The Reporting of Information of Events associated with Islam

Quoting "Out of Context"



​

 

Pope Francis might jettison idea of a ‘just war’

May 30, 2016 3:15 pm By Robert Spencer 55 Comments
That would remove one of the West’s key philosophical foundations and leave Catholics no alternative but to surrender to the advancing jihad. But with the monuments of Catholic Europe in ruins and the Church subjugated and enslaved, as the jihadi’s blade slices through his neck Pope Francis can congratulate himself that he was never, ever “Islamophobic,” and that he and his bishops made sure that those within their purview who spoke honestly about the jihad threat were duly silenced.
The Pope has forgotten, if he ever knew, that (as Winston Churchill put it) “we sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)


“Pope Francis might jettison idea of a ‘just war,’” by Maria J. Stephan, Associated Press, May 26, 2016 (thanks to David):

Developed in the fifth century A.D. by St. Augustine, the doctrine of a “just war” empowers rulers to wage war only as a last resort to confront grave wrongs. As Augustine wrote: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity.”

Later, the Summa Theologica, written by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 1260s and 1270s, clarified that war could only be waged by a properly instituted authority like the state, that it could not occur for purposes of self-gain, and that attaining peace must be its central aim.
Though the Catholic Church’s “just war” doctrine has been modified over the centuries – accounting for things like new technologies and the changing nature of warfare – its basic principles remain the same.
As the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church describes, in order for the Church to sanction engaging in a war, “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to [the conflict] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; [and] the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.”

But it seems that Pope Francis – who is by all accounts a progressive thinker, unafraid to challenge old Church doctrines – might welcome a debate over the church’s foundational tenets on war and peace.
“Faith and violence are incompatible,” he repeated in a 2013 mass prayer gathering at the Vatican. Like his predecessors of the past 50 years, he has called for the abolition of war. But this pontiff has gone one step further in pressing for nonviolent alternatives.
In his letter to a recent Rome conference, he exhorted participants to revitalize the tools of “active nonviolence.” It was a call, in other words, to challenge the idea of “just war” and to propose an alternative paradigm.
The concept of “just peace” is not new. It first emerged in the United States in the mid-1980s, when an interdenominational group of Christian scholars advanced alternatives to war that culminated in a just-peace framework.

It included practices like supporting nonviolent direct action; cooperative conflict resolution; advancing democracy, human rights, and religious liberty; fostering just and sustainable economic development; and encouraging grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.
The inter-religious dialogue expanded to include Jewish and Islamic traditions, focusing on the scriptural and practical meanings of “just peace” in the three Abrahamic traditions. The scholarly dialogue resulted in the creation of an Abrahamic framing of an interfaith just-peacemaking paradigm that was later published in book form….
Yes, and just look at how that has stopped the jihad.


Hugh Fitzgerald: One More Time: “What Race Is...”

​

 

Ted Nugent Just PISSED OFF Every Islamic Terrorist In The World By Pointing Out One HUGE Fact…




Ted Nugent PISSED OFF Every Radical Muslim By Pointing Out One HUGE Fact

Ted Nugent just brought to light one important detail that I guarantee none of these Islamic terrorists have even considered. In the Islamic religion, pork and pork products are forbidden because the pig is considered an impure animal. In a Facebook post Ted writes…

supremepatriot.com

88.8K3.5K SHARES

Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailMore AddThis Share optionsMore

By World News Politics -
April 24, 2016
883

Ted Nugent just dropped a metaphorical bomb on Islamic terrorists. In the Muslim religion, porn and pork products are forbidden to be consumed or even touched, as the pig is an impure animal.
Nugent’s announcement came in the form of a Facebook post that reads:

“Chimps & pigs, a match made in hell. ES&D voodooallahpukes.

Percy the pig makes for an extremely interesting read. I never knew pigs were in most products!!”
Nugent is pointing out that any Muslim who has handled TNT, Nitro, Bullets, High Explosive Bombs, or Rocket Launchers has been contaminated with pig products. Furthermore, pork products are used in most stitches, antibiotics, and vitamin capsules, meaning that any Muslim who has been treated for an injury after their attack has probably also been contaminated.

When a Suicide Bomber explodes, his body parts mix in with the Gelatine and Glycerine from the explosive. These products are made from pigs, meaning that by the laws of Islam these bombers would not be accepted by Allah.

Pig bone gelatine is also used to help transport gunpowder or cordite into bullets. It is also not necessary for any manufacturers to specified what animal the gelatine they use is from. Mix this with the fact that such a wide array of medical products use pork, it is almost impossible for a Muslim to avoid pig altogether. While this is a tragedy for the nonviolent Muslim, Nugent chose instead to focus on how it impacts terrorists, who could be in for a rude awakening when they reach the afterlife.


SOURCE
Departed

• TAGS
• Fact
• Islam
• Ted
• Terrorists

World News Politics
http://www.worldnewspolitics.com/

Facebook Comment
​

 

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Twitter, Facebook team up with EU to stamp out “hate speech”

May 31, 2016 10:49 am By Robert Spencer Leave a Comment

The problem with both Jourova’s and White’s statements below, and with this whole initiative, is that they assume that “hate speech” is an entity that can be identified objectively, when actually it is a subjective judgment based on one’s own political preconceptions. And given the years-long insistence from Leftists and Islamic supremacists that any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism constitutes “hate speech,” these new rules could mean the end of opposition to jihad terror on the Internet.

My guess is that “Robert Spencer should be lynched…” will not be considered hate speech, since Twitter just told me yesterday that it wasn’t, but that a factual statement such as this will be: “Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology. Many passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits.”

This could be the end, folks. Opponents of jihad terror could be gone from the Internet within days.


“EU links up with Twitter, tech firms to combat hate speech,” AP, May 31, 2016:

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union reached an agreement Tuesday with some of the world’s biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.

Under the terms of a code of conduct, the firms, which also include YouTube and Microsoft, have committed to “quickly and efficiently” tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The sites have often been used by terrorist organizations to relay messages and entice hatred against certain individuals or groups.

Among the measures agreed with the EU’s executive arm, the firms have said they will establish internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that a majority of illegal content is assessed and, where necessary, removed within 24 hours. They have also agreed to strengthen their partnerships with civil society organizations who often flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The European Commission and the firms have also agreed to support civil society organizations to deliver “anti-hate campaigns.”

“The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech,” said Vera Jourova, the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality. She added that the code of conduct, which will be regularly reviewed in terms of its scope and its impact, will ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has “no place online.”
The firms themselves say there’s no conflict between their mission statements to promote the freedom of expression and clamping down on hate speech.
Twitter, which has been at the center of much of the hate speech that’s spread online over the past few years, says it will continue to tackle the issue “head-on” along with partners in industry and civil society.

“We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow,” said Twitter’s European head of public policy Karen White. “However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”…


Pope Francis might jettison idea of a ‘just war’

Muslim posts on social media that Robert Spencer must be “lynched from his scrotum,” accounts not suspended

May 30, 2016 9:44 am By Robert Spencer 29 Comments

UPDATE: I just got this from Twitter: “Hello, Thank you for letting us know about your issue. We’ve investigated the account and reported Tweets for violent threats and abusive behavior, and have found that it’s currently not violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules).” This raises the question of what one would have to do in order to be in violation of Twitter’s rule? Oh yeah: be someone whose views they dislike.
———-
Just because Obaid Karki is insane (which is likely) or joking (less likely) doesn’t mean that he can’t be dangerous. Last Saturday he published this on one of his lunatic websites: “Robert Spencer mustn’t [be] featured but lynched from his scrotum along with Zionists scumbags, Pamela Geller, Pat Condell, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel and JIHADWATCH Jackass duo Baron Bodissey & Geert Wilders for inspiring Anders Behring Breivik to [kill] innocent students in 2011.”

Actually, neither Bodissey or Wilders run Jihad Watch – I do — and I didn’t inspire Breivik to do anything, but there is no arguing with a crazy person. What is interesting about Karki’s post, aside from his colorfully loony language, is that he posted this call for me and others to be lynched on Twitter and Facebook, and despite their stated policies, neither one seems concerned about this particular death threat. Do Twitter and Facebook have no problem with death threats when they’re made against those whom they consider to be politically undesirable?



Hamas-linked CAIR says US troops should not be honored on Memorial Day
Iran accuses Saudi Arabia of 'blocking the path to Allah' and bans pilgrims from going to Mecca

Robert Spencer in FP: Twitter and Facebook Vow to Eliminate ‘Hate Speech’

June 1, 2016 9:36 am By Robert Spencer 38 Comments
Henceforth only far-Left and pro-jihad views will be allowed. My latest in FrontPage:


Could it soon be illegal to oppose jihad terror on the Internet?

AP reported that “the European Union reached an agreement Tuesday with some of the world’s biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.”
Not only Facebook and Twitter, but also YouTube and Microsoft, “have committed to ‘quickly and efficiently’ tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The sites have often been used by terrorist organizations to relay messages and entice hatred against certain individuals or groups.”

Vera Jourova, whom AP identifies as “the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality,” explained: “The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech.” She added that the new rules would “ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has ‘no place online.’” But incitement to violence isn’t all that the social media giants are planning to stamp out: Karen White, Twitter’s European head of public policy, declared: “We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”
The problem with both Jourova’s and White’s statements is that they assume that “hate speech” is an entity that can be identified objectively, when actually it is a subjective judgment based on one’s own political preconceptions. And given the years-long insistence from Leftists and Islamic supremacists that any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism constitutes “hate speech,” these new rules could mean the end of opposition to jihad terror on the Internet.

Consider, for example, what Twitter does not consider to be “hate speech.” A Muslim named Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter, who runs a website headed “Obaid Karki St.Sheetrock’s Painfulpolitics Offensive Comedy Hepcat” and another called is called “Suicide Bombers Magazine” posted this on one of them last Sunday: “Robert Spencer mustn’t [be] featured but lynched from his scrotum along with Zionists scumbags, Pamela Geller, Pat Condell, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel and JIHADWATCH Jackass duo Baron Bodissey & Geert Wilders for inspiring Anders Behring Breivik to [kill] innocent students in 2011.”
Neither Bodissey or Wilders actually run Jihad Watch – I do — and I didn’t inspire Breivik to do anything, but what is interesting about Karki’s loony message is that he posted this call for me and others to be lynched on Twitter.

Twitter supposedly has a policy against death threats. “The Twitter Rules” say: “Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.” I therefore duly reported this one – but as of this writing, it has not been taken down (in fact, Karki posted it along with variants of it several times). I reported Karki’s tweet (which he republished on Twitter several times), and on Monday received this message from Twitter: “Thank you for letting us know about your issue. We’ve investigated the account and reported Tweets for violent threats and abusive behavior, and have found that it’s currently not violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules).”

This has happened before. On May 12, 2014, Karki tweeted this: “Robert Spencer must be arrested and lynched along the Zionists Dumbasses Daniel Pipes, Geert Wilders and JIHADWATCH …” And here’s another Karki tweet from September 18, 2013: “Robert Spencer must be shot head not only for comparing Alnoor 24:35 to Corinthians 11:14-15 satanically but for…”

Calling for me to be lynched and shot in the head – that’s not “hate speech” as far as Twitter is concerned. Meanwhile, the antipathy of both Twitter and Facebook to conservatives is well established. It’s therefore a very real question: will our social media masters use their new censorship initiative to shut down foes of jihad terror, while allowing jihadis and their sympathizers to speak freely?

It could happen. In some ways it is already happening: the free speech news site Epoch Times reported last March that “while Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.”

The idea that Vera Jourova enunciated, that hate speech is not free speech, is a dangerous one that paves the way for tyranny. One man’s “hate speech” is another man’s lone voice crying out against oppression and injustice. If “hate speech” is removed from the Internet and eventually criminalized, the foremost protection against tyranny will have been removed, and free society effectively ended. If Facebook and Twitter continue kneecapping voices on the Right and allowing death threats to remain online if they’re directed against people the Left hates, Leftists will have gone a long way toward achieving what they’ve been working toward for a long time: the death of dissent, and the beginnings of an authoritarian society.
And if any of the naïve and unthinking among them awaken to what they’ve done, it will be too late. Maybe as early as 24 hours from now.

Vox Clamantis In Deserto
Islamic Republic of Iran arrests eight people for producing music videos

Cal Poly: Free speech under attack in academia

May 28, 2014 3:24 pm By Robert Spencer



On May 13, I spoke at Cal Poly — California Polytechnic State University — in San Luis Obispo, California. (In the video above, the event starts at 8:19.) The event was preceded by the usual Muslim Students Association grievance-mongering and bogus claim of victimhood status, with an article in the campus newspaper complaining about my imminent appearance, making wild claims about what would happen if I spoke, and asking that the event be canceled. Student Nate Honeycutt and the Cal Poly College Republicans stood firm, however, even under heavy pressure from a Professor of Religious Studies (who did not have the courage to attend the event, after promising to do so) to cancel.
Now Honeycutt has written a superb letter to Cal Poly’s Mustang News, about the event and how the freedom of speech is under fire where it should be most honored: in our nation’s universities.

“Letter to the editor: Free speech under attack in academia,” by Nate Honeycutt, Mustang News, May 26, 2014:
On behalf of the Cal Poly College Republicans (CPCR), I’d like to put to rest accusations made over the last couple weeks against our club and our recent speaker.
As a preface it should go without saying, but just in case there are any misconceptions, we have the utmost respect for those in the Muslim Students Association (MSA). They were critical of our speaker, but in face-to-face conversations they were respectful, civil and acted in goodwill. Our groups are on friendly terms.
On May 13, CPCR hosted Robert Spencer to present and answer questions on the topic of Radical Islam. We had a packed lecture hall of students, faculty, staff, administrators and community members present to hear and interact with Spencer. His talk was informative, captivating and enlightening (watch online). But in the wake of his visit some students and faculty waged intellectual drone warfare, remotely lobbing unsubstantiated claims, assumptions and accusations at us, then the night of the event did not attend and/or did not engage with our speaker.

Our critics claimed Spencer spews hate speech, that he is on par with the KKK, that he/our club are neo-Nazis, that he would incite violence and that because of the alleged content of his talk many individuals would fear for their mental and physical well-being. These are a few among many verbatim claims. With these claims, some students and faculty sought to pressure first us, then campus leaders above us, to cancel our event. Our club was fighting a coward’s veto — another stereotypical attempt to censor and stifle a legitimate expression and exercise of free speech.

Being offended has become the ultimate trump card for censoring individuals and groups who those offended deem as “controversial” and/or “offensive,” whatever their subjective definition of “controversial” and “offensive” may be. For our group, it typically doesn’t matter what we do, it will almost always be considered by someone to be “controversial” and/or “offensive.” We’re used to this out of necessity and just roll with it, but this becomes particularly troubling when offended individuals start calling for the censorship of our club and/or speakers and/or the cancelation of our events.

In a free society, when one is “offended,” we cannot call for less speech (censorship), but in fact must call for more speech. If people do not like what our speaker has to say, then they can plan and fund their own event. In fact, if the topic of Radical Islam is as important as many critics told us it is, why was our group the first group (in my recollection of my almost four years at Cal Poly) to hold an event addressing the topic?
But what about specifics from our critics? Following are a few salient things we were told: We were told that only “academia engenders a fair and accurate discussion,” while any rational thinker can easily recognize that the only reason we have to bring in our own speakers is precisely because academia by and large does not engender fair or accurate discussions — just ask any conservative student on campus.

We were told our speaker would “leave behind unnecessary emotional and physical dangers for people,” a claim no one could ever back up because it is blatantly false and is yet another example of a scare tactic. And “emotional danger,” what is that supposed to mean? Aren’t we all adults, able to discuss real-world problems in a grown-up manner? We were also told that Spencer’s “logic and ‘facts’ were at times laughable,” but this claim, as with many others like it, lacks specifics because specifics cannot be cited. Anyone can make generalizations, but generalizations mean nothing and are just a façade — a bag of air.

It’s almost funny how with every speaker we bring to campus, no matter what the topic of the talk, inevitably the focus will swing back to the issue of free speech and the First Amendment. Forget the diversity training Week of Welcome students and probably many faculty and other Cal Poly staff have to go through. It looks like what this campus really needs is to bring the Foundation for Individuals Rights in Education (FIRE) in again to properly train and teach students about the First Amendment, and while we’re at it, we should probably require some faculty, staff and administrators come along, too. Far too many people just don’t get it.

Our club works diligently to engage the campus in discussions on relevant political topics and to make sure people understand conservative views and values. We believe these things are what are needed to get the United States back on track and to stay on track. We are by far the most active political voice on campus, and our track record will easily show how deeply involved and invested in the campus and local community we are.

We hope that for future events, students and faculty will come and hear from our speaker and meet our club before they jump to conclusions and make false assumptions and accusations. This is the standard others hold us to, so why not extend it to everyone? The future of free speech at this university looks quite frightening should the tactics used against us continue to be used and supported. Amidst great pressure and a significant (but unwarranted) backlash we stood up for our rights, but many other groups may not be willing to do the same. What is it going to take for students and faculty to wake up?

AFDI Truth About CAIR ads go up in New York City, immediately defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti
Sharia Egypt: Christian gets four years prison, $1400 fine for insulting Islam by drawing cartoon of Muhammad on Facebook

 

Video: Robert Spencer on how to defeat the jihad

May 30, 2016 11:52 am By Robert Spencer 29 Comments

https://player.vimeo.com/video/163573849
​

At the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s West Coast Retreat in Rancho Palos Verdes, California on April 9, 2016, I was on a panel with Bruce Thornton and Richard Miniter on “How to Defeat the Jihad.” Here is a transcript of my remarks; for those of Thornton and Miniter, go here.

Robert Spencer: I have to apologize to you straight up because I’m a little bit distracted this afternoon. I was talking to my wife just before I came to the hall today and we’re having a little trouble with her brother. He thinks he’s a chicken and I said to her, “You know, we’re going to have to have him committed” and she said, “I would but we need the eggs.” And that about sums up the Obama administration’s foreign policy. They won’t call Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism. And Obama has said I won’t call Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism because that will only empower and embolden and validate these people, who are not Islamic, who call themselves Islamic and wrap themselves in the mantle of this noble and peaceful religion.

So I ask you, imagine if you were a Muslim and you were about to join ISIS. And then you heard John Kerry say that they were not Islamic. That would make you change your mind, right? Because everybody knows that Muslims look to non-Muslim political leaders to tell them what’s Islamic and what isn’t. Now that’s just as absurd as if you were an observant Christian, let’s say, and you’re in your church and you heard that the supreme leader of Iran was saying that what your church was doing was not Christian. That would make you stop because everybody knows that the supreme leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini is an authority on Christianity.

Obviously people who are observant believers in one religion are not likely to look to political figures who don’t even hold to that religion to get the idea of what is and is not the proper exercise of the religion. But more importantly, besides the absurdity of the Obama administration position is the fact that our refusal to call this conflict what it really is only exacerbates the conflict and emboldens the enemy because it leads us to underestimate the problem.

Obama has also said that Muslims are our best allies in fighting terrorism. I had a friend who went to the Council on American Islamic Relations, Florida Chapter Convention last year and sent me photos of the fliers and brochures that they had out. A picture of the Statue of Liberty going “shh” and saying, “Don’t talk to the FBI.” And these are the people that Barack Obama is saying we can go to and depend on to fight against terrorism. He refuses to acknowledge that the problem is rooted in Islam and so he refuses to acknowledge that there is any possibility that it could be a larger problem than just ISIL, as he calls them, and Al Qaeda and maybe a few other groups. It absolutely does not enter his mind or the mind of the Washington establishment in general that this could be a problem inside American mosques because they refuse to acknowledge that it’s Islamic.

Four separate independent surveys have all shown since 1998, 80 percent of American mosques are teaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity of the Constitution to be replaced by Islamic law at a certain point when that is possible. These studies were all done separately by different people and they all came to this same result. And it’s not in the least a surprising result when you read the Quran and see that it does say make war against the unbelievers. And it says in particular to make war against and subjugate the People of the Book, that is, the Jews and the Christians. Now this is another way in which calling these things by wrong names and pretending that the problem is other than what it is and continuing to apply failed solutions is only making things worse.

We’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars building schools and hospitals and highways and the like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, how many people who were handed a basketball by an American soldier do you think thought, “Gee, the Americans are really nice. I’m not going to become a jihadi”? It doesn’t work. It’s predicated on the idea that poverty causes terrorism and if we empower these countries by building their infrastructure then everything will be okay and the jihad will evanesce. Study after study shows that jihadis are actually better educated and wealthier than their peers. And the jihadi imperative in the Quran is not predicated on whether or not the infidels are nice to you. It is predicated on the fact that they are infidels and only on that fact, and so no matter how many schools and highways and hospitals we build there will still be people who will point to the Quran and say we have to fight these infidels because they are infidels and they will not in the least be dissuaded by the fact that these infidels have been so very nice to us.
The idea that poverty causes terrorism I think was most deftly exploded by an incident that was related to me a few weeks ago. I was giving a seminar that was attended by some military people, and a colonel who had served in Iraq, he told me about an Iraqi that he worked with, quite extensively, and he was going back to the States. And so he was saying goodbye to his Iraqi counterpart, and the Iraqi said to him, you’re a good man, and it’s been good to work with you, and I’m going to be very sorry when the time comes for me to kill you. True story.

Now, the idea that we can spend away this problem is so deeply entrenched in both parties that if we’re going to be serious about defeating jihad, then there needs to not just be a new president in January 2017, but an entire cleaning out of the foreign policy establishment, and a rejection, a definitive repudiation of the people who have applied these failed policies again and again and keep on applying them and keep on recommending them despite the ever increasing evidence that they are failed, and that they don’t work, and that they’ll never work. If we had a presidential candidate who was saying that, well, that would be one worth supporting. And we also need to reconfigure our international alliances. Our international alliances are still based on the Cold War. I’m happy to say the Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is gone. Maybe, it’ll be back. But right now, to continue to pretend that Pakistan and Turkey are our allies is just a waste of money to the point of being suicidal. George W. Bush made a deal with the Pakistani president after 9/1,1 giving him, at that time, $1.3 billon a year to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was soon documented that a lot of that money was being funneled by the Pakistani government to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Congress, what do you think Congress did in response to this revelation? They increased the money. That’s right. You know how the system works. They increased the money being given to Pakistan. This would be a joke if people weren’t getting killed.

John Kerry went to ask Turkey to please stop the oil sales that ISIS is using to finance its operations. ISIS overran quite a few oil wells in Iraq, and they’re making millions if not billions of dollars on the basis of selling black market oil. The Turks refused. Why? They’re buying it. And we consider Turkey an ally. There’s abundant evidence that they are allowing ISIS fighters to travel across Turkey into Syria and Iraq to join the group. So, meanwhile, Vladimir Putin said, “Obama we need an international alliance against jihad terror,” and Obama refused. Now, I think Putin has a terrible record in many ways, but we allied with Stalin to beat Hitler. We can’t ally with Putin beat ISIS? We need to reconfigure our alliances such that we are standing with the countries that are threatened by jihad, as we are, and against the countries that are enabling it. Instead, right now, we are allied with far too many countries that are enabling it, and we are helping to finance our own killers.

We need to stand finally for own values, and Bruce alluded to this a little bit, that there has been nothing like the way that we confronted the Nazis and the Japanese in World War II. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan, defeated the people who were in power very quickly, and then the whole thing went wrong because we implemented Sharia constitutions in both countries that enshrined as law the very same beliefs and attitudes that had led those countries to be hostile to the United States in the first place. It is as if we had gone into Germany after the war and put Goering in charge after Hitler had killed himself. In the Japanese occupation, Douglas McArthur, the leader of the occupation, issued an edict very soon after he got there saying that there will be no representation for state Shinto, which had fueled Japanese militarism, in the government or in the schools. Imagine if we had done that in Iraq and Afghanistan and said you’re perfectly free to pray to Allah and read your Quran, but there’s not going to be any Islam taught in the schools and any representation of political Islam in the government. Things would look very different today. But we have never stood. If we had gone into those countries and said, “Women who are being beaten, non-Muslims who are being terrorized, you have safe-haven in the American-controlled areas.” We didn’t do it. We could have gotten a huge ground swell of support among people in Muslim countries who were just as threatened by jihad and hate Sharia just as much as any freedom-loving American. Missed opportunities.

If we’re going to defeat Jihad, we need this kind of massive reconfiguration of policy. I hope whoever becomes president next year will do these things, and I think the force of reality will ultimately make some president have to do them, but unfortunately, it’s most likely that that will come at a time of great crisis due to the fact that we have been emboldening and enabling the jihadis for so long, and they will continue to strike here. Thank you very much.

NY Muslim leader: "True Islam recognizes the equality of men and women"
Hamas-linked CAIR says US troops should not be honored on Memorial Day

 

Iran accuses Saudi Arabia of ‘blocking the path to Allah’ and bans pilgrims from going to Mecca

May 30, 2016 9:24 am By Robert Spencer 33 Comments
“Saudi Arabia is…blocking the path leading to Allah.” “Iran and Saudi Arabia are bitter rivals, seeing themselves as the leaders of Shia and Sunni Islam respectively.” Yet both Iran and Saudi Arabia practice a religion that our highest officials are on record multiple times insisting is un-Islamic and has nothing to do with Islam. This fantasy that prevails at the highest levels is crippling our ability to deal with the jihad threat. One cannot defeat an enemy that one does not understand, much less an enemy that one refuses to understand.



“Iran accuses Saudi Arabia of ‘blocking the path to Allah’ and bans pilgrims from going to Mecca,” by David Blair, Telegraph, May 29, 2016:
Iran accused Saudi Arabia of “blocking the path leading to Allah” on Sunday when Tehran announced that its pilgrims would not perform the Hajj in Mecca this year.
If this ban is enforced, the annual Hajj in September will be the first in 30 years without any pilgrims from Iran, the largest Shia Muslim nation.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are bitter rivals, seeing themselves as the leaders of Shia and Sunni Islam respectively. Officials from both countries have tried to negotiate arrangements for Iranians to perform the Hajj this year, but without success.
The failure to reach agreement was because of “obstacles raised by the Saudis,” said Ali Jannati, the Iranian culture minister. The Iranian Hajj Organisation said: “Saudi Arabia is opposing the absolute right of Iranians to go on the Hajj and is blocking the path leading to Allah.”
Last year, 60,000 Iranians travelled to Mecca. But a stampede caused the death of 2,300 pilgrims, including 464 Iranians, leading Tehran to accuse the kingdom of being unable or unwilling to manage the Hajj safely.
Saudi Arabia severed diplomatic relations with its regional neighbour in January after a mob stormed and looted the kingdom’s embassy in Tehran, retaliating for the execution of a prominent Shia cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr.
Among other counter-measures, Saudi Arabia banned Iranian airlines from entering its airspace. In addition, there are no Saudi diplomatic missions in Iranian where pilgrims could collect their visas….

Muslim posts on social media that Robert Spencer must be "lynched from his scrotum," accounts not suspended
Video: Robert Spencer on The Meaning of the Word "Jihad"

 

Algerian Author: Islam Will Split European Society




JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty
by Chris Tomlinson31 May 2016140
31 May, 2016 31 May, 2016

A best selling Algerian author warns that the “refugee welcome” culture is “naive,” and that Islam will fracture European society.

Algerian writer and best selling author Boualem Sansal paints a bleak vision of Europe’s future in his new work 2084: The End of the World, the title evoking George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Mr. Sansal sees a Europe —not governed by a totalitarian Big Brother as Mr. Orwell did, but rather — subjugated by radical Islam.

Promoting the book, the author warns that the “refugees welcome” attitude that Germans have shown is “completely naive,” and warns of the perils of radical Islam on European society in a new interview, reports Kronen Zeitung.
Mr. Sansal blames what he calls an overly tolerant society as the reason for his vision of the future of Europe. He says that in Germany in particular that the experiences of the Second World War have made the nation an easy prey for Islamists. He told media that many of the radical Islamists in his native Algeria were forced out for their agitations against the government and many of them have found asylum in Germany.
Europe is experiencing a “return of religion” according to Mr. Sansal, who says that the problem is not just a German issue but pan-European. He claims that Islam is gaining more traction among the population in European countries and especially among youths.

Young people in Germany and elsewhere have even begun attempting to join Islamic State over the past year — some even committing attacks on its behalf. The author warns that the trend among young people will contaminate the entirety of European society.
The consequences for women in an Islamised Europe are dire, Mr. Sansal says. Women’s equality will be a thing of the past he claims, explaining: “In the Islamic universe, there is only a mother’s love, the love of God. In love, the women hide. The woman herself does not matter.”

Blaming the weakness of Europe to come to its own defence, he says that groups like Islamic State are using the tolerance of Europe against itself. According to him, the attacks in Paris and Brussels are directed at the Western way of life and shared common values. “You can not even defeat the weak Arab states, so they have brought in fifth columns to bring the West to destroy itself. If they succeed society will fall,” he said.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan did not escape criticism from Mr. Sansal. The author sees the Turkish leader as trying to behave like an Islamic Caliph by centralising his own power in Turkey and trying to force conditions on the European Union to stem the migrant crisis.

Mr. Erdoğan has repeatedly threatened to unleash millions of migrants into the European Union if he does not get visa-free travel for Turkish citizens. The EU has maintained that Erdogan must reform terror laws used to prosecute critics of the government, but the Turks have stood firm against any efforts to scrap them.
Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Immigration, Algeria, Boualem Sansal, Europe Migrant Crisis, Islamisation

 

​

 

​

​

Published on May 12, 2016
BREXIT THE MOVIE is a feature-length documentary film to inspire as many people as possible to vote to LEAVE the EU in the June 23rd referendum.

BREXIT THE MOVIE spells out the danger of staying part of the EU. Is it safe to give a remote government beyond our control the power to make laws? Is it safe to tie ourselves to countries which are close to financial ruin, drifting towards scary political extremism, and suffering long-term, self-inflicted economic decline?

BREXIT THE MOVIE shows a side of the EU they don't want us to see: the sprawling self-serving bureaucracy, the political cynicism, the lack of accountability, the perks, the waste, the cronyism, the corruption.

BREXIT THE MOVIE cuts through the patronizing intellectualism of the noble, higher goals of 'Project Europe', to reveal the self-interestedness of the political-bureaucratic class which runs and benefits from the EU.

BREXIT THE MOVIE highlights the danger of becoming a prisoner in an insular, backward-looking Fortress Europe. And it explores the exciting opportunities that open up to us when we look beyond the narrow confines of the EU.

BREXIT THE MOVIE looks to the future, arguing forcefully and persuasively that it is safer and wiser to live in a country which is free, independent, self-governing, confident and global.

For more information, visit www.brexitthemovie.com

 

Climate Change and the One World Government in UN/EU Allegiances


​

Published on Oct 26, 2015
Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley gives a timely warning in September 2014 at the Irish Club in Brisbane, Australia about the possible loss of our hard-won freedoms and democracies to un-elected bureaucrats at the UN in the upcoming Paris COP21 meeting.

He outlines the only two real obstacles to the treaty, Stephen Harper of Canada and Tony Abbott of Australia and warns how the left might try to 'get rid' of these two stand-outs before the December, 2015 meeting.

​