the end, even with the security and stability of an entire country, in which I felt great and perfectly comfortable until a few months ago.

80% of the people who immigrated in the Spring of 2016 do not possess the necessary identification documentation. But I, on the other hand, will be hunted down like a rabid dog should I fail to pay a traffic ticket on time. A minimum of 500,000 unregistered people are moving about completely undisturbed in Germany. I don’t know who they are, where they come from, and which one of them might be a terrorist planning an attack. The fact is, that there are is a significantly higher number of terrorists among these refugees than what we were told a few months ago. But the politicians that I once voted for do not care for my safety. The Leviathan has ceased to exist. (“Der Leviathan ist längst nicht mehr existent.”)

And this is exactly where the escape lies for this “must”. If the state terminates the social contract by not keeping faith with its duties towards me, and is not even capable of protecting me anymore, then I can withdraw my obedience. And I am hereby doing just that.

I don’t have to just watch how my country is morphing into something that I, from the bottom of my liberal conviction, deeply reject. I don’t have to unconditionally tolerate and respect a foreign culture that has no regard for my culture and that poses a danger to freedom and tolerance as a whole. I don’t have to make up for the deficit of millions of people who illegally came here and who, if it were up to me, wouldn’t be here in the first place. Especially not when nobody can explain to me under which legal basis this is all justified.

Instead one MUST finally begin to ask me what I want.

Just like a majority of Germans, I am all for helping those that are the weakest. That we protect women and children from war and persecution. I am for solidarity and I don’t have a problem with giving. But not unconditionally and infinitely. And especially not to those that do not abide by the rules that we have established for ourselves and that apply to everybody, if a state has to function. Asylum is one thing, immigration is another. Asylum can and should be granted according to given rules. But when it comes to immigration, we have to negotiate and we have to determine the rules by which we want it to work. As a nation, government, and society.

As long as this is not happening, I feel disenfranchised. And as long as I feel disenfranchised, there is no social contract and therefore, de facto, there is no foundation, which is why I have to do something. And still, if it were up to the political caste, I should just take it and pay for the damage. But that’s not how this works. I am 27. I have to live here for quite a while with the consequences of these politics, if I don’t emigrate.

Rita Panahi: Tolerating hateful, backward attitudes in the name of cultural diversity is cowardly

Tolerance of backward attitudes does not help diversity

Herald Sun

Sheik Shady Al-Suleiman arrives at the Kirribilli House Iftar dinner hosted by Malcolm Turnbull. Picture: James Croucher

WE live in interesting times.

The Australian Prime Minister doesn’t attend the repatriation of Australia’s Vietnam War dead but is happy to host an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan attended by Islamist apologists and at least one hate preacher.

Sheik Shady Al-Suleiman who’s called AIDS a divine punishment for gays also has disturbing views about women, jihad and what he calls the “enemies of Islam.”

How did a man who preaches about women being “hung by their breasts” and stoned to death for adultery score an invitation to dine with the Prime Minister?

Continue reading Rita Panahi: Tolerating hateful, backward attitudes in the name of cultural diversity is cowardly

Malcolm Turnbull’s Iftar Slurpfest

Malcolm’s Dinner of Diversity – But No Pork or Chardy On the Menu!

First of all, there was no “diversity” at this event. Turncoat, the Goldman-Sachs boy, invited a bunch of hardcore Mohammedans, and no one else. Second, diversity divides, and only unity can unite us. We can never unite with Mohammedans who seek our demise. We can only stop the spread of Islam and encourage those who are here to depart from our shores asap.

Paul Zanetti Friday 17 June 2016

At a Ramadan dinner overnight Malcolm Turnbull praised Islam’s “emphasis on human diversity.”  I suppose that’s one way of looking at it, when you consider the diversity in Islamic teachings.

Islam beheads Christians, Islam commands the genocide of Jews, Islam takes non-Muslim women as sex slaves. If they refuse sex with their captors, punishment includes being burned alive. Islam throws gays off buildings head first. If the homosexual survives, he’s stoned to death.

That’s a pretty diverse section of humans, Malcolm.

But let’s be fair. Let’s not accuse Islam of being some barbaric, stone age cult. Recently they’ve modernised from stoning gays to mass murder by assault weapons, again displaying their agility. Malcolm would be pretty impressed with such adeptness.

In the past Malcolm has made his views on Islam known, telling the ABC’s Q&A in 2011:

“It is important to us that we promote and encourage Islamic traditions which are moderate, which support freedom, which support democracy and which support Australian values….not in the sense of (gruff yobbo voice) ‘AUSSIE’ values, but in the sense of democracy, rule of law, tolerance, freedom. That’s what we’re talking about. These are universal values.”

Rule of law? Sharia?

Tolerance? Death to the unbelievers and gays?

Freedom? Convert to Islam or die?

These ‘universal values’ are all taught and commanded in Islamic texts. These are not extremist views, but taught in mosques.

Someone should remind mad Mal that Mohammedans don’t share ‘universal values’ with the civilised world. As a matter of fact, the Muslims replaced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which puts all rights under the sharia.

In other news:

Turnbull snubbed Catholics to hold Ramadan meal

Andrew Bolt

It gets worse. Malcolm Turnbull rejected an invitation to the ceremony last night to install Vincent Long Van Nguyen as the new Roman Catholic Bishop of Parramatta, preferring instead to hold an end of Ramadan meal with Waleed Aly and various anti-gay Muslim clerics.

Turnbull, putting Islam before Christianity. 

UPDATE

My source told me that Turnbull took a very long time to eventually turn down his invitation.

Continue reading Malcolm Turnbull’s Iftar Slurpfest

Turnbull’s final insult

LOOK WHO CAME TO DINNER

Tim Blair

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hosts a typical Islamic peacemaker:

An Islamic preacher – who once called AIDS a divine punishment for gays and for God to “prepare us for jihad” – dined with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at Kirribilli House tonight.

Sheik Shady Al-Suleiman, the national president of the Australian National Imams Council, has said in online videos that females will be “hung by the breasts in hell” and that women should not even look at men.

image
“So then I said, ‘Let’s invite that jihad-preparing, breast-hanging guy.’ And they did!”

He was among a group of religious leaders and prominent Islamic Australians hosted by the PM at an Iftar dinner to mark the holy month of Ramadan at Kirribilli House.

The Australian-born Sheik Shady has previously called on God to help “destroy the enemies of Islam” and for adulterers to be stoned to death …

Mr Turnbull told the gathering of about 60 people, the first of its kind hosted by a Prime Minister, to unite against extremism.

At which point everybody rose up and threw Sheik Shady out on the street. Note that no alcohol was served at the dinner, presumably due to the mandatory 40-lash penalty. Further on this from Andrew Bolt.

Below the fold, Andrew Bolt takes a closer look at the ‘breast-hanging’ sheik.

Continue reading Turnbull’s final insult

Aslim Taslam: “Submit and you’ll be safe”

Mohammedans murder our people and blame us for the right to bear arms. Hussein Obama and the leftist smear-machine have turned our world into a lunatic asylum. Here the Jordanian agitprop Zaid al Hussein demands Americans disarm in the face of the Mohammedan invasion.

UN Muslim Human Rights chief: ‘Americans will be safer with more Muslims and fewer guns’

I urge the UN HR chief to get rid of the UN’s “peacekeepers” / rapists whom they deploy to nations and to stay out of America’s business. 

unhrc-chief
Jordanian agitprop Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein
U.N. Human Rights Chief Says U.S. Needs ‘Robust Gun Regulation’

(CNSNews.com) – The United Nations’ human rights chief called on the United States Tuesday to enforce more effective gun control measures in the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, dismissing as “irresponsible pro-gun propaganda” the notion that firearms make societies safer.

U.N. human rights commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein urged the U.S. government to live up to its obligations to protect citizens from the “horrifyingly commonplace but preventable violent attacks that are the direct result of insufficient gun control.”

Continue reading Aslim Taslam: “Submit and you’ll be safe”

Turnbull dines with pet Muslims

Beneath contempt. He even recites the koran for them.

“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another.”–Surah al-Hujurat (49:13)

Just saw that snippet on the ABC.

Thanks to Andrew Bolt

image

Malcolm Turnbull panders to the Muslim community by holding a Ramadan dinner at which he poses with the most media-friendly – but unrepresentative – Muslims he can find:

Mr Turnbull broke bread with religious leaders and prominent Islamic Australians at an Iftar dinner to mark the holy month of Ramadan at Kirribilli House on Thursday night… He’s the first Prime Minister ever to host such an event…

On his right side:

… broadcasting power couple The Project host Waleed Aly and wife Susan Carland …

And on Turnbull’s left:

… Islamic youth advocate Yassmin Abdel-Magied …

Note: Turnbull does not sit next to any Muslim religious leader at a dinner to mark a religious event. He does not sit next to a Muslim who actually represents – officially – other Muslims in an elected capacity.

He does not sit next to Australia’s Grand Mufti, who said the Islamist slaughter in Paris was the fault of the West.

He does not sit next to former Mufti Sheikh Hilali, who said suicide bombers were “heroes” and praised the September 11 terror attacks as ”God’s work against oppressors”.

He does not sit next to another former Grand Mufti, Sheikh Fehmi, who praises the Hezbollah terrorist group.

He does not sit next to Sheik Wahwah, head of Hizb ut Tahrir in Australia, who threatens Jews with ”an eye for any eye, blood for blood”, claiming that where Jews live ”corruption abounds”.

He does not sit next to Sheikh Omran, emir of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah school of Islamic thought, who once described al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden as “a good man in some ways, and not in other ways” and also said ”I dispute any evil action linked to bin Laden”.

No, he sits next to a white convert who is a university lecturer and wife of a TV star and Logie winner, and to a young female engineer who is a Q&A favorite.

And not a burqa in sight.

This seating arrangement is designed not to present Islam as it really is in Australia but as Turnbull would like us to believe. And it is designed above all to add lustre to Turnbull himself.

Continue reading Turnbull dines with pet Muslims

New curriculum hides role of Christianity in European history

“A Nation That Forgets Its Past Has No Future”–Winston Churchill

The new curriculum for the Advanced Placement European History test hides the role of Christianity in European history, and also hides Islam’s violent conquests in Europe and its tradition of jihad.

The history “guidelines don’t take seriously the idea that religious faith inspires people’s thoughts and actions,” David Randall, the author of a new report on the APEH framework, told Breitbart News. Randall – the National Association of Scholars director of communications – observes:

The almost complete excision of Islam’s 1400-year violent confrontation with Christendom also makes it almost impossible for students to understand that killings by modern jihadists fall squarely within the historical tradition of Islamic war. The jihadists actually understand that history far better than students educated by APEH do.

This ignorance also disarms Western citizens because you can learn from that history both to recognize the latest exercises in Islamic war for what they are and the range of policy measures European powers have used to counter jihad–which include intelligent and measured acts of statesmanship and security as well as the resort to defensive war. When APEH makes students ignorant of the history of Islamic war against Europe, it means they don’t know how to recognize an old enemy, and they don’t know that you can oppose that enemy by intelligent political action as well as by armed force. By making students ignorant, APEH reduces our choices when faced with jihad to capitulation or (too late, and without benefit of the lessons of the past) total war.

The apex of jihad in Europe came in 1683, when a huge Islamic army marched up from its base in the conquered Balkans to surround and besiege Vienna, now the capital of Austria. The city was nearly overwhelmed during the two-month siege, but was rescued by a Polish-led multinational army that crushed the Islamic army. That victory allowed European Christians to gradually push Muslim occupiers out of Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and the rest of the Balkans over the next 225 years. Islam had earlier been pushed out of Spain in 1492, after a 700-year war. Muslim navies also wrecked trade and conducted slave raids in the Mediterranean sea from the 700s until just after 1800.

Continue reading New curriculum hides role of Christianity in European history