THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

What many Americans don’t realize is that there are American Muslims who oppose Jihad, and who want to reform Islam and are taking action to do so.  I have always maintained that the reformation of Islam has to come from within, not from without. One of the people at the forefront of a group of Muslim reformers is my friend, Shireen Qudosi.  Read her recent article about CAIR’s complaints about a security expert, Ryan Mauro,who lectured hundreds of law enforcement personnel in New York about CAIR, and its links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Continue reading “THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA”

REFORMING ISLAM

REFORMING ISLAM
Islamism:  support of or advocacy for Islamic fundamentalism
We often hear people say that Islam can only be reformed by Muslims. Or we ask, “Where are the Muslims standing against Islamism?”  Some make the assumption that while not all Muslims are Islamists, all Muslims sympathize with Islamists. That is, in fact, not true.

Continue reading “REFORMING ISLAM”

Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino

Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino

The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.

A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification.

Continue reading “Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino”

Obama Eradicates Islamic Terrorism – From NSA Documents Only

From the Middle East Forum:The Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all words that allude to Islam from important national security documents. Put differently, the Obama administration has just announced its intent to ban all knowledge and context necessary to confront and defeat radical Islam (news much welcomed by Islamist organizations like CAIR). While this move may reflect a naively therapeutic administration — an Obama advisor once suggested that Winnie the Pooh should inform U.S foreign policy — that Obama, the one U.S. president who best knows that politically correct niceties will have no effect on the Muslim world is enforcing this ban, is further troubling.

An Associated Press report has the disturbing details:

President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

First off, how, exactly, does the use of terms such as “Islamic radicalism” indicate that the U.S. views “Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism”? It is the height of oversensitivity to think that the so-called “Muslim street” can be antagonized by accurate words in technical U.S. documents — documents they don’t know or care about — especially since the Arabic media itself often employs such terms. Surely we can use “Islamic radicalism” to define, well, Islamic radicals, without simultaneously viewing all Muslims “through the lens of terrorism”? Just as surely as we can use words like “Nazism” to define white supremacists, without viewing all white nations through the lens of racism?

The AP report continues:

Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke at Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

The analogy is flawed. For starters, in Reagan’s era, the Soviet Union, not China, was America’s prime antagonist — just as today, Islamic radicals, not Muslims, are America’s prime enemy. Moreover, unlike Obama, who would have the U.S. bend over backwards to appease Muslim nations— or, in his case, just bend over — Reagan regularly lambasted the Soviet Union, dubbing it the “evil empire.” Finally, the Chinese never attacked America, unlike Islamic radicals, who not only have attacked it, but daily promise it death and destruction — all in the name of Islam.

The ultimate problem in the White House’s new “words-policy,” however, is reflected in this excerpt from the report:

The change [i.e., linguistic obfuscation] would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

Read the whole article.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC: Dumb, Naive or in Denial?

Andrea Mitchell of NBC: Dumb, Naive or in Denial?

Just have time to jot a quick thought. A few minutes ago I was listening to Andrea Mitchell of NBC (Don’t ask why)interviewing someone (can’t remember and its not relevant) during which she seemed perplexed about who these people were who committed the terrorist atrocities in Mumbai.

“Do we know anything about these people,” she asked? “Do we know where they are from? Do we know what they want? What do we know about this group?

Either Andrea Mitchell is a) as dumb as a box of rocks, b) completely naive, or c) is in denial.

I will answer the question, Andrea.

These people are called Islamic Jihadists. They are part of a world-wide group of Muslims who believe that violent Jihad will bring about subjugation of all non-Muslim countries under a world Islamic Caliphate. It doesn’t matter if we have heard of a particular group that they claim they are, or whether they are from Pakistan or not. All of the terrorist violence around the world is the result of terrorism perpetrated by Islamic Jihadists, whatever particular name they give to their group or whatever country they are from.

We in the modern West are at war. We are at war with Islamists who want to subjugate us.

It is really very simple. Stop trying to be so politically correct, Andrea and your fellow newscasters. Don’t be so afraid to offend Muslims by calling the Islamist terrorists by their true name. Muslims who don’t believe that violent Jihad is acceptable know who the terrorists are, and deplore them as well.

 

Why America can’t win the war against Jihad

Why America can’t win the war against Jihad

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, a political scientist, author and lecturer, co-founder of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy published an essay in Israel National News about why the U.S. is not prepared to defend itself against the threat of Islamic Jihad.

He states, in part:

College-educated, pseudo-humanists of the media have eroded American resolve. A poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against Al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, a majority no longer identifies the war in Iraq as part of the wider War on Terror. Moreover, less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Why don’t college students know that a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East and the oil resources of the Persian Gulf? Why don’t they know that a pacifist Europe, already Arabized, would succumb to nuclear blackmail? Why don’t they know that the loss of Europe would wreck America’s economy and radically curtail the scholarships and funding on which the education and careers of these college students ultimately depend? Why is there this ignorance?

Relativism closes their minds. By denying the existence of evil, relativism erodes America’s confidence in the justice of its cause against Islamic terrorism. Like the mandarins of the BBC, those of CNN, ABC, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post choke on the word “terrorists.” To avoid being “judgmental,” these opinion-makers prefer to call terrorists “guerrillas” or just plain “activists.” But this is not all.

Relativism has degenerated into “moral reversal.” The clearest example of this metamorphosis is the media’s coverage of the war between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Whereas the victim, Israel, is portrayed as the villain, the villains – Arab terrorists – are portrayed as the victims. This moral inversion is conspicuous on university campuses, where Israel has been demonized. But so has President George Bush been so demonized. It is precisely on those campuses where the anti-war movement has flourished. What is singularly significant, the anti-war movement facilitated the victory of the Democratic Party in the recent November elections.

Exceptions notwithstanding, the Democratic Party of today differs radically from that of Franklin D. Roosevelt or even of John F. Kennedy. The difference between today’s Democratic Party and the floundering Republican Party is not merely political; it’s also cultural. The Democratic Party now includes powerful anti-American elements. Some call them the “cosmopolitan Left.” I think it’s more accurate to call them the “anti-National Left” – the same Left that now dominates Europe and Israel.

I find it incredible that Americans do not recognize the very real threat facing our culture and way of life. So much has been published by writers such as Stephen Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Lawrence Wright, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish, Bat Yeor and others about what Jihad is all about. Why is it that the educated elite, mostly on the Left, don’t recognize the threat? The doctrine of uncritical multiculturism and moral relativism will destroy the American way of life.

Prof. Eidelberg further writes:

Although America has always been multicultural, its ethnic diversity was based on a tradition of freedom, self-reliance and self-restraint modulated by Judeo-Christian ethics. Today, multiculturalism has been tainted by the dispiriting moral nihilism of academia. The most prestigious universities have educated America’s political, diplomatic and media elites, an increasing number of which are anything but champions of the American political tradition. American democracy is in trouble.

Since the American government is not about to curtail the freedom of expression on which the universities and the media depend – and which Muslims exploit – America can hardly win the war against its most dangerous enemy and still retain its reputation as a democracy.

I am more optimistic and feel that ultimately Americans will rise to the challenge. I just hope it isn’t too late.

Read the whole article.

 

What real war looks like.

What real war looks like.

What Real War Looks Like

By Elan Journo

The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, “engage” the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we’ve already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington’s campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense.

What does such a war look like?

America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

Those who say this is a “new kind of conflict” against a “faceless enemy” are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls “terrorism” is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war–anything that will win its jihad. The movement’s inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran’s regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran’s support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent.

Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran’s ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.

We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to “engage” Iran diplomatically.)

We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein’s regime posed to us. “Shock and awe” bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers–a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission.

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers,” putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington’s self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)

Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because “democracy is democracy.”

No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal.

This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever–even as it has drained Americans’ will to fight. Washington’s feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers–and let them go to war.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (www.AynRand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand–author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.