France to Shut Down 100 to 160 Mosques; War-grade Weapons Found in Some | The New American

eaa95f540abad22db8b270c9de289d6c_m

Written by 

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

George W. Bush and others have often emphasized that Islam is a “religion of peace.” Others view Islam as a “religion of the sword,” and they include traditionalist-minded Muslims and mosques. This is evident after the French government recently raided Muslim houses of worship in the country and found “one third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year,” as Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve put it.

The mosques implicated themselves “because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech,” Hassan El Alaoui, one of France’s chief imams, toldAl Jazeera on Wednesday; “takfiri” speech is that which levels accusations of apostasy at other Muslims. El Alaoui also reported that the government will shut down between 100 and 160 mosques, approximately five percent of the nation’s 2,600 total. In addition, authorities searched 2,235 Muslim businesses and homes and arrested 232 individuals.

In the wake of the November 13 Paris jihadist attacks that killed 130 people, however, it was the hardware found that was especially alarming. Writes Christine Niles at ChurchMilitant.com:

[S]everal of these [100-plus] mosques have been raided, revealing a “staggering” number of weapons and ammunition. Sunday, authorities conducted a raid on a mosque in Lagny-sur-Marne, 18 miles east of Paris, and uncovered 334 weapons and a large quantity of 7.62mm Kalashnikov ammunition, along with ISIS propaganda videos.

Police also turned up recordings of chants “glorifying the martyrs of jihad linked to the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra,” the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. The chants were found among teaching materials for youth in a madrassa, or private religious school for boys, connected to the mosque.

Although this story has not been widely reported, it should further fuel debate about the nature of Islam and the effects of wide-scale Muslim migration into the West. This has been a major topic recently, with presidential contender Donald Trump suggesting that Muslim immigration should be suspended until we can “figure out what’s going on.”

And with the West being awash in relativism — and its correlative religious-equivalence doctrine, stating that all religions are morally equal — broaching this topic brings accusations of bigotry and “Islamophobia.” But Truth doesn’t bend to political correctness, and there’s certainly something “going on.” Consider, for instance, a German study released in 2010 and which involved 45,000 young people. It found that while increasing religiosity among Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among Muslim ones actually made them more violent.

And anecdotes to this effect abound. The Daily Telegraphreports today about 18-year-old Australian convert to Islam Alo-Bridget Namoa, who is allegedly now a supporter of Da’esh (ISIS), prays five times daily to Allah, and has said referring to herself and her Muslim husband, “I want to do an Islamic Bonnie and Clyde on the kaffir” (non-Muslim). The Daily Mailtold the story yesterday of 33-year-old U.S. Army deserter and Muslim convert Daniel Seth Franey of Montesano, Washington, “who called Osama bin Laden ‘a beautiful man,’ made pro-Islamic State statements and called for the death of American troops,” the paper related. Then there was convert “John T. Booker Jr., 21, an American citizen also known as Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, …who vowed to ‘bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep’ [and] pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas,” wrote CNN Feb. 4. And just two days before that, the Associated Press reported that North Carolina convert Justin Nojan Sullivan, 19, had “killed his neighbor and stole the man’s money so he could buy an assault rifle to carry out an Islamic State-inspired shooting at a concert or club”; Sullivan believed he could murder 1,000 people in his attack. Critics have dubbed these happenings “Sudden Jihad Syndrome,” and nary a week goes by — and maybe not even a day — without an instance of one occurring.

But while this phenomenon can seem sudden, it’s not new. As Professor Thomas F. Madden, chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri, wrote in his 2002 essay “The Real History of the Crusades”:

While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.

Some Muslims readily acknowledge this, too. Also just yesterday, we learned of Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who was convicted by an Indonesian court of conspiring with Da’esh and setting up a Jihadist training camp; writes the Deccan Chronicle of his statements in his own defense, “‘I hope judges understand that my deed of helping training camp in Aceh was my religious obligation,’ Bashir told the court. ‘I’m guilty according to the government law, but what I did is correct according to Islam.’” And then there’s what was reported just the day before. Quoting The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Jihad Watchrelated, “In a December 15 lecture about ISIS at the American University in Beirut, Abdel Bari Atwan, former editor-in-chief of ‘Al-Quds Al-Arabi’ and the current editor-in-chief of ‘Al-Rai Al-Youm’ rejected common claims that the savagery of ISIS is alien to Islam, presenting examples of similar conduct from Islamic history. Atwan said that the West faces two options: to contain ISIS or to destroy it.”

Of course, some may say the West has cultivated the worst of both worlds: disrupting the Mideast with misguided military endeavors while not containing Da’esh. And considering how Christendom is admitting countless thousands of impossible-to-vet Muslim migrants, these critics may ask, “How does it make sense for the West to send soldiers to fight in the Middle East if we’re going to bring the Middle East to the West?”

Unfortunately, what’s really “going on” isn’t hard to figure out: Awash in relativism, multiculturalism, and diversity doctrine, a morally confused Occident is facilitating “the soft Islamic conquest of the West,” as Muslim refugee Dr. Mudar Zahran put it last October. What Muslims “couldn’t do in the last 20 years,” he explained, “now the West is doing for us for free — and even paying for it.”

And pay for it we will.

 

Source : The New American

Obama at Baltimore mosque quoted Muhammad from speech endorsing caliphate and beheading | Jihad Watch

From Jihad Watch

Obama at Baltimore mosque quoted Muhammad from speech endorsing caliphate and beheading

Obama said: “Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, ‘let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.’”

That saying comes from this hadith:

It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka’ba who said:

I entered the mosque when ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As was sitting in the shade of the Ka’ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge [sic] of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him (‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu’awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:” O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and diqobey [sic] him in matters involving disobedience to God.

Immediately following the passage Obama quoted comes an exhortation to obey the caliph and to behead rival claimants. So embedded within the very same passage that Obama was using are endorsements of ideas that Obama would probably reject as having nothing to do with authentic Islam. It is extremely unlikely, of course, that Obama has seen this passage, but his (i.e., his speechwriters’) use of this quotation follows the same pattern as his use of Qur’an 5:32: he quotes selectively (although no Muslims are accusing him of “cherry-picking”!), ignoring inconveniently violent passages that are right next to the passage he quotes.

Is it not extremely telling that Barack Obama, in making the case that Islam teaches peace, can’t find even a few passages that are unequivocally peaceful, and instead has to grab his peaceful passages from amid exhortations to violence? Doesn’t that tell us something about Islam as a whole — something that Obama and the Western political and media establishment will never tell us?

Obama at Islamic Society of Baltimore, Allah

From Obama’s speech last Wednesday at the Islamic Society of Baltimore:

So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace. The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you. And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.” (Applause.) For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar. (Laughter.)

 Source : Jihad Watch

A note from America at War :

I’m assuming that laughter was directed at Obama’s claim to be a Christian! How many Christians do you know that cite the Q’uran? I don’t know any personally, and only know of ONE person that does it myself. That person being Barrack Hussein Obama. And you can keep your doctor too.

Obama, Islam, and History

This article gives many examples of what I spoke about in my last article! Obama twists history to suit his agenda. Inserts fictitious events into American History and tries to tie them to our founders in a strange web of lies and deceit of his very own. I call it   History version 2.0 Beta


 

Posted from Jihad Watch

thomas-jefferson

“‘Thomas Jefferson’s opponents tried to stir things up by suggesting he was a Muslim. So I was not the first,’ Obama said, sparking laughter. ‘No, it’s true. Look it up. I’m in good company.’” — From USA Today on Barack Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, February 3, 2016

Barack Obama paid a visit — his first — to an American mosque today. He did so in the same feelgood spirit with which he held his first “Annual Iftar Dinner” in 2010. That dinner prompted a Jihad Watch post which, considerably modified and enlarged, is reprinted below.

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim mind and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

“I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ. which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” (Applause.)

And  Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams,, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba  and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Musim invention and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or “bida,” is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.”

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply  involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunkie who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

When Obama quotes that single phrase from John Adams, made at the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat from the marauding Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean that attacked Christian shipping at will (and when America became independent, it could no longer count on the Royal Navy to protect its ships) he wants us to think that our second president was approving of Islam.  But that is to misinterpret his statement, clearly meant to be taken to have this meaning: we in the United States, have a priori nothing against Islam. Rhetoric designed to diplomatically please. But based on his subsequent experiences with the North African Muslims, including his experiences with them after various treaties were made and then broken, Adams came to a different and negative view of Islam, a view that  was shared by all those Americans who, whether diplomats or seized seamen, had any direct dealings  with Muslims.  America’s first encounter with Muslims was that with the Barbary Pirates, from Morocco to Algiers to Tunis to Tripoli, and their behavior rendered Adams’s initial “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” null and void. And it was not John Adams himself, but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who studied Islam in depth, and it was he to whom Obama ought to have turned to find out more about Islam. For he would have found, among other piercing and accurate remarks by J. Q. Adams, the following:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Isn’t it amazing that not a single American official — and not just Obama — has ever alluded to the study of Islam that one of our most illustrious presidents produced?

Again, Obama, with a jumble of Jefferson, Ellison, and Holy Koran:

 “And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.”

When Obama notes that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his “personal” library, he is subtly implying that Jefferson approved of its contents. Keith Ellison did much the same when he ostentatiously used that very copy of the Qur’an for his own swearing-in as the first Muslim Congressman. But Jefferson, a curious and cultivated man, with a large library, had a copy of the Qur’an for the same reason you or I might possess a copy, that is simply to find out what was in it. And we might note in passing that it was not the “Holy Koran” that Jefferson possessed and Ellison borrowed, but an English translation by George Sales of the “Koran.” According to Muslims, the epithet “Holy” can only be attached to a Koran written and read in the original Arabic. White House, for the next time, take note.

There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam once he had studied it, or had had dealings with Muslims or had travelled to their countries. Look high, look low, consult whatever records you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that an American President would someday praise Islam to the skies in Obama’s fulsome manner would have astounded them all.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance” 

Also sprach Obama. But Islam is based on an uncompromising division of humanity into Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Unbelievers, and Unbelievers, at best, can be allowed to live in a Muslim polity — be “tolerated” — only if they accept a position of permanent and humiliating inferiority.  It would be fascinating if Obama could name even one example of Islam demonstrating through words and deeds “the possibilities of religious tolerance.”

But let’s return to Obama’s assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House, way back in 1805.

Here is the background to that meal in 1805 which not Jefferson, but Obama, calls an “Iftar Dinner”:

“In the Mediterranean, American ships, now deprived of the protection formerly offered by the Royal Navy, suffered constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates acting alone but were officially encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey. Under Jefferson, America took a more aggressive line:’

“Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute.

“The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli [Sidi Soliman Mellimelli] to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.”

Mellimelli was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States”—there was no official exchange of ambassadors – but a temporary envoy with a single limited task: to get an agreement that would set free the Tunisian vessels and come to an agreement about future payment – if any — of tribute by, or to Tripoli. At the end of six months that envoy was to return home.

The Muslim envoy made some unexpected personal demands in Washington:

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.”

Some readers will no doubt be reminded by this request for “concubines” of how the State Department has supplied female companions to much more recent Arab visitors, including the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Mellimelli proved to be the exotic cynosure of all eyes, with his American hosts not really understanding some of his reactions, as his “surprise” at the “social freedom women enjoyed in America” and his belief that only Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were acceptable “prophets” to follow, for they lacked the understanding of Islam that would have explained such reactions:

Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.

Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Spirit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”

So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab including, very likely, that for the requested “concubines.” He cut a dashing figure:

The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.”

“Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.”

During the time Mellimelli was here, Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. The dinner was not meant to be an “Iftar dinner” but just a dinner, albeit at the White House; it was originally set for three thirty in the afternoon (our founding fathers dined early in the pre-Edison days of their existence). Mellimelli said he could not come at that appointed hour of three thirty p.m. but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else, he did not see himself as offering an “Iftar Dinner” and there are no records to hint that he did. Barack Obama, 200 years later, is trying to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests. But he is misrepresenting American history to Americans, including schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, in newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably depict Islam, and present it as so integral a part of American life.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks a few days before at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

“In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.”

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition of Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, did not think he thi not providing what he thought of as an “Iftar Dinner” but simply a dinner, at a time his guest requested. And to describe as a “White House tradition” wou first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically.”

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their orthodox understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims rely on for authority. It was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did what he set out to, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is that, ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our learned Presidents, who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — unless we were to count as an “iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his exotic guest.

George Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” He and Obama agree on that. And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the long “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, referred to, began. It’s all of nine years old, having survived and thrived through the differently-disastrous presidencies of Bush and of Obama.

I have a request for The New York Times. It’s a most modest one. All I ask is that the editors of The New York Times apologize for that paper’s misapplication of the adjective “sporadic” in the front-page story by Sheryl Stolberg on the “Annual Iftar” dinner.

Put up, or shut up, dear newspaper of record. Tell us when that “tradition” of “Iftar Dinners” truly began. Cite those Presidents who held dinners that they considered to be “Iftar Dinners.” Give us chapter, give us verse. And if, as I believe, that hollow and recent and transparently determined-to-win-Muslim-hearts-and-minds “tradition” began only in 2001, then tell us. And since your story was on the front page, do what the lawyers do when they have to make legal announcements, and put your retraction, eat your humble pie, right on the same front page.

A failure to do so will be further, and for some the final confirmation, of the sorry record of The New York Times in its coverage of Islam. Most readers with some sense of what Islam is all about are now ready to take any coverage of the matter in The New York Times with a grain – a Pinch – of salt.

Clio, Muse of History, is a stern mistress. Subscribers to stories that live and die between editions may forget or forgive, but Mnemosyne does neither. If I were the “newspaper of record,” I’d want to propitiate not the gods, but the most vigilant and meticulous of muses. If I were Pinch Sulzberger, I’d be mortally embarrassed, and determined to make amends. But then, I have standards.

Which brings us up to today, and the glad news that. President Obama will be paying his first visit to a mosque on American soil. There will be some sort of feelgood exchange, and perhaps even a reference to the “long tradition” of Iftar dinners, or to the great contribution Muslims have made since the very beginning to our American story. No one will have the bad taste to bring up what is actually to be found in the Qur’an and Hadith. Someone may quote 2:256 and 5:32 (but not 5:33). John Quincy Adams will be passed over in silence. I can’t wait. Can you?

Indoctrinating America’s Children

Obama speaks from a Mosque, his Administration refuses to utter the words “radical Islam”, while schools across America force children to recite the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

America at War  02/04/2016

obama-mosque-visit-640

All of this while children are no longer reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it simply mentions God.

I do not support the term “radical Islam” myself. Because it implies Islam itself is not radical. If you read the Q’uran you’ll find that what ISIS practices is Islam. Right out of the pages of their Holy book. A “radical” is nothing more than a devout Muslim. And to tell you the truth, if anyone hashijacked” the religion it is those who DO NOT support the violence. That may make Barry boil over with frustration, but the facts don’t lie.

Islam has been a source of violence and oppression for over 1400 years. Islamic invaders have destroyed priceless artifacts, temples, and writings of other religions for that entire 1400 year time span. Don’t take my word for it, do some research. Even people that think they are educated in the subject of Islam will be surprised at the sheer volume of destruction through the centuries.

Our children are not hearing about that though. They are being taught the “Unicorn milk and Rainbows” version of Islam. For years and years now Liberals have been trying to remove the mention of Jesus Christ or God from schools. But in the last couple of years they have decided it’s absolutely necessary to teach kids about Allah. This is the most wide scale manipulation of young minds I’ve ever seen.

The government is literally fabricating history and  facts and selling it to the next generation as The Religion of Peace. They tossed God from the school house, and in their very next motion welcomed Allah with open arms.

I learned something about America that went in the face of everything that I thought I knew. I always thought that if an American President ever lied to the citizens of this country that they’d be drummed out of office, like Nixon. I always thought if the government ever tried to oust God and replace Him with Allah that they’d all lose their jobs and be run out of town.

I always thought that if the media ever started fabricating and weaving stories instead of reporting the actual news that American citizens would, and could force their networks out of business. Normal Americans have become impotent. Unable to stop the onslaught of insanity.

America has spiraled out of control further than I ever imagined it could! We have been on auto pilot for too long, and they have caught us sleeping. Even if we make a course correction now, how long can we maintain it with generations of Americans being taught lies in school? I’m not just referencing this subject either. Everything from common core to the liberal philosophies being taught to our children in schools today.

The kids of today are not learning the same “History” lessons that we learned. History did not change, but those writing it did. Your children do not know the same history as you were taught. They have “history version 2.0 beta” which is an alter reality version pushing an agenda, a Liberal Muslim agenda.

Here is a story I was reading today.

From The Clarion Project

Lawsuit Filed Against Maryland HS for Islamic Indoctrination

Mon, February 1, 2016

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of parents of a Maryland teenager who say their daughter was forced to profess and write out the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

Recitation of the statement is sufficient to convert a non-Muslim to Islam. In addition, the latter half of the statement  signifies the person has accepted Mohammed as their prophet.

According to lawsuit, the teenager, a student at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland, was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. The Thomas More Law Center, attorneys for the case, charges that Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its students that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The high school also taught:

  • “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
  • “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
  • The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and
  • “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

You can read the course material by clicking here.

The teenager’s father, John Kevin Wood, a former Marine and a veteran of the Iraq War, became concerned when he saw that his daughter and other students were taught extensively about Islam and required to list the benefits of the religion but were not taught about Islam in the context of current events.

One homework assignment, obtained by a news outlet asked questions including, “How did Muslim conquerors treat those they conquered?” The correct answer was, “With tolerance, kindness and respect.”

Students were not allowed to opt out of the curriculum.

The lawsuit contends the school is violating his daughter’s “constitutional rights.”

Source : The Clarion Project

What is the predominant refugee group in your state? | Refugee Reserttlement Watch

Posted by Ann Corcoran on January 3, 2016

Oregon Live has produced this very cool map.  Please read the story to learn more.

For all of our new readers, go here, to see the federal list of refugee contractors working near you.  You should also see our Frequently Asked Questions.

 

map with predominant refugee group in your state

 

 

 

 

 

Source : Refugee Resettlement Watch

 

I posted this under “welfare” because these refugees are mostly, if not completely supported by the taxpayers, including their housing, food, transportation, and medical costs. So you may want to get another job so you can support them.

It’s Time for Candidates to Discuss the Enemy Within | The Counter Jihad Report

Note: I agree with the writer, Ted Cruz has introduced legislation that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s affiliate groups (ISNA, CAIR, etc….) as  terrorist organizations. I support #TedCruz, but he needs to put this legislation OUT FRONT AND CENTER in his campaign!!! This is the most important issue facing America today and Ted knows it, but he has to VOICE IT LOUDLY and just take whatever heat he gets over it, because that is what Americans want and need to hear!!!

 

It’s Time for Candidates to Discuss the Enemy Within

EgyptElectionsConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, December 28th, 2015: (h/t @PoliticalShort)

When Congress returns in January, there will be a robust debate over the authorization of use of military force (AUMF) in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS.  But while we debate a bunch of lousy options and the potential cost of lives and billions of dollars arming our enemies in endless Islamic civil wars, the politicians in both parties will never discuss the enemy within the United States.  This is where the presidential candidates must lead by example.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have already drawn attention to the first half of the homeland security threat – the endless migration from the Middle East as manifest through our suicidal immigration policies.  Unfortunately, Republicans didn’t listen, and despite the universally-accepted threat of the Syrian and Somali refugees, they gave Obama the full $1.67 billion for refugee resettlement in the Omnibus bill.

However, it is the second half of the equation – the most foundational threat to our homeland and society – that has garnered almost no attention from anyone in politics.  That is the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America that have so much influence both on the Obama administration and the Muslim communities in our country.

Three questions should automatically come to mind in light of the San Bernardino attack and the nearly daily incidents of Muslims being arrested for plotting terror attacks or attempting to join ISIS.

  1. Why is our government expunging any mention of Islamic terror from their official documents and hampering investigations into connections to local radical Muslim Brotherhood groups?
  2. Why are so few moderate Muslims speaking out against the growing trend of radicalization?
  3. Why are so many Muslims in America, even those who were born here, being drawn into groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda?

The answer to all these questions, point to the Muslim Brotherhood and the influence of their three North American affiliates that were implicated in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust.

Last Wednesday, I had the privilege of guest hosting the Sean Hannity show along with my colleague, Deneen Borelli, and we discussed why the Muslim Brotherhood represents a more foundational threat to our homeland than ISIS or Al Qaeda.  They are the enemy within that radicalizes American Muslims (the ones that weren’t already radicalized), marginalizes and intimidates moderates, and influences the government to eschew any policy that even mentions Islamic terror much less policies that actually combat Islamic terror.

[My segment on the Muslim Brotherhood can be found here.  You will hear national security expert, Patrick Poole, discuss how this problem started long before the Obama administration.]

This is why we need the GOP candidates to step up to the plate.  But until now they have largely been silent.  Ted Cruz has introduced an important piece of legislation, which would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, but he needs to make this issue more front and center in his campaign.

Just last week, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron took the unprecedented step to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group after his government launched an exhaustive study into their activities.  They will now ban visas to Muslim Brotherhood officials and increase surveillance of their offices.   If the liberal Europeans are willing to protect themselves and root out their enemy within, cannot our “conservative” leaders muster the same courage?

Not surprisingly, Obama condemned Cameron’s move as a needless de-legitimizing of a non-violent group.  But their use of “non-violent” means of subversion in western countries to marginalize moderates and quietly radicalize the Muslim communities and mosques is exactly what will destroy both America and Europe from the inside.

It was recently reported that the U.K. is experiencing a sharp drop off in cooperation from local Muslims in rooting out terrorists from their communities.  Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood intimidation is a big part of this deterrent against cooperating with the authorities.

Earlier this month, Phil Haney, a former DHS counterterrorism official, wrote an expose on how he was stifled from connecting the dots between some of the very same foreign terror groups Tafsheen Malik was affiliated with and local Muslim groups in America:

“But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?Worse still, the administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement.”

It’s not surprising that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division (CRCL) was responsible for shutting down the investigation.  CRCL is the nexus for the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government.  In 2008, under the Bush administration, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff drafted a memo for CRCL that called on government officials to strip all references of Islamic supremacism from their training.  This memo was drafted, in the words of Chertoff, based on “its discussions with a broad range of Muslim American community leaders and scholars.”  In 2011, based on the same recommendations of these Muslim Brotherhood “scholars,” DHS published its training and guidance manual on the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda.  The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

If ISIS is the new quarterback for Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood is their all-star offensive linemen. In theory the United States should have a great defensive line capable of overwhelming ISIS’ strategy. But with our very own Department of Homeland Security playing ball for the Muslim Brotherhood, the fox appears to be guarding the henhouse.

 

Source :

The Counter Jihad Report

Ted Cruz Is the One Candidate Who Can Face down Washington — And Win

tedSource: The Counter Jihad Report

National Review, by Andrew McCarthy, Dec. 5, 2015:

To protect American national security we must first understand what threatens American national security. We must grasp who our enemies are, what animates them, and how they work together — despite their internecine rivalries — to destroy us from without and within. We must stop trying to define “true Islam” and start restoring our own principles as our guide: liberty, equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and peace through strength.

The vast majority of Americans still believe in these principles. It is Washington that has lost faith. It is Washington that looks at liberty’s enemies and sees friends; that looks at anti-Western Islamic supremacists and sees “moderates” it can play ball with; that looks at lawbreakers and tut-tuts that “the system is broken.”

Reinvigorating American principles will require taming Washington. It calls for restoring the Constitution as a vital limit on government, not a relic . . . or an obstacle.

Ted Cruz gets this. Many Republicans talk the talk — we hear it in every election season, right up until it is time to stop campaigning and start governing. Senator Cruz walks the walk. That is why I believe he should be the next president of the United States.

Cruz understands that the most immediate enemy the United States confronts on the world stage is Islamic supremacism, which ignites jihadist violence through its state sponsors, terror networks, and activist organizations. The senator has not just fought against President Obama’s disastrous Iran deal, which enriches the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism while making it a threshold nuclear power. Cruz has concurrently pushed for the designation, at long last, of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

 

RELATED: When Cruz Makes His Move, Watch Out

The Shiite and Sunni branches of radical Islam have their differences with each other, but they are united in opposition to America, Israel, and the West. They are tied together by a common ideology: Islamic supremacism and its totalitarian legal code, sharia. The Shiite supremacist regime in Iran, its Hezbollah militias,

 

Full Story and many others at :   The Counter Jihad Report