Terrorism, Thomas Jefferson, and Barbary Pirates

Terrorism, Thomas Jefferson, and Barbary Pirates

 America’s 200-Year-War with Islam

Gary DeMar

barbaryvsAmericaThe Boston bombings, the Fort Hood shootings, the events of 9/11, and numerous international Islamic terrorist activities are only new to people who have no sense of history.

Most Americans are familiar with the first line of the United States Marine Corps hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma[1] to the shores of Tripoli” but most likely don’t know the source of the “Tripoli” reference. The line “to the shores of Tripoli” refers to the First Barbary War, specifically the Battle of Derna, that took place in 1805.
Our earliest founders were familiar with the terrorist ways of radical Islamists. Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, the Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty. Peace for an Islamist means surrender to Islam.

Peace would come at a price. If America wanted “temporary peace,” a one-year guarantee, it would cost $66,000 plus a 10% commission. “Everlasting peace” was a bargain at $160,000 plus the obligatory commission. This only applied to Tripoli. Other Muslim nations would also have to be paid. The amount came to $1.3 million. But there was no assurance that the treaties would be honored. In vain, Jefferson and Adams tried to argue that America was not at war with Tripoli. In what way had the U.S provoked the Muslims, they asked? Ambassador Abdrahaman went on to explain “the finer points of Islamic jihad” to the Koranically challenged Jefferson and Adams. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following:

“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”[2]

Abdrahaman was paraphrasing the Koran’s “rules of engagement” found in the 47 Surah: “Whenever you encounter the ones who disbelieve [during wartime], seize them by their necks until once you have subdued them, then tie them up as prisoners, either in order to release them later on, or also to ask for ransom, until war lays down her burdens.”
Unless a nation submits to Islam — whether it was the aggressor or not — that nation was by definition at war with Islam. Jihad means “to submit.” A non-aggressing nation is still at war with Islam as long as it hasn’t embraced Islam. Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, either by the submission of one’s will or by Allah’s sword.
Paul Johnson writes:

barbary2“Koranic teaching that the faith or ‘submission’ can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored. On the contrary, the history of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium or reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.”
When President Jefferson refused to increase the tribute demanded by the Islamists, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute.

President Obama is not the first person who has tried to whitewash Islam’s history and sell us on the peaceful motives of Muslims. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim, took his constitutional oath on Jefferson’s copy of the Koran. How ironic given Jefferson’s disdain for Islam’s double dealings.

Jefferson, embroiled in a war with Islamic terrorists in his day, commented, “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been suffered [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”[4] Little has changed since Jefferson’s day.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World


What the Left and Sharia Law have in Common

Rush Limbaugh

You know, minus the terrorism. Let’s look at the similarities. For the kind of Islamists we’re talking about, the Sharia Islamists, there is no authority but Islam. To the left, there is no authority but themselves. They respect and recognize no other authority. They don’t recognize the authority of elections. They don’t recognize the authority of public opinion. They don’t recognize the authority of the Constitution, even though they all swear an oath. Why do you think we require everybody in government to swear an oath to the Constitution?

‘Cause that’s glue, folks. That’s the glue that keeps everything together. The reason all of these oaths of office and oaths of naturalization require pledging fidelity to the Constitution is that that is supposed to be the compact that unites all of us. Winning or losing, we are united as Americans, defined by our Constitution. Swearing the oath announces the understandings based on which we become “we, the people.” If you have a huge movement in the country that’s not just rejecting but actively undermining the Constitution, then it becomes a real question.

And once that group becomes big enough — a majority of the population — then it becomes questionable whether we even have a “we, the people” anymore. And this behavior is very, very close to Sharia Islam. There is no authority but Islam. It’s a core tenet: The ruler must be obeyed as long as he complies and enforces Sharia. And if the rural abandons Sharia, they assassinate him like in the case of Anwar Sadat or Mubarak. Now, they don’t do assassinations here, but if the left’s leader abandons them, you know what happens to them.

They’re immediately forgotten, destroyed, cast aside, and ruined. But here, let me try it a different way. If Islamists are in the role of Democrats in my analogy, Americans assume the role of the GOP. We proclaim that our commitment to tolerance means that we have to make room at the table even for Islamists and people we disagree with. Notwithstanding that they deny our right to govern ourselves under our own principles. In other words, you’ve heard people say, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

RUSH: My point is to the left, the Democrat Party, the media — however you want to describe ’em — everything but what they believe and everything but who they believe is illegitimate. There is no crossing the aisle. There is no compromise. There is no working together to prove Washington or government works. There is only one way. When they are in power, they pretend it’s because their beliefs are a popular mandate. But that is disproven every time they lose. Their views cannot be the result of a popular mandate; otherwise, they would never lose elections. When they lose elections — when they’re not in power — their beliefs dictate that everything else must be delegitimized, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing today. Everything about this Russian collusion and everything about Susan Rice and all of these investigations and the leaking, it’s all about delegitimizing the duly elected, constitutionally legal president and Congress. It’s about delegitimizing that. It’s not about working with them. It’s not about them having a head case and not understanding yet that they lost. It’s not about that they’re gonna come to their senses down the road.

There is always a pretense that they represent the popular mandate, when they very rarely really do.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World



Truth Zone: Defining Christianity, Sharia Law, and the Muslim God

Truth Zone:

Defining Christianity, Sharia Law, and the Muslim God

keyThe plan of God, our Heavenly Father, is the plan of liberty and free will, which He provides us through the infinite love of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Satan’s plan, on the other hand, is one of force, lies, hatred, and slavery. Whom, therefore, does “Allah” represent? “Choose ye this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24:15) Deny the truth at your peril. ~C.D.

Cardinal Raymond Burke: Muslims and Christians Don’t Worship ‘the Same God’

Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

According to the former head of the Vatican’s highest court, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, since Allah is a “governor,” whereas Christianity was “founded on love.”


christ-allah-mohammed1-quoteThe modern belief that Islam and Christianity are fundamentally the same “is very much influenced by a relativism of a religious order,” the Cardinal said at a recent press conference.

“I hear people saying to me, well, we’re all worshiping the same God. We all believe in love. But I say stop a minute, and let’s examine carefully what Islam is, and what our Christian faith teaches us.”

“I don’t believe it’s true that we’re all worshiping the same God, because the God of Islam is a governor,” Burke said. “Sharia is their law, and that law, which comes from Allah, must dominate every man eventually.”

The Cardinal said that unlike Christianity, sharia is “not a law that’s founded on love. To say that we all believe in love is simply not correct.”

christ-bible-quranNot only do Christianity and Islam differ in the nature of their laws, Burke proposed, but also in their approach to proselytism and winning over converts.

In the end, he said, we have to understand that “what they believe most deeply, that to which they ascribe in their hearts, demands that they govern the world.”

The Cardinal’s words echoed recent remarks by a senior Catholic prelate in Hungary, who warned that the enormous waves of migrants rolling into Europe are due in no small part to a Muslim “will to conquer.”

“Jihad is a principle for Muslims that means they must expand,” said Archbishop Gyula Marfi in an August interview. “The earth must become dar al-Islam, that is, Islamic territory, by introducing Sharia—Islamic law.”

Both prelates’ words, in fact, find confirmation in recent assertions by the Islamic State itself in the latest issue of its propaganda magazine, Dabiq.

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” the text reads.

Terrorism enjoined by Islamic Law

MuslimWarriorThe Islamic State was specifically reacting to Pope Francis’ claims that the war being waged by Islamic terrorists is not religious in nature, assuring the pontiff that their sole motivation is religious and sanctioned by Allah in the Qur’an.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

ISIS attacked Francis for his claim that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

In a July press conference, Pope Francis told journalists that the world is at war, but that is not a religious war.

“Every religion wants peace,” he said.

In his press conference, Cardinal Burke insisted that “what’s most important for us today is to understand Islam from its own documents and not to presume that we know already what we’re talking about.”

Truth Zone: American Parent vs. Islam, Muslim Parent

Truth Zone:

American Parent vs. Islam, Muslim Parent

Related Post:

Truth Zone:Muslim Father Kahn is not patriot, but prefers Shariah Law over Constitution


WOW: Blue Star Mom Responds To Muslim Father’s Attacks On Trump, And It’s Absolutely BRUTAL

Blue Star Mom vs. Kahn, Muslim father

Blue Star Mom vs. Kahn, Muslim father

To the Muslim Gold Star father that spoke at the DNC…..I have some thoughts on your comments. I am a Blue Star mother. My deepest condolences on the loss of your son. No family should have to endure such a loss. That being said….while your son is a hero, you Sir, are NOT.

My son has served three tours of combat in the countries you and your family came from. Iraq and Afghanistan were his introduction to adulthood and service to something bigger than our individual selves. He was blown up by an IED set by your countrymen. His Purple Heart is a testament to his love of America and our freedoms. I have suffered through his multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan….never knowing from moment to moment if he would return home in a flag draped coffin. It is torture when a mother wakes up to this day after day and sees the atrocities happening over there on the news and being helpless to change a thing. My comments to you will probably offend you. I do not apologize. These things need to be said. Unlike you, I could NEVER use my son’s death as a pawn piece in support of a woman that left “America’s treasure” (Hillarys words) to die unaided in Benghazi.

The same woman that says vile things to her military details there to protect her. You, Sir, are supposed to be a witness to your son’s bravery and sacrifice. Instead you stood on a stage and promoted the woman that upholds the very people that killed your son. You became a political PAWN that promotes pandering to our enemy. You desecrated your son’s memory by your words. You did not utter one word of outrage at anyone but Donald Trump. Are you forgetting that Trump did not kill your son. He had nothing whatsoever to do with these wars.

His memory should mean more to you than five minutes of fame on the stage of the party that voted to send your son to war. The same party that for eight years has denied and cheated our veterans out of their deserved medical care. Who for the last three years has cut our veterans pay.

Of note…your wife stood SILENT. She stood with her head covered, never uttering a word about her loss. She submitted to you being her voice in front of the country. She abdicated her free voice to you…..as would any good Sharia wife and mother.

Let me say, this was not lost on the other American military moms….myself included. Had it been my son being “used” as a political PROP, no one could have silenced me. I would be voicing my grief, my pride, my love of him to the world. A man cannot speak to a mothers loss. No man knows her heart at the loss of a child. She did her heroic son a disservice by her silence. She should have uncovered her head and her heart to be the American mother you claim.

And last if all….you dared to flash your picket Constitution and ask if Trump has read it. I dare to ask you, Sir….HAVE YOU READ IT? If you say yes, then I dare ask you HOW you could represent that party? HOW can you support this woman? How can you affiliate your family with a party and candidate that cannot even call the radicals that killed your son what they are? How can you support a current administration that diminishes your son’s death by denying he had an enemy?

And if you have read our Constitution, how could you cover your soul-mate in colorful submissive sheets and have the audacity to speak FOR her?  Your son died for that Constitution you so carelessly waved around on national TV in support of the very party that exists to destroy it.

A woman who identified herself as Nayet, wearing a burqa, leaves the police station after her release in ParisAs a soldier’s mother….NO ONE could ever speak for me. I find your outrage artificial. I find your party affiliation offensive. I find your wife’s silence atrocious and offensive. I find YOU a political FOOL. I find your son to have been your greatest accomplishment, and you, Sir, have dishonored him. I hope you memorize that picket constitution so you will understand what it means to be a REAL American and hero. You are not one. You were USED. Your son WOULD NOT be proud of you.

My only hope is that when MY son goes a fourth time to combat radical Islamic terrorists, (and he WILL) he will know that his mother never stood submissively SILENT about an American hero. Yes, your son was a hero that could not be manipulated but, you, Sir, are a weak minded FOOL.

I would love to hear your thoughts this morning about the 1500 American soldiers on the air base in Turkey being held as basic hostages as I type. Not a word from this president or party you adore…or the media that so thoroughly manipulated and used you and your wife.


So…what say you Sir??? What will you say to a Blue and Gold Star family if these heroes die? In my opinion, you will say NOTHING.

National Security: Trump Foreign Policy puts American Safety First vs. Radical Islam

National Security:

Trump Foreign Policy puts American Safety First vs. Radical Islam

We’re Importing Radical Islam

keyWhat I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration that promotes American values. ~Donald Trump

Moroni had kept the commandments of God in preparing for the safety of his people. ~Alma 49:27


Related Post:

Sharia Definition—It’s about Islamic supremacism

Breitbart: Trump: Hillary ‘Wants To Be America’s Angela Merkel’

Donald Trump: Only admit immigrants “who share our values and respect our people”

On his Monday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin, once a staunch opponent of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, praised Trump for a speech he had given earlier in the day in Youngstown, OH outlining how he would handle the threat of terrorism on the homeland.

sharia-no-america                “If you do not accept the Constitution as the law of the land, but you accept Sharia as the law of the land, you don’t get to come here,” he said. “Because you cannot assimilate. You will not assimilate. You do not get to come to the United States of America. You don’t have a birthright if you are born outside of the United States to come into the United States. And it seems to me this is just a basic standard. It’s not a high wall.”

“We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,” he said. “In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted.”

Rudolph Giuliani: No “successful radical Islamic terrorist attacks” in U.S. before Obama’s presidency


Rush Limbaugh

Latest ISIS Atrocity

ISIS, by the way, their latest atrocity… Did you hear about this? (interruption) Yeah.  ISIS found a bunch of people in Iraq that they claim were working for the Iraqi government. The six citizens of Iraq denied it, said they weren’t working for the government.  ISIS said, “Screw you! We think you are,” and they boiled them in tar.

In public! They boiled them in tar.  And this group has openly said, “Oh, yeah. We got a bunch of our guys in that bunch of Syrian refugees that are gonna be admitted into your country,” and the party that’s got the borders open and welcoming all that into the country is the Democrat Party, and here’s Donald Trump over here saying, “Unh-uh.  Not on my watch.

Trump: Join with our Allies to halt the spread of radical Islam

israel_flagTRUMP:  When I become president, the era of nation building will be brought to a very swift and decisive end.  (applause) A new approach which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East must be to halt the spread of radical Islam. (applause)

TRUMP:  All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally.  Some don’t share this goal.  We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.

Immigration Facts

1924-1965, a 41 year ban

illegal-immigration-differenceRUSH:  You know, the Drive-Bys are just so bent out of shape over what they think is Trump’s extreme vetting policies when it comes to deciding who gets admitted to the country and who doesn’t.  It’s like everything else.  It’s like immigration.  There are so many things about immigration people don’t know. 

Do you realize from 1924 to 1965 there wasn’t any immigration?  Every time I say this, it reaches people who’ve never heard it and can’t believe it.  From 1924 to 1965 zip, zero, nada immigration.  It was thought that we needed that much time to assimilate all the people who emigrated to the country beginning in the late 1800s through World War I and so forth, Ellis Island, they came in through many different ports of call.  And they had to be assimilated.

And all Trump is saying is, any undesirables, you want to come into this country and kill Americans, we’re not gonna let you.  And we’re gonna interview you and vet you, and we’re gonna find out.  If you come from a religious belief or political belief that thinks America is the enemy and you need to kill them or discriminate, we’re not gonna let you in.  I would think that would be very important to gays, lesbians, transgenders, infidels.  And over here it’s the Democrat Party that wants to let all those people in.  It’s almost an exact role reversal.

Extreme Vetting

trump-illegal-immigration-validatedTRUMP:  I call it extreme vetting. (applause)  In addition to screening out all members of the sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles, or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.  (applause) Those who do not believe in our constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country.  (applause) To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world (applause) that have a history of exporting terrorism.  Not for us.  Not for us.  (applause and chants)

But in the modern era, we have always vetted people coming into the country. We have always been responsible about it.  The current Regime is not.  And this is all Trump is saying in his foreign policy speech.  And all of these details that you’re learning here are exactly why the media is not spending a lot of time on the details of the speech.  The only thing you’re hearing probably is that Trump once again displayed his lunatic lack of understanding, his unfitness for office or whatever it is, however it is they’re characterizing it.  But substance-wise, you look at the people who heard it and knew what he was talking about, Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, standing ovation, 13, 15 seconds long.

Donald Trump on Radical Islam

( response to San Bernardino and Orlando bombings)


The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here.

We have a dysfunctional immigration system, which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens properly.

ImmigrationCriminals                I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger . . . but many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary we must find out what is going on . We have to do it.

It will be lifted—this ban—when and as a nation we’re in a position to properly and perfectly screen these people coming into our country. They’re pouring in and we don’t know what we’re doing.

The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons. . . . I will use this power to protect the American people.

Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.

We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.

All of the September 11th hijackers were issued visas. Large numbers of Somali refugees i Minnesota have tried to join ISIS. The Boston bombers came here through political asylum. The male shooter in San Bernardino, . . . was the child of immigrants from Pakistan and he brought his wife, the other terrorist, from Saudi Arabia through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.

no-sharia               Immigration from Afghanistan into the United States has increased nearly five-fold, five-fold in just one year. According to Pew Research, 99 percent of the people in Afghanistan support oppressive Shariah law. … They share these oppressive views and values. We want to remain a free and open society. … If we do, then we have to control our borders. We have to control, and we have to control them now, not later. Right now.

The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon if I’m elected. As president I will give our intelligence community, law enforcement and military the tools they need to prevent terrorist attacks. They don’t have those tools now.

We need an intelligence-gathering system second to none. Second to none. That includes better cooperation between state, local and federal officials, and with our allies, very importantly. I will have an attorney general, a director of national intelligence and a secretary of defense who’ll know how to fight a war on radical Islamic terrorism.

trojan-horse… Clinton’s State Department was in charge of admissions and the admissions process for people applying to enter from overseas. Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans to massively increase admissions without a screening plan including a 500 percent increase in Syrian refugees coming in to our country. Tell me, tell me—how stupid is that?

  This could be a better, bigger, more horrible version than the legendary Trojan horse ever was. Altogether, under the Clinton plan, you’d be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of the children and their children.

 Not only their children, by the way,—they’re trying to take over our children and convince them how wonderful ISIS is and how wonderful Islam is and we don’t know what’s happening.

What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration that promotes American values.


European Leaders: We need Trump Immigration Policy

Dutch leader Geert Wilders at GOP convention backing Trump


ISISObama-Sharia-LawWe cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer. Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions. What I want is common sense. I want a mainstream immigration that promotes American values. ~Donald Trump, after San Bernardino and Orlando bombings

“Mr. Trump is a politician, whether the Europeans like him or not, who has one interest, and that is the interest of the American people,” Wilders said in an interview at Quicken Loans Arena.

Europe is notably lacking such leaders, said Wilders, who wears a bullet-proof vest, lives in a safe house and is escorted to his office at The Hague in an armored vehicle each work day.

“We have hundreds of Obamas in the European Union and, in a political way, we have to get rid of them,” he said.

Wilders said Trump is “fighting for his own people, and that is what we are lacking in Europe, when it comes to trade, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to so many issues.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/dutch-leader-geert-wilders-at-gop-convention-backing-trump/#jDWR47e2PuwGC5UT.99

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban says Trump’s Migration, Foreign Policy Plans “Vital” for Hungary

BUDAPEST (Reuters) – Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Tuesday said the migration and foreign policy plans of U.S. Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump were “vital” for Hungary, whereas those of rival Democrat Hillary Clinton were “deadly”.

Orban: Trump’s Migration, Foreign Policy Plans ‘Vital’ for Hungary

Truth Zone: Sharia Definition—It’s about Islamic supremacism vs. National Security

Truth Zone: Sharia Definition—It’s about Islamic supremacism vs. National Security

Walid Phares on Why Trump Can Best Fight Sharia

Rush Limbaugh

Walid Phares is an advisor to the Trump campaign.  He’s a brilliant analyst when it comes to Middle East politics, the War on Terror, militant Sharia. 

Sharia Definition

sharia-no-america I think we ought to change, by the way, no longer militant Islam.  We need to go militant Sharia.  We need to talk about Sharia law supremacism. 

Every time we talk about Islamic terrorism, Islamic extremism, we just say Sharia.  Because nobody can deny that Sharia is those things. 


ObamaIslamGOPHeadinSandIslamObama: There’s no terrorism in Islam. It’s a religion of peace.

Well, you can’t say that about Sharia, by definition. 

Just a little communication idea on my part.  Anyway, Walid Phares on Fox, happening now this morning, Jenna Lee said to him:  “Why do you have confidence in Trump?”

I wanted you to hear the comments from the Washington Post reporter who doesn’t buy any of this, by the way, that Trump is on the verge of total collapse.

Walid Phares, Fox news analyst, Middle East and Sharia expert, Trump advisor

ISISObama-Sharia-LawHe’s looking at ways he thinks Trump can win this that he doesn’t think that anybody else is seeing.  And that’s Walid Phares, who is a Trump advisor on the Middle East, militant Sharia and Jenny Lee said to him:

“Why do you have confidence in Donald Trump to think that he, unlike this current administration, would be able to handle these sort of relationships in the Middle East that are quite tenuous at best?” 

PHARES: Because I heard him.  I met him.  We looked at maps.  I heard what the partners are saying.  He can mobilize public opinion.  Remember, one of the problems that President Obama had, and even the last two years of the presidency of Mr. Bush, they could not mobilize any more of the American public to confront this threat.  We have been demobilized.  He can mobilize them. As long as he has the right direction and the right experts, of course, in the future, then he could do it better than others.

trump-pensiveRUSH:  This guy is not abandoning the campaign.  This guy is not part of any intervention.  He’s talking about how Trump can do it right in the Middle East.  He’s talked to him.  (imitating Phares) “I’ve heard him.  I’ve met him.  We’ve looked at the region.  We’ve looked at maps.  We’ve discussed strategy.  I know the guy.  But more importantly he can mobilize public opinion.  We haven’t been able to get anything done because nobody’s even trying to motivate public opinion.”  Whenever there is any effort to mobilize public opinion, anti-Sharia, guess what? The regime steps up and stops it.



November 17, 2015 11 o’clock on the Fox News Channel, Walid Phares guested.

He’s a Middle East expert.  He’s an analyst for Fox News.  He’s a professor at the National Defense University.  And he was asked by cohost Jon Scott, “Walid, why can’t we take ’em out?”  Meaning, ISIS.  This is after Obama’s speech where everybody is scratching their heads incredulous over how noncommittal and unaffected by the attack on Friday night Obama appeared to be.  “Walid, why can’t we take ISIS out?”

obama-treasonPHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He’s getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he’s not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don’t want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won’t have access to them. That’s the bottom line of it.

national-securityRUSH:  Shi’ite versus Sunni sectarian violence.

But essentially the answer means that what Iran wants is what Obama is loyal to.

And because of the sectarian violence in all of these places like Iraq and other countries within the Shi’a and Sunni battle — you throw in the Kurds in Iraq, who we should arm, by the way. But the point is, ISIS needs chaos.  ISIS causes chaos.  Iraq benefits from the chaos, or Iran benefits from the chaos.  They do not want the Sunni areas to be liberated by the Sunni moderates.  They do not want the sectarian violence solved.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoons

cartoon-obama-Iran-ATM-600Obama runs around and talks about it as though he does, but he really doesn’t because the Iranians don’t.  He’s actually aligned with the Iranians and, as Phares says here, the Syrian Regime, which is a puppet of Iran.  And they are pressuring it.  Now, if you’re saying, “Come on, Rush! That doesn’t make any sense.

Well, ask yourself why in the world did Obama single-handedly lift the sanctions on Iran, which provided them $150 billion that was frozen, for them to upgrade their civilian airline, to fund further terrorist activity?

“Why has Obama singularly been focused on making sure that Iran can have a nuclear weapon in 10 years or whatever?”

Obama siding with Shi’ite Iran and ISIS— not the  moderate Sunnis, who are fighting against ISIS

obama-vs-christianityThe last little note in this story supports the theory of Walid Phares that Obama’s real strategy is to be more on the side of Shi’ite Iran rather than moderate Sunnis, like those in Syria and Iraq who are fighting ISIS.  In fact, the article mentions something simply dumbfounding at the bottom, and it’s this.  Quote: “Mark Toner, State Department spokesman, said on Monday at a press briefing that US officials have also urged their Russian counterparts to talk with Assad’s government about no longer purchasing oil from the Islamic State.”

It’s exactly what Walid Phares said: Obama has strategized that his best alignment here is with Iran in this fight, and Iran is aligned with Syria, which we now know is aligned with ISIS. 

Oil is fueling ISIS

So now we know why the US has not bombed the ISIS oil fields and refineries.  We don’t want to tick off Putin and Iran.  Let me further explain.

cartoon-Obama-gambling-w-lives-If Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, you would do what Trump is saying: You would bomb their oil fields.  Their oil fields are their number one source of funding.  (I use that term because liberals love it.  “Funding” replaces “earning.” It implies policy.  “Funding” means giving people money.) The bottom line is, ISIS has commandeered and taken over a number of oil fields in the region, and they are deriving most of their financial benefit from the sale of oil. 

It’s what’s fueling them, so to speak.

But the strategy that Obama has implemented and therefore the American strategy in all of this is to side with Iran — and thus with Russia and Assad — over the moderate Sunnis in Iraq and Syria who are ostensibly fighting ISIS, supposedly our allies in fighting against ISIS.  This one little tidbit — this throwaway comment from this Department of State secondary spokesman (impression), “Yeah, well, we’re trying to get Assad to stop buying oil…” Assad’s buying oil from ISIS while we are led to believe that Assad’s fighting ISIS?

And nobody’s taking the ISIS oil fields out because the Iranians obviously are supporting ISIS ’cause it’s in their benefit, all this chaos. 

Moral Solutions: National Security Plan to defeat Jihad Terrorism

Moral Solutions:

National Security Plan to defeat Jihad Terrorism

key“Everyone can contribute to the cause, simply by just spreading the truth about jihad. The most important contribution you can make, whatever your ‘day job’ happens to be, is to be an educator.

“You owe it to yourself, your family, and all the Americans killed on 9/11 and since to know the truth.” ~Sebastian Gorka

What would Reagan do?

WorldNet Daily, July 2016 Whistleblower, 34-35

Secure Freedom Strategy

reagan-isisExperts advise modeling anti-jihad campaign after 40th president’s successful strategy to counter Soviet threat 

A “Tiger Team” of experts included Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under Reagan; Henry F. Cooper, former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, and several others.

For over 35 years, the United States has been at war with enemies sworn to its destruction. Both are the product of forces that long predated the establishment of this country.

The “Secure Freedom Strategy” offers corrective actions, starting with clear-eyed understanding of the enemy we confront—namely, an international, ideologically driven Global Jihad Movement and its enablers. This alternative approach is modeled after the successful strategy President Ronald Reagan pursued to defeat Soviet communism.

Its key components include:

1. Understanding the Enemy’s Threat Doctrine

sharia-no-americaThat requires, in particular, clarity concerning the ideology its adherents call Shariah, and the various ways jihad warfare is being waged against us.

The term Shariah as used here is intended to denote the authoritative and authoritarian body of Islamic law as it has been defined by Shariah authorities since at least the 10th century.

2. Establishing our Objective

The United States must enunciate a national commitment to—using a phrase President Reagan used—”contain and over time reverse” Shariah-driven Islamic supremacism, including establishment of the Caliphate.

The rising tide of Shariah and its manifestations here and abroad make abundantly clear that Western civilization, indeed America, cannot coexist with the Global Jihad Movement.

reagan-peace-strength3. Reestablishing “Peace through Strength”

Just as President Reagan did in his day, the contemporary hollowing out of the US military must be reversed as a matter of the utmost priority.


4. Counter-Ideological Warfare

Once we are clear about the nature and centrality of the Shariah doctrine to the existential danger we face, the need for a serious and effective counter-ideological strategy becomes imperative.

Wherever and as soon as possible, these foes should be neutralized as political forces. At a minimum, they must be denied access to US government agencies, funds, arms and, via television cable packages, household subscribers.


5. Intelligence Operations

We must take a page from the playbook developed during the Reagan administration by then CIA director William Casey and use covert means wherever possible to counter, divide and undermine our enemies. To the traditional intelligence techniques should be added aggressive use of psychological operations, cyber warfare and, where necessary, clandestine and special operations.

cyber-warfare6. Economic Warfighting

This would include:

  • Constricting the principal source of revenues for the jihad—vast petro-dollar transfers from Western nations to OPEC states
  • Reversing the present practice of accommodating and even encouraging Shariah finance, a technique employed by civilization jihadists to penetrate and subvert our capitalist system
  • Exposing Shariah-inspired sovereign wealth funds as instruments of financial jihad.

7. Cyber Warfighting

Cyberspace is the new battlefield of asymmetric warfare where attacks across domains and technologies by the Global Jihad enemy, as well as peer adversaries, must by countered with 21st century capabilities drawn from the best and brightest in the civilian, intelligence and military worlds.

Sebastian Gorka’s Plan to defeat ISIS—Simple but Devastating

“Everyone can contribute to the cause, simply by just spreading the truth about jihad. The most important contribution you can make, whatever your ‘day job’ happens to be, is to be an educator.

“You owe it to yourself, your family, and all the Americans killed on 9/11 and since to know the truth.”

~Sebastian Gorka

no-PCThe FBI people I know are fed up with getting PC stuff down their throats. My book is based upon my experience growing up in the Cold War, having parents who escaped the communist nation of Hungary in 1956. We have to do what we did during the Cold War, but now with a different ideology.” ~Sebastian Gorka

Garth Kant

July 2016 Whistleblower, 24-31

Sebastian Gorka, a Marine Corps University professor has become famous practically overnight because he has something President Obama does not—a plan to defeat jihad.

1) Identify the Enemy

ObamaIslamGOPHeadinSandIslamPresident Obama ignores Sun Tzu’s dictum about knowing your enemy if you wish to win—at our nation’s peril,” says Gorka.

“If this administration persists in ignoring the reality that jihadi terrorism is a global phenomenon that has reached our shores and continues to focus instead on concepts such as ‘lone wolf,’ ‘hate crime,’ and ‘the proliferation of weapons in private hands,’ we will continue to see Americans die on US soil.”

MuslimWarriorRecognize the Enemy’s Motivation and Goal

Their motivation is simply to wage jihad and to establish a worldwide caliphate—that is, an Islamic empire.

Their goal:

“Consider that communists were—and Islamic extremists are—animated by a dictatorial ideology [Shariah law], seeking world domination by means peaceful and violent, overt and covert.”


A man walks past a poster in Cairo by a group known as Youth Against Violence. The poster calls on voters not to choose Muslim Brotherhood candidates in parliamentary elections in November 2009

A man walks past a poster in Cairo by a group known as Youth Against Violence. The poster calls on voters not to choose Muslim Brotherhood candidates in parliamentary elections in November 2009

2) Empower Allies

“This includes the Jordanians and especially the government of [Egyptian] President Fatah al-Sisi, a brave Muslim who has been rejected by this administration.”

3) De-legitimize the Ideology of Jihad

truth1The West can’t win the war with the jihadis without ultimately winning the debate over who has the better vision for the world. Ultimately we will win when the ideology of global jihadism is no longer attractive to young men and women from Orlando to Brussels, from Paris to San Bernardino.

Use Social Media

ISIS is exceptionally good at social media and using it for propaganda. FBI James Comey has testified that ISIS has more than 20,000 social media platforms.

“Not subscribers—platforms. They post more than 50,000 jihadi social media messages every day! We have to use that open-source intelligence and exploit it to protect ourselves.”


culture-war3-reagan“Everyone can contribute to the cause, simply by just spreading the truth about jihad. The most important contribution you can make, whatever your ‘day job’ happens to be, is to be an educator.

“You owe it to yourself, your family, and all the Americans killed on 9/11 and since to know the truth.”


Patriotism: Build the Border Wall; Sharia Law not compatible with Western Civilization


Build the Border Wall; Sharia Law not compatible with Western Civilization

Election 2016: GOP Platform—Build the Border Wall!

Ken Klukowski

keyCLEVELAND—The Republican Party Platform approved by the Platform Committee this week in Cleveland adopted Donald Trump’s call for a security wall on America’s southern border as part of the solution to the nation’s broken immigration system, as well as safeguarding national security.

And if they believe in Sharia Law, they should be deported. Sharia is not compatible with Western Civilization. ~Newt Gingrich

Sarah-Palin-trump-wall-borderRepublican Party staffers prepare a first draft of the platform for delegates to use as a starting point for debate, a draft based on the previous convention’s platform (in this case, the 2012 platform), updated to account for current issues. These staffers had already included language in the first draft calling for “construction of a physical barrier” on what it called “our vulnerable borders.”

But some delegates noted that a “physical barrier” could mean all manner of things, from a chain-link fence, to a series three-foot high concrete blocks like Americans typically see on construction sites or around sensitive government buildings. The delegates decided to remove all ambiguity, replacing it with Donald Trump’s words, calling for the construction of a “wall.”

The platform specifies that the security wall should secure “the entirety of the Southern Border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.”

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach—a prominent constitutional lawyer and former law professor whom some conservatives in Cleveland this week hope to see considered for U.S. attorney general in a Trump administration—introduced the amendment to explicitly call for an actual wall.

Kobach was one of the elected officials who endorsed Trump early in the primary process, in large part due to Trump’s strong stand on securing the border. “For me, the most important issue in the Republican presidential contest is immigration and its effect on our national security,” Kobach said on February 29, when he announced his endorsement.

“On that issue Mr. Trump stands head and shoulders above the other candidates.”

Don't be offended. This is a joke. ↑

Don’t be offended. This is a joke. ↑

“Our porous borders constitute a huge national security threat,” Kobach’s statement continued, “and our refugee system has been abused by terrorists in the past and is likely to be abused by ISIS terrorists today.”

America’s immigration crisis is also an economic issue, Kobach noted, as “too many Americans are out of work because of illegal immigration.”

This border wall amendment was one of many that Kobach successfully added to the draft platform this week, working with other conservative leaders among the delegates.

Speaking exclusively to Breitbart News today, Kobach explained, “The border wall needs to be a real wall, not a fake ‘wall’ consisting of sensors in the ground.” The time for action has come, he added, because, “The American people have been wanting this for years. If Mr. Trump is elected, it will finally happen.”

The platform will be formally adopted in its final form by the Platform Committee on Monday, and then presented to the full Republican National Convention and the GOP’s presidential nominee.




Sharia Law is not compatible with Western Civilization

Newt: ‘If They Believe in Sharia Law, They Should Be Deported’

sharia-no-americaThursday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” following a terror attack that resulted in the deaths of at least 84 and injuries of over 100 in Nice, France, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) attacked Sharia Law and said of those who believe in it in the United States should be “deported.”

“Let me start where I am coming from and let me be as blunt and direct as I can be — western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported,” Gingrich said. “Sharia is incompatible with western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia — glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door. But we need to be fairly relentless about who our enemies are.”

Culture Wars: Indoctrination in Education vs. American Patriotism

Culture Wars:

Indoctrination in Education vs. American Patriotism

keyThe devil will grasp them with everlasting chains . . . For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. ~2 Nephi 28:19,20

gop-betrayal-backstabPaul Ryan Hints at Suing a President Trump Over Muslim Ban

How Radical Leftist Howard Zinn Poisoned the Minds of Two Generations


Rush Limbaugh

school-indoctrination-EducationThis is all about a curriculum, a history text that has been written by somebody by the name of Howard Zinn.  Now, Howard Zinn ran what is called the Zinn Education Project.  It is a radical, radical bunch of insane lunatic leftists.  And there is a project at the Zinn Educational Project: A People’s History of Muslims in the United States — What School Textbooks and the Media Miss.  And this program is teaching your high school student, juror junior high or middle school student.

Rush-Classroom-school-indoctrinationThey’ve been doing this for two generations, a vision of Muslims as an integral part of the fabric of the progressive movement in the US with a presence in every social justice struggle along the way.  So your kids have been taught that there is a more equivalence between Martin Luther King and today’s Muslims — a moral equivalent between today’s aggrieved gays and lessons and Muslims.  They’re all victims of an evil and ill-formed United States of America.  Let me read to you from Howard Zinn.

He said the single longest reference he could find to Abraham Lincoln was two paragraphs.  That was Howard Zinn.  Would you like to hear how Ronaldus Magnus is portrayed?  I’m just gonna tell you.  “In the proposed California 11th grade framework, Reagan is presented as a leader who appealed to ‘social conservatives,’ a segment that is characterized as opposing ‘safety net’ programs.” That is it.  That is how Reagan is taught.  One or two paragraphs on Abraham Lincoln.  Try this from the Washington Post.

sharia-no-americaLike I say, if Obama really, really wanted to use the law to stop acts of militant terrorism, he would get hold of the architects of Sharia, as the American president, and he’d say, “You know, you guys, you’re gonna have to moderate this. This is not good. It’s not right.”  It wouldn’t go anywhere, but that’s… Now an American president like Reagan wouldn’t have a meeting, wouldn’t have a summit.  He’d give ’em a warning and then — or Bush would give ’em a warning and then — whatever would happen.

Because you don’t allow the murder of American citizens.  You just don’t permit it.  But we do.  Innocent Americans are murdered.  I don’t care, gay, straight, black, white, Martian. Innocent Americans are murdered, and what happens?  An entire political party and an amendment to the US Constitution gets blamed.  And implicit in that is, “Well, what do you expect’s gonna happen?  You got these Republicans out there won’t change the law, and won’t get rid of guns! What do you expect’s gonna happpen?”

Truth Zone: Islam Facts vs. Delusional Liberalism

Truth Zone:

Islam Facts vs. Delusional Liberalism

Islam—Facts or Dreams?

Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Institute

keyIn the real world, we must deal with the facts of Islamic supremacism, because its jihadist legions have every intention of dealing with us. But we can only defeat them if we resolve to see them for what they are.

A False Claim

obama-ISISGOPHeadinSandIslamIn 1993 I was a seasoned federal prosecutor, but I only knew as much about Islam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much. Consequently, when I was assigned to lead the prosecution of a terrorist cell that had bombed the World Trade Center and was plotting an even more devastating strike—simultaneous attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Nations complex on the East River, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters—I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in this terrorist cell were Muslims; that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.

ObamaISISWhite-House-SummitUnlike commentators and government press secretaries, I had to examine these claims. Prosecutors don’t get to base their cases on assertions. They have to prove things to commonsense Americans who must be satisfied about not only what happened but why it happened before they will convict people of serious crimes. And in examining the claims, I found them false.

One of the first things I learned concerned the leader of the terror cell, Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh. Our government was portraying him as a wanton killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. Far from a lunatic, however, he turned out to be a globally renowned scholar—a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.

I immediately began to wonder why American officials from President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on down, officials who had no background in Muslim doctrine and culture, believed they knew more about Islam than the Blind Sheikh. Then something else dawned on me: the Blind Sheikh was not only blind; he was beset by several other medical handicaps. That seemed relevant. After all, terrorism is hard work. Here was a man incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization—he couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. Yet he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell. Was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was conceding?

sharia-statesHe was quoting the Doctrine

Defendants do not have to testify at criminal trials, but they have a right to testify if they choose to—so I had to prepare for the possibility. Raised an Irish Catholic in the Bronx, I was not foolish enough to believe I could win an argument over Muslim theology with a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence. But I did think that if what we were saying as a government was true—that he was perverting Islam—then there must be two or three places where I could nail him by saying, “You told your followers X, but the doctrine clearly says Y.” So my colleagues and I pored over the Blind Sheikh’s many writings. And what we found was alarming: whenever he quoted the Koran or other sources of Islamic scripture, he quoted them accurately.

He was not lying

obama-muslim-brotherhood2Now, you might be able to argue that he took scripture out of context or gave an incomplete account of it. In my subsequent years of studying Islam, I’ve learned that this is not a particularly persuasive argument. But even if one concedes for the purposes of discussion that it’s a colorable claim, the inconvenient fact remains: Abdel Rahman was not lying about Islam.

  • When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up.
  • When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up.
  • When he said Islam directed Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends, the scriptures backed him up.

You could counter that there are other ways of construing the scriptures. You could contend that these exhortations to violence and hatred should be “contextualized”—i.e., that they were only meant for their time and place in the seventh century.  Again, I would caution that there are compelling arguments against this manner of interpreting Islamic scripture. The point, however, is that what you’d be arguing is an interpretation.

Not perverting the doctrine, but showing the need to reform it

The fact that there are multiple ways of construing Islam hardly makes the Blind Sheikh’s literal construction wrong. The blunt fact of the matter is that, in this contest of competing interpretations, it is the jihadists who seem to be making sense because they have the words of scripture on their side—it is the others who seem to be dancing on the head of a pin. For our present purposes, however, the fact is that the Blind Sheikh’s summons to jihad was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam—he was, if anything, shining a light on the need to reform it.

Inconvenient Truth: Islam not a Religion of Peace

obama-stand-w-muslimsAnother point, obvious but inconvenient, is that Islam is not a religion of peace. There are ways of interpreting Islam that could make it something other than a call to war. But even these benign constructions do not make it a call to peace. Verses such as “Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war,” are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one contextualizes.

Character witnesses ignorant of Sharia Law

Another disturbing aspect of the trial against the Blind Sheikh and his fellow jihadists was the character witnesses who testified for the defense. Most of these people were moderate, peaceful Muslim Americans who would no more commit terrorist acts than the rest of us. But when questions about Islamic doctrine would come up—“What does jihad mean?” “What is sharia?” “How might sharia apply to a certain situation?”—these moderate, peaceful Muslims explained that they were not competent to say. In other words, for the answers, you’d have to turn to Islamic scholars like the Blind Sheikh.

Now, understand: there was no doubt what the Blind Sheikh was on trial for. And there was no doubt that he was a terrorist—after all, he bragged about it. But that did not disqualify him, in the minds of these moderate, peaceful Muslims, from rendering authoritative opinions on the meaning of the core tenets of their religion. No one was saying that they would follow the Blind Sheikh into terrorismbut no one was discrediting his status either.


churchillAlthough this came as a revelation to me, it should not have. After all, it is not as if Western civilization had no experience dealing with Islamic supremacism—what today we call “Islamist” ideology, the belief that sharia must govern society. Winston Churchill, for one, had encountered it as a young man serving in the British army, both in the border region between modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the Sudan—places that are still cauldrons of Islamist terror.

Ever the perceptive observer, Churchill wrote:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. . . . Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Problem not the People, but the Doctrine

Habitually, I distinguish between Islam and Muslims. It is objectively important to do so, but I also have a personal reason: when I began working on national security cases, the Muslims I first encountered were not terrorists. To the contrary, they were pro-American patriots who helped us infiltrate terror cells, disrupt mass-murder plots, and gather the evidence needed to convict jihadists. We have an obligation to our national security to understand our enemies; but we also have an obligation to our principles not to convict by association—not to confound our Islamist enemies with our Muslim allies and fellow citizens. Churchill appreciated this distinction. “Individual Moslems,” he stressed, “may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen.” The problem was not the people, he concluded. It was the doctrine.

What about Islamic law? On this topic, it is useful to turn to Robert Jackson, a giant figure in American law and politics—FDR’s attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and chief prosecutor of the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. In 1955, Justice Jackson penned the foreword to a book called Law in the Middle East. Unlike today’s government officials, Justice Jackson thought sharia was a subject worthy of close study.  And here is what he concluded:

sharia-vs-womenIslamic Law (Sharia) opposite of Western Law

In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge—all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire—reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.

Afghan Constitution makes Islam the State religion—Capital punishment for Christians

Contrast this with the constitution that the U.S. government helped write for post-Taliban Afghanistan, which showed no awareness of the opposition of Islamic and Western law. That constitution contains soaring tropes about human rights, yet it makes Islam the state religion and sharia a principal source of law—and under it, Muslim converts to Christianity have been subjected to capital trials for apostasy.

Sharia Law rejects Freedom

Sharia rejects freedom of speech as much as freedom of religion. It rejects the idea of equal rights between men and women as much as between Muslim and non-Muslim. It brooks no separation between spiritual life and civil society. It is a comprehensive framework for human life, dictating matters of government, economy, and combat, along with personal behavior such as contact between the sexes and personal hygiene.

Sharia aims to rule both believers and non-believers, and it affirmatively sanctions jihad in order to do so.

Mainstream Interpretation

Obama-ISIS-kids-montageEven if this is not the only construction of Islam, it is absurd to claim—as President Obama did during his recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore—that it is not a mainstream interpretation. In fact, it is the mainstream interpretation in many parts of the world.

Last year, Americans were horrified by the beheadings of three Western journalists by ISIS. American and European politicians could not get to microphones fast enough to insist that these decapitations had nothing to do with Islam.

Yet within the same time frame, the government of Saudi Arabia beheaded eight people for various violations of sharia—the law that governs Saudi Arabia.

San Bernardino Attack

Three weeks before Christmas, a jihadist couple—an American citizen, the son of Pakistani immigrants, and his Pakistani wife who had been welcomed into our country on a fiancée visa—carried out a jihadist attack in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people. Our government, as with the case in Fort Hood—where a jihadist who had infiltrated the Army killed 13 innocents, mostly fellow soldiers—resisted calling the atrocity a “terrorist attack.”


Our investigators are good at what they do, and our top officials may be ideological, but they are not stupid. Why is it that they can’t say two plus two equals four when Islam is involved?

Willful Blindness

reagan-quote-appeasementThe reason is simple: stubbornly unwilling to deal with the reality of Islam, our leaders have constructed an Islam of their very own. This triumph of willful blindness and political correctness over common sense was best illustrated by former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith when she described terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” In other words, the savagery is not merely unrelated to Islam; it becomes, by dint of its being inconsistent with a “religion of peace,” contrary to Islam. This explains our government’s handwringing over “radicalization”: we are supposed to wonder why young Muslims spontaneously become violent radicals—as if there is no belief system involved.

This is political correctness on steroids, and it has dangerous policy implications.

Consider the inability of government officials to call a mass-murder attack by Muslims a terrorist attack unless and until the police uncover evidence proving that the mass murderers have some tie to a designated terrorist group, such as ISIS or al Qaeda. It is rare for such evidence to be uncovered early in an investigation—and as a matter of fact, such evidence often does not exist. Terrorist recruits already share the same ideology as these groups: the goal of imposing sharia. All they need in order to execute terrorist attacks is paramilitary training, which is readily available in more places than just Syria.

Pervasive influence of Muslim Brotherhood

obama-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrateThe dangerous flipside to our government’s insistence on making up its own version of Islam is that anyone who is publicly associated with Islam must be deemed peaceful. This is how we fall into the trap of allowing the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic supremacist organization, to infiltrate policy-making organs of the U.S. government, not to mention our schools, our prisons, and other institutions.

The federal government, particularly under the Obama administration, acknowledges the Brotherhood as an Islamic organization—notwithstanding the ham-handed attempt by the intelligence community a few years back to rebrand it as “largely secular”—thereby giving it a clean bill of health. This despite the fact that Hamas is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, that the Brotherhood has a long history of terrorist violence, and that major Brotherhood figures have gone on to play leading roles in terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

sharia-free-zoneFacts are better than dreams

To quote Churchill again:  “Facts are better than dreams.” In the real world, we must deal with the facts of Islamic supremacism, because its jihadist legions have every intention of dealing with us. But we can only defeat them if we resolve to see them for what they are.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. A graduate of Columbia College, he received his J.D. at New York Law School. For 18 years, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and from 1993-95 he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Following the 9/11 attacks, he supervised the Justice Department’s command post near Ground Zero. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and an adjunct professor at Fordham University’s School of Law and New York Law School. He writes widely for newspapers and journals including National Review, PJ Media, and The New Criterion, and is the author of several books, including Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad and Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotages America.

Reprinted by permission of Hillsdale College

Culture Wars: Sharia Law or Constitutional Law?

Culture Wars: Sharia Law or Constitutional Law?

What Difference Would It Make If We Had a Muslim President?

keyIf you look into Sharia law, you will not find any consistency with the US Constitution.  Sharia law is the law which is used to behead women in Islamic countries who have been raped.  Sharia law is the reason women in Islamic countries can’t drive.  Sharia law is so inconsistent with the US Constitution Ben Carson could not be more right.  And the question he was asked was in that context.  “Well, do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”  Well, Sharia law isn’t. ~Rush Limbaugh

Ben Carson YouTube Video


Rush Limbaugh

RUSH:  You know, this business of Obama and Ben Carson — I’ve got the sound bite coming — this whole business he doesn’t think we should have a Muslim president, it would be beyond the pale, and a lot of people are saying, “What difference does it make now?”  And the reason they’re saying, what difference does it make now, is how would Obama be acting any differently?  I’m just telling you what people are saying.

Okay, let’s say we have a president who’s Muslim, and the Iranians end up with a nuclear weapon, that would make sense, right?  Uh, that’s happened, with a Christian president.  Isn’t that amazing.  We got a president obama-defend-prophet-of-islamwho’s angered our number one Middle Eastern ally, Israel, made up of Jewish people.  A Muslim president would do that, right?  Ah, ah, it’s already happened.

How about a president going to the United Nations, saying the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.  Uh, that’s already happened.  Barack Obama did that.  Haven’t we had a president who says the most beautiful sound he’s ever heard is the call to morning prayer?  Uh, uh, already happened.  Obama said that. 

People were so worried before Trump issued a statement. They were so worried he was gonna cave. They were so worried that he was gonna apologize for this guy that stood up and asked him the question.

And then Ben Carson comes along and says we should not put a Muslim in charge of the nation, and he’s not backing down.  And the media’s kind of ticked off because in both of these instances your average, typical Republican would have already given in and apologized.

Let’s go to Ben Carson.  This is Meet the Press yesterday.  F. Chuck Todd said: “Let me ask you the question this way.  Should a president’s faith matter, Mr. Carson?  Should your faith matter to voters?”

CARSON:  I guess it depends on what that faith is.  If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.  But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.

constitution2TODD:  So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?

CARSON:  No, I don’t.  I do not.  I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.  I absolutely would not agree with that.

RUSH:  Kablooey all over the media! Giant explosions could be seen, heard, and felt everywhere, and they continue to reverberate at this very moment.  So outraged, the media.  We have a nation filled with apologists for Islam, as you know.  It’s been one of the most amazing things.  9/11 happens, militant Islam kills 3,000 Americans, and all of a sudden there’s a giant Islamic apologist group in this country that grows and grows and grows.  Based on what, I don’t know, we better not make them angrier than they already are. We better stop doing what they’ve gotten mad at. It’s our fault or what have you.

And now people are saying that this just shows Ben Carson has no business running for president. He has no idea. This is so unprepared. This is evidence of his inexperience, no religious faith in this country.  What he meant was, he was asked a specific question, and the question was, “Should a president’s faith matter?  Should your faith matter to voters?”  And his answer was relevant to the Constitution. 

Sharia Law Not Consistent with Constitution

Chuck Todd says, “Do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”

  If you look into Sharia law, you will not find any consistency with the US Constitution.  Sharia law is the law which is used to behead women in Islamic countries who have been raped.  Sharia law is the reason women in Islamic countries can’t drive.  Sharia law is so inconsistent with the US Constitution Ben Carson could not be more right.  And the question he was asked was in that context.  “Well, do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”  Well, Sharia law isn’t. 

Media Darling: America better off with Christian President

muslimobamaAnyway, back in 2007, GOP presidential candidate, John McCain, says America is better off with a Christian president, and he does not want a Muslim in the Oval Office.  He said, “I admire the Islam” — that’s the quote, “I admire the Islam” — “there’s a lot of good principles in it, but I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith.”  And McCain was a media darling.  McCain was a media hero.  They loved McCain. He said the same thing Ben Carson said, he even went further, and it was not one assault on McCain for this.

What’s Wrong with being a Muslim?

RUSH: What’s so bad about being a Muslim anyway?  Why do you need to be exonerated from it?  “Because he’s not one, Mr. Limbaugh, that’s why.”  Thank you, Mr. New Castrati, but I’m saying why is it such an insult?  I mean, if somebody mistakenly called somebody Jewish instead of Christian, it’s not gonna cause a state incident.  “You know, I’m sorry, you’re not Jewish, you’re Christian.”  Oh, oh.

PC-islamYou call somebody a Muslim, and you better retract that, man.  You better pull that back right now.  You better go out and set that person straight.  Why?  What’s so bad about it?  It’s kind of like what’s so wrong with being accused of being gay?  What’s so bad about it?  I thought it was hip.

And then Ben Carson: “I don’t think we should have a Muslim as president.”  So Republicans are being asked by the left, “What do you think of what Ben Carson said? Are you willing to condemn Ben Carson? Are you willing to condemn Donald Trump? Are you willing to condemn Donald Trump’s supporters?”  In fact, grab audio sound bite number 26.  This is this afternoon at the White House press briefing with the press secretary, Josh Earnest. A reporter said this to the press secretary, said, “Today a Muslim NGO called for Dr. Carson to withdraw from the race because of his anti-Muslim stand.  He says that he does not believe that a Muslim should be president.

There’s nothing intolerant about what Ben Carson said.  It was simply an opinion.  And I know where it’s rooted.  It’s rooted in Sharia law.  Sharia law runs counter to the US Constitution.  It just does.  It’s not even arguable.  You know what it is, you can’t have Sharia and the US Constitution side by side at the same time.  If you do, something’s gonna have to give.  If you have Sharia side by side with the Constitution, what are you gonna do about women being able to drive or other rights that women have won, like voting, what are you gonna do? 

no-PCSo, anyway, that’s how the White House is dealing with it.  “We just don’t like these offensive views, particularly disappointing to many observers, including me, that we haven’t seen a significant outcry from all the other candidates.”  This is how they do it.  A Republican stands up, says something not politically correct, it then becomes incumbent on every other Republican to denounce the guilty party. This is the one-way street, this false premise, these narratives here that the left creates that I’m telling Republicans ought have nothing to do with, just nuke and just ignore these narratives out of the box.