Thursday, May 7, 2020


California Appoints Illegal Alien to State Office...yes, in Mexifornia you can be unlawfully in the state and still become an 'officer of the court' lawyer!

Lizbeth Mateo (Facebook)

Newsom Declares California 'Not Going Back to Normal' Until There's a Vaccine

Leah Barkoukis
Posted: May 07, 2020 7:30 AM

Newsom Declares California 'Not Going Back to Normal' Until There's a Vaccine
Source: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, Pool
Even as California begins its gradual reopening, allowing some types of businesses to open their doors under certain conditions, Gov. Gavin Newsom warned residents not to get too hopeful.
“Millions of Californians answered the call to stay home and thanks to them, we are in a position to begin moving into our next stage of modifying our stay at home order,” Newsom said in a press release discussing the state’s efforts to head toward Phase 2 of reopening on Friday. “But make no mistake – this virus isn’t gone. It’s still dangerous and poses a significant public health risk. As we move into the next stage of reopening, we will do so with updated guidance to help qualifying businesses make modifications needed to lower the risk of COVID-19 exposure to customers and workers. Californians should prepare now for that second stage of reopening.”
Operating under a new set of conditions, retail, manufacturing, and logistics businesses will be part of Friday’s reopening. Dine-in restaurants, schools, and shopping malls will not come until later in Stage 2. 
But as for complete normalcy? Newsom said earlier this week that there will be no return to the old way of life until “we get to immunity and a vaccine.”
“We’re not going back to normal. It’s a new normal with adaptations and modifications, until we get to immunity and a vaccine,” the governor said Tuesday during a press briefing
President Trump and Dr. Anthony Fauci have said a vaccine might be coming by the end of the year, but there are no guarantees.

While Newsom may be enjoying his emergency powers, Californians are already growing impatient and pushing back. How much more residents in the state will put up with remains to be seen. 
Editor's Note: Want to support Townhall so we can keep telling the truth about China and the virus they unleashed on the world? Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code WUHAN to get 25% off VIP membership!

Those U.S. citizens shouldn’t have to compete with illegal aliens for jobs when the economy reopens. But Newsom and other California Democrats are encouraging the illegal aliens to remain.
You would think that California officials would put U.S. citizens first just once, during this time of national crisis. But you’d be wrong.

California Appoints Illegal Alien to State Office...yes, in Mexifornia you can be unlawfully in the state and still become an 'officer of the court' lawyer!

Lizbeth Mateo (Facebook)

California's Newsom vows no 'normal' for state until the coronavirus vaccine is ready

It's almost as if he likes it like this.
California's Gov. Gavin Newsom vows to make the coronavirus emergency measures in California its "new normal" unless --- and it's a big if --- a vaccine for the virus is ready.
According to Breitbart:
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday warned that, while California will move into the next phase of reopening its economy this week, it is “not going back to normal” until there is a vaccine.
Newsom this week announced that the state will move into the next phase of its recovery plan by Friday, May 8, allowing certain businesses — like bookstores, flower shops, clothing stores, and sporting goods stores — to reopen with certain modifications, which will be provided this week. According to the governor, offices and dine-in restaurants “will be part of a later Stage 2 opening.”
Which is rather a speculative stretch. President Trump has stated that a vaccine may be in place by the end of the year and the press has screamed that the president's projection is overly optimistic. If it happens, it will indeed be in a short period of time for a vaccine. But it will be a lethal eternity for an economy.
That means Newsom isn't going to allow any normal life to go on until the economy is all but dead. And take s guess as to whether he thinks Trump is overly optimistic as his media buddies say.
Never mind that the curve is flattening. Never mind that many parts of the state are pretty bereft of cases and one sparsely populated county, Modoc, located in California's woodsy gold-rushy mountainous north, is ignoring the whole thing. For Newsom, the whole state is just one big San Francisco, and therefore, it's got lockdown in store for it whether the state's citizens can make a living or not.
As the greenies say, it's 'unsustainable' except that this time, it's literally so.
It calls to mind two things:
That Newsom's measures aren't really about pandemic control. They're about political control.
Newsom, remember, is the guy who first stated that the coronavirus was an opportunity to fundamentally transform the state. I could only find an indirect reference to that early statement here, but will post the link when I find i.
Newsom's transform statement, made early in the crisis, suggested that he believed the coronavirus could do what the global warming agenda couldn't, which was end consumerism and put the deplorables in their place, (leaving luxuries such as air travel and beach vacations and ski trips to the political and monied elites). For him it was the crisis he wasn't going to let go to waste, because let's face it, global warming wasn't scaring anyone. The coronavirus, though, was, which was why the public initially went along with his orders.
It didn't take long for this mindset to deteriorate into straight politics and an enjoyment for wielding power ove his political opponents.
As a leftist Democrat, Newsom has been no stranger to applying the boot to the supposed quarantine violators on political grounds. As I reported here, Newsom put the boot onto the neck of Orange County over the beach crowding issue by closing its beaches. But he didn't do the same for bordering San Diego County, where the same thing was going on. For him, it wasn't about getting the beaches uncrowded, it was about politics, because the beach closures in the O.C. would have brought the crowds to San Diego making those crowded beaches even more crowded. But one county was bluer than the other. Guess which one got the 'new normal' from Newsom?
Newsom's thinking is the same as those of the Hollywood elites, who make no bones about the importance of stopping the deplorables -- take a look at what these famous sybarites of austere lifestyle are prescribing for the rest of us:
A host of celebrities and scientists including Madonna, Robert de Niro and a clutch of Nobel Prize winners have called for radical change in the world rather than "a return to normal" after the coronavirus lockdowns.
Hollywood stars Cate Blanchett, Jane Fonda, Marion Cotillard and Monica Bellucci also added their names to the open letter published in the French daily Le Monde pleading for an end to unbridled consumerism and a "radical transformation" of economies to help save the planet.
"We believe it is unthinkable to 'go back to normal'," said the letter which was also signed by Nobel laureates for medicine, chemistry and physics as well as peace prize winner Muhammad Yunus.
They said the pandemic was a tragedy but it was a chance for humanity to "examine what is essential".
"Adjustments are not enough. The problem is systemic," the letter added.
"The ongoing ecological catastrophe is a meta-crisis. Unlike a pandemic... a global ecological collapse will have immeasurable consequences," it said.
That's the 'new normal' Newsom wants, which is why he's so reluctant to end this crisis, and give up his political knout. No wonder he wants to have a vaccine first before the economy can open. So long as the coronavirus is going on, he'll have every tool he needs in the name of 'safety' to oppress the heck out of the deplorables and keep them in their place. He doesn't need a good economy. His model of the state is bureaucrats and supplicants, plus the odd federal bailout when other people's money runs ou. What global warming couldn't accomplish in terms of state control, the coronavirus can. And by his latest statements, he suggests he wants to extend this power as long as he can. What global warming couldn't do, the coronavirus can.
Image credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0


California Appoints Illegal Alien to State Office...yes, in Mexifornia you can be unlawfully in the state and still become an 'officer of the court' lawyer!

Lizbeth Mateo (Facebook)

In Mexico’s second largest city of Los Angeles, 93% of the murders are by Mexicans.

"The state of California and the sanctuary city laws that make it a safe-haven for criminal illegal aliens is likely responsible for at least 5,000 crimes that were committed by criminal illegal aliens released by local authorities rather than being handed over to federal immigration officials."

Pelosi is a ghastly creature. She and her ilk – Feinstein, Boxer, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom – have effectively destroyed California and they did it on purpose. They strive to import as many illegal migrants as possible; they've created and fostered the homelessness and let it fester. California is now a socialist disaster and the further destruction of the economy is just what they've wanted.  PATRICIA McCARTHY 

Newsom's beach closures are distraction for Cal budget collapse


California's Gov. Gavin Newsom's closure of Orange County beaches is an effort to distract the public from the state's "tens of billions of dollars" financial free fall.
Newsom's April 30 executive order closing Orange County beaches to stop the coronavirus sparked a series of viral protests this weekend that brought out thousands of mostly young and very angry demonstrators shouting "U-S-A" and waving "Freedom: We the people" and "Recall Gavin Newsom" signs.
OC beach closures distracted the public from Newsom's real crisis, which is a tanking state budget that he just acknowledged has gone from a "$21.4 billion budget surplus" to "tens of billions of dollars in deficit," according to Bloomberg.
Newsom knows that with polls claiming that 80% of Americans are still in support of closing nonessential businesses, America's 50 governors have been the biggest political winners for handling the COVID-19 pandemic.  According to a new Harvard/Northeastern/Rutgers study, governors received a 66-percent average approval rating for handling of the outbreak, versus a 44-percent approval for President Trump.
The Harvard study found that Newsom had one of the highest scores for "Reacting about right" to the COVID-19 outbreak with a score of 78, three points higher than the score of 75 for New York governor Andrew Cuomo.  The two lowest scoring governors in the survey were Florida governor Ron DeSantis with a score of 60 and Hawaii governor David Ige with a score of 55 — both were blamed for failing to close beaches.
Newsom's rise is especially impressive, given that the average of the Morning ConsultMonmouth University, and Quinnipiac University pre-pandemic poll approval rating of just 42 percent, 5 points lower than the 47 percent for Cuomo.  Newsom's response to the pandemic kicked his approval up by 41 points, versus a 31-percent gain for Cuomo.
Orange County sheriff Don Barnes responded to the governors' order by stating: "The photographs I saw, quite honestly, were a stark contrast to what the governor's acting on."  Sheriff Barnes emphasized: "I have no desire to enforce ... through arrest."
Newsom has the authority to use California state troopers, park rangers, and the National Guard to enforce his beach closures, but he risks confrontations with frustrated young people that could quickly get out of control and then turn violent.
Responding to Vietnam War protests 50 years ago, popular Ohio governor James A. Rhodes declared a "state of emergency" and then sent in the National Guard to restore order on May 2.  The 1,000 National Guard troopers and the students kept their distance for two days.  But with classes resuming on May 4, antiwar protestors screamed, "Pigs off campus" and hurled rocks at 75 advancing Guardsmen brandishing rifles with bayonets.  Twenty-nine soldiers eventually opened fire, killing four of the students and creating a national crisis.
Newsom knows the risks he faces if the Orange County protests create a violent confrontation.  But he also is keenly aware that former vice president Joe Biden's bid for the Democrat Party presidential nomination may collapse over "#MeToo" sexual assault charges by former staffer Tara Reade after a disastrous MSNBC interview when Biden refused to allow access to 1,875 boxes of documents and 415 gigabytes of electronic records from his Senate tenure now held at the University of Delaware.
Newsom appears to be the Democrats' most competitive replacement if Biden continues to stumble and he could use the campaign to attack President Trump for refusing to agree to a $1 trillion state of local government bailout.
California's non-partisan legislative analyst Gabriel Petek told state senators on April 30 that the 2020–21 budget shortfall would total about $35 billion in 2020–21 and could metastasize to an additional $85 billion in the following years.
But with temperatures rising and tens of thousands of young people embittered by the statewide coronavirus lockdown, Gavin Newsom had better hope those beach protests do not turn violent and destroy his political future.

California Appoints Illegal Alien to State Office...yes, in Mexifornia you can be unlawfully in the state and still become an 'officer of the court' lawyer!

Lizbeth Mateo (Facebook)

Kobach: California Shouldn’t 

Demand Money from the Rest of 

Us Only to Give it to Illegal 


37,858SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
17 Apr 20208,016
Once again, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has gone to extraordinary lengths to reward illegal immigration and encourage illegal aliens to stay in the United States. On Wednesday, he announced that—due to the coronavirus pandemic—California will give $500 checks to 150,000 low-income illegal aliens. The cost to taxpayers will be $125 million.
This came a day after Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that illegal aliens will be eligible to receive $1,500 checks that the city will be handing out to its residents.
What Newsom and Garcetti are doing is illegal under federal law. In 1996 Congress passed a major welfare reform act. A crucial section of that law prohibits states and localities from giving public benefits to illegal aliens. And it remains in federal law today at 8 U.S.C. 1621: an illegal alien “is not eligible for any State or local public benefit.” Public benefit includes “any … benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government….”
We stopped hoping that California would follow federal law a long time ago; these latest actions continue a pattern. As I wrote last July, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) was the first governor to sign a bill making free health care available to illegal aliens. The cost of providing those benefits to illegal aliens was a massive $98 million. That giveaway, too, violates federal law.
But now Newsom is providing millions of dollars in checks to illegal aliens while at the same time expecting the rest of the country to subsidize this spending. California officials are hoping that the federal government will reimburse 75% of the state’s coronavirus expenditures.
And Democrats in Congress are demanding that we federal taxpayers cough up the money. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) want the federal government to provide $150 billion to state and local governments to help absorb their coronavirus spending.
The audacity of handing unlawful checks to illegal aliens while demanding that the rest of us pay for it is breathtaking. Especially when red states have kept their spending under control and have not been handing checks to illegal aliens.
No state that is handing checks to illegal aliens, subsidizing free health care for illegal aliens, and offering sanctuary to illegal aliens – all in violation of federal law – deserves a penny of assistance from the rest of us taxpayers. Not to mention the fact that an unprecedented number of low-income Americans are unemployed. Those U.S. citizens shouldn’t have to compete with illegal aliens for jobs when the economy reopens. But Newsom and other California Democrats are encouraging the illegal aliens to remain.
You would think that California officials would put U.S. citizens first just once, during this time of national crisis. But you’d be wrong.
Kris W. Kobach is a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2020 and is the former secretary of state of Kansas. He is currently General Counsel for We Build the Wall. An expert in immigration law and policy, he coauthored the Arizona SB-1070 immigration law and represented in federal court the 10 ICE agents who sued to stop President Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty. During 2001-03, he was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law at the Department of Justice. His website is



House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties   Audible Audiobook – Abridged


How did the Bushes, America's most powerful political family, become gradually seduced by and entangled with their Saudi counterparts?
Why did the Bush administration approve the secret airlift of 140 Saudis, including two dozen relatives of Osama bin Laden, just after September 11? Did one of the Saudi royals on the planes have any advance knowledge of the attacks?
What specifically chosen words did George W. Bush say on national television during the 2000 election campaign to trigger Muslim support? How did Saudi-funded Islamic groups propel Bush to victory in Florida, thus winning him the presidency?
The answers to these questions lie in a largely hidden relationship between the House of Bush and the House of Saud that began in the mid-1970s. An amazing weave of money, power, and influence, it takes place all over the globe and involves war, covert operations, and huge deals in oil and defense industries. But, most horrifyingly of all, the secret liasion between these two great families helped trigger the Age of Terror and give rise to the tragedy of 9-11.

Reviewed in the United States
Verified Purchase
This book will test you. When you wonder aloud why Congress doesn’t get anything done, foreign wars continue without reason and deficits are so high, most are unable to see the cause. Unger doesn’t explain it all but he explains the relationship between money and power better than any book I’ve read to date.

The storyline of the book takes you through how the rich Saudi ruling class and really a group of Texan oilmen bonded over business. When you read about the genesis of the relationship in the 70s during the first part of the book, it looked merely like the cozy insider-only type of stuff that is common in the fabric of corporate America and most human relationships.

But the nuance Unger uncovers with his hawk-like ability to pull minutiae from rivers of source material outlines a darker agenda. His fact finding mission lays bare a Saudi elite trying to nudge the levers of power in Washington. And with this insight, Unger explains the nearly invisible pattern in which money buys powers in America. Unger’s work uncovers so many conspicuous connections amongst so many smart, ambitious men that coincidence is ruled out as the cause. Complicity makes the case here as well as any outsider like Unger can.

But the circumstantial nature of this book cannot be completely swept away. Unger has grokked the nefarious nature of this relationship but is missing the proverbial smoking gun. There is no ipso facto ‘A funded B which lead to C relationship’ outlined in the book. The closest we get to this as a reader is when the Bin Laden family and other Saudi royals are ferried out of the country while the FAA has all airspace on lockdown, a fascinating story that makes the TSA’s security theatre we endure at every airport comically irksome.

Recommending this book is easy, but to whom I would make that recommendation is difficult. If you sometimes watch/read the news with an open mind and wonder, “How did we get to this place?”, then I’d put this book on your list. If you’re knowledge of the middle east and current events is low, try paying attention to that news first, watch for the patterns and then read this to learn the connections. Most importantly though, any citizen trying to understand the ways in which money buys power in the modern nation-state needs to read this book.

National Day of Prayer: Remembering Those Suffering Worldwide for Their Faith

As we mark yet another National Day of Prayer, our freedoms here at home remind us of the need to pray for those who lack them around the world.  In the United States, we can offer a prayer of thanks that religious freedom is not yet obliterated and faith is not yet coerced.  As we acknowledge our blessings and lift our supplications to our Creator, this is an opportune moment to look outside ourselves and beyond our borders to pray for the needs of others — including those being persecuted for their faith around the world.
In the world's most populous country, the Chinese government seeks to suffocate Christianity and other faiths under the burden of a bureaucracy intensely hostile to the threat posed by a higher power.  House churches not sanctioned by the state may be harassed by authorities and shut down, their members and pastors arrested.  In state-approved churches, the government tears down crosses and removes copies of the Ten Commandments — sometimes replacing them with quotes from President Xi Jinping.  Facial recognition cameras are starting to be installed in churches to ensure compliance with government regulations.  Beijing's now infamous oppression of Uyghur Muslims has revealed the brutality with which the Chinese government will treat its religious minorities.
The secretive regime of North Korea continues to be widely considered the world's worst violator of religious freedom.  The only faith allowed in the hermit kingdom is the worship of the Kim family dictators.  Any expression of Christianity may land a person in a labor camp, where one is forced to suffer torture and perform hard labor, enduring horrific living conditions.  The dire situation in the world's most isolated country requires our urgent prayers.
Christians in India have experienced an uptick in religiously motivated attacks this year.  Indian Christians and others regularly face violent attacks by Hindu mobs.  Such attacks are implicitly encouraged by the ruling Hindu nationalist leaders, who advance the idea that to be "Indian is to be Hindu" — a narrative that fuels cultural discrimination against the marginalized Christian community.
In Pakistan, the country's notorious blasphemy laws are weaponized against the vulnerable Christian community, which faces an unsympathetic court system.  False accusations of blasphemy often keep Christians imprisoned for years, with as many as 200 Christians in prison on blasphemy charges as of May 2019.
Across the Middle East, Christians face an array of dangers and deprivations.  Christians along Syria's war-torn northern border have become refugees, herded into crowded and unhygienic camps and other temporary shelters.  Fears of Turkish military attacks and COVID-19 infections are rampant, thanks to broken treaties; home invasions; and a lack of clean water for drinking, cleaning, and bathing due to sabotaged water lines.
ISIS drove thousands of Iraqi Christians from their homes in 2014, and many more remain displaced.  Iraq once had an ancient Christian community of some 1.4 million before the ISIS invasion.  Today, church leaders estimate that only about 150,000 Christians remain in the country — where many suffer abuse at the hand of Iranian Islamists.
Iran itself is controlled by a notoriously vicious regime, which continues its abuse of Christians and other religious minorities.  It particularly targets converts from Islam, estimated to number in the tens of thousands.  These Muslim-background believers, who continue to meet secretly in underground house churches while quietly evangelizing, are angrily targeted by the regime and face arrest and imprisonment in Iran's filthy, overcrowded prisons.
In Egypt, Coptic Christians continue to be threatened, primarily by Islamic State radicals.  Meanwhile, all across the vast continent of Africa, Christians face grave dangers at the hand of terrorist groups like Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, Fulani militants, al Shabaab, and the Islamic State.  In West Africa, the Sahel region is experiencing increasingly deadly attacks.  Nigeria is particularly victimized.  Young women are kidnapped, churchgoers are murdered en masse, and Christian villages and towns are burned to the ground or seized by Islamist invaders.
This quick survey of the globe can be distressing enough.  Yet on this National Day of Prayer, anxiety and uncertainty about ensuing economic difficulties continue to spread here in America following the coronavirus pandemic.  At this time, it is right that we intercede for our own families, friends, and loved ones while giving thanks for the blessings we still enjoy.
At the same time, let us take a moment to look beyond ourselves and our borders, to consider the trials faced at this very moment by millions of our fellow Christians.  Our own challenges are undeniable, but let us also reflect on those who endure indescribable dangers every day.  We may not know their names, but they are part of our spiritual family and in grave need of our prayers.  Let us remember to pray for our sisters and brothers who are struggling to survive overseas and around the world.
Lela Gilbert is senior fellow for international religious freedom at the Family Research Council, and Arielle Del Turco is assistant director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council.

Despite ISIS Fall and Coronavirus, First Week of Ramadan Deadlier than 2019

Taliban fighters gather in Surkhroad district of Nangarhar province, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, June 16, 2018. A suicide bomber blew himself up in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday as mostly Taliban fighters gathered to celebrate a three-day cease fire marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr, killing 21 people and …
AP Photo/Rahmat Gal

Islamic terrorists, mainly the Taliban, were responsible for 185 fatalities and 188 injuries during the first week of Ramadan, a time when extremists believe martyrdom and jihad are exceptionally rewarded in paradise, a Breitbart News tally revealed.
That means, on average, terrorists killed about 26 people each day during the first full seven days of the holiest week for Muslims — April 24 to 30. During that same period, there were 60 terrorist attacks that took place in 13 countries, resulting in a total of 373 casualties, including fatalities and injuries.
That translates to over 50 casualties each day during the holiest month for Islam adherents.
As it has done in the last three years, Breitbart News will provide regular updates on the carnage during Ramadan, which began at sunset on April 23 in most countries and will last through sundown on May 23.
The first full day of fasting fell on April 24, the first day Breitbart News began its count.
While several countries and regions have put their citizens on some form of lockdown, including Kabul, the coronavirus pandemic plaguing the globe has not slowed the war in Afghanistan.
So far, the deadliest group during the ongoing month of Ramadan is the Afghan Taliban, responsible for 130 deaths, or nearly 70 percent of all fatalities during the first week. Afghan Taliban jihadis are also behind over 75 percent (144) of all injuries.
As a result of the Taliban’s relentless attacks, Afghanistan is so far the deadliest country of the holy month, home to 40, or about two-thirds, of all 60 documented assaults during the first week of Ramadan.
The Taliban rejected a U.S.-backed Ramadan truce offered by Afghanistan, reportedly saying a ceasefire is “not rational” as they ramp up attacks on the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) and civilians.
At the end of February, the United States and the Taliban narco-jihadis signed an agreement calling for the conditions-based withdrawal of American and foreign military forces.
Even as the Taliban ramps up attacks, the first phase of the withdrawal of foreign forces is already underway, a U.S. reconstruction watchdog noted last week. America is reportedly working on bringing the number of American troops in the war and pandemic-ravaged country to well below 10,000. American troops invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.
Despite the demise of its so-called caliphate in March 2019, the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) and its affiliates continue to wreak havoc, responsible for 36 deaths and five injuries during the first days of Ramadan, primarily in Iraq.
“The terrorist activities of Daesh [Islamic State] have increased during Ramadan [Muslims’ holy month],” Nihad Mohammed, a spokesperson for the police in Iraq’s Diyala province, declared.
The jihadi group continues to operate outside the Middle East. On April 27, an ISIS-linked man in France rammed his car into two police motorcyclists, seriously injuring them.
There was also one ISIS-linked attack each in Egypt, the Philippines, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Although to a much lesser extent, other jihadi groups have also been carrying out attacks during Ramadan, including Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Iran-allied Shiite Houthis in Yemen, and the al-Qaeda-linked Hayyat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS).
Even with the fall of the ISIS caliphate in 2019, the first week of Ramadan this year is deadlier than in 2019. Jihadists killed at least 165 people and injured another 145 in the first week of that year.
Jihadist groups and other Islamists are known to urge their members and supporters to engage in jihad on Ramadan, believing that martyrs will get extra rewards in paradise. Despite these attempts, the vast majority of Muslims solely abide by Ramadan’s fasting tradition: abstaining from eating, drinking, smoking, having sex, and other physical needs each day, starting from before the break of dawn until sunset.
Breitbart News primarily gleans its tally from the Religion of Peace website in coordination with news and government reports.
Given that news outlets and governments fail to report many of the terrorist attacks in real-time, the casualty total for the first week is subject to change.
Government officials may also update some of the casualty totals as some of the injured victims succumb to their injuries.
All the terrorist attacks so far during Ramadan 2020, as documented by Breitbart News, include:
April 24 — Badghis, Afghanistan — Taliban kills 13 local policemen and takes eight other prisoners in the village of Laman in Qala-e-Naw City.
April 24 — Ghor, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one civilian in the village of Teghah-e-Timor in Firoz Koh.
April 24 — Diyala, Iraq — Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) kills at least two members of the pro-government Sunni militia forces Al-Hashd Al- Shayari.
April 24 — Borno, Nigeria — Suspected Boko Haram jihadists kill five, including three policemen, and wound “several others” in the state capital of Maiduguri.
April 24 — Faryab/Ghazni, Afghanistan — Taliban kills three civilians in northern Faryab province, one other in eastern Ghazni, wounds a total of 25 others, including women and children.
April 24 — Deir Ezzor, Syria — ISIS kills official in charge of fuel and his nephew in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Syria.
April 25 — Badghis, Afghanistan — Taliban mortar kills a woman, wounds a child in the village of Kamengi Oliya in Qadis District.
April 25 — Jowzjan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two pro-government militia members and wounds four others in the Hyderabad village of Faizabad District.
April 25 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban kills a 70-year-old man in the village of Sufi Qala located in the Qaisar district.
April 25 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban improvised explosive device, or IED, kills a child and injures an adult civilian in Almar district.
April 25 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one and wounds ten civilians, including women and children, in Kohi village of Qaisar district.
April 25 — Uruzgan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills four policemen and wounds three others.
April 25 — Dhalea, Yemen — Iran-backed Houthi rebels kill five pro-government forces, wound 11 others in the al-Husha district.
April 25 — North Waziristan, Pakistan — Unknown jihadis kill two soldiers who reportedly “embraced martyrdom,” wound five in Khaisura and Dossali
April 25 — Logar, Afghanistan — Taliban kills 7 members of the Afghan National Defense Security Forces (ANDSF), and kidnaps four others in Barak-e-Barak district. The ANDSF includes police and army units.
April 26 — Parwan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills police officer in the Matak area of Charikar District.
April 26 — Herat, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two police officers, wounds another in the village of Qasr-e-Naser in Pashtun-Zarghun District.
April 26 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one soldier and is linked to killing one civilian and wounding three others in Shirin Tagab district.
April 26 — Logar, Afghanistan — Taliban kills five police officers and takes four other prisoners in Baraki Barak district.
April 26 — Uruzgan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills three police officers, wounds two in the Nachin area of Tarin Kot.
April 26 — Mogadishu, Somalia — Al-Qaeda-affiliate al-Shabaab kills four and wounds three in the Halane base that houses American and European troops.
April 26 — Takhar, Afghanistan — Taliban kills seven, wounds three government-backed militiamen in Khwaja Bahauddin district.
April 26 — North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — Fighters from the ISIS-linked Armed Democratic Force (ADF) kill six, including one woman, in the town of Malambo.
April 26 — Al Anbar, Iraq — ISIS kills Walid district councilman, kidnaps his son, wounds two other family members.
April 26 — Mogadishu, Somalia — Al-Shabaab assassinates a businessman.
April 27 — Diyala, Iraq — ISIS wound two policemen.
April 27 — Jowzjan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two soldiers, wounds three in Mingajik District.
April 27 — Takhar, Afghanistan — Taliban Red Unit kills four pro-government militia members, wounds two others in Laala Gozar village of Yangi Qala District.
April 27 — Badghis, Afghanistan — Taliban marksman kills two police officers and wounds another as they were bringing water from a well in the village of Mirza-Ali in Qadis District.
April 27 — Kunduz, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two soldiers, wounds another in Seh Chinara area of Chardara District.
April 27 — Kunduz, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one police officer, wounds another in the Aqi Bai village of Imam Sahib District.
April 27 — Herat, Afghanistan — Taliban jihadis on motorcycle kill one member of the primary intelligence agency in Afghanistan, the National Security Directorate (NDS) in Golran District.
April 27 — Paktia, Afghanistan — Taliban kills four police officers in Gardez City.
April 27 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban abducts and kills three civilians in Maimana City.
April 27 — Colombes, France — ISIS-linked man rammed his car into two police motorcyclists, seriously injuring them.
April 28 — Herat, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one soldier, wounds another in the village of Noorzayeha in Koshk-e-Kohneh District.
April 28 — Kirkuk, Iraq — ISIS suicide attack wounds three security forces.
April 29 — Central District, Israel — Palestinian teen stabs 62-year-old Israeli woman in the town of Kfar Saba in what authorities described as a terror attack.
April 29 — South Cotabato, Philippines — Jihadis from the ISIS-linked Ansar Al-Khilafah kill two police officers in an outskirt village in Polomolok.
April 29 — Kabul, Afghanistan —Taliban kills three civilians and wounds 15 others in the Reshkhor area of Char Asyab district.
April 29 — Kunduz, Afghanistan — Taliban kills three soldiers, wounds another, and kidnaps an additional soldier in the Zakhil-e-Qadim area of Kunduz city.
April 29 — Logar, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two soldiers, wounds another in Kharwar District.
April 29 — Badghis, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one pro-government militiaman, wounds another in the village of Kharistan in Moqor District.
April 29 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two police officers in the Hadbakhshi area of Khan Charbagh District.
April 29 — Faryab, Afghanistan — Taliban kills one soldier, one civilian woman, wounds 15 civilians, one soldier in Shirin Tagab district.
April 29 — Herat, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two soldiers in the village of Khawja-Jir in Koshk-e-Robatsangi District.
April 29 — Herat, Afghanistan — Taliban kills two soldiers in the village of Chah-Rig in Ghoryan District.
April 29 — Samangan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills nine pro-government militiamen and wounds nine others.
April 29 — Kunduz, Afghanistan — Taliban kills four police officers and wounds three others in the Aqi Bai and Naw Abad villages of Imam Sahib District.
April 29 — Badakhshan, Afghanistan — Taliban kills three police officers, one pro-government militiaman, two members of territorial army, and wounds eight others.
April 30 — Ghazni, Afghanistan — Taliban roadside bomb kills two men, two women, one child in the Nazar Khan area of Andar District.
April 30 — Kunduz, Afghanistan — Taliban Red Unit kills three police officers, wounds seven on the highway connecting Khan Abad District to Kunduz City.
April 30 — Takhar, Afghanistan — Taliban Red Unit kills five pro-government militiamen, wounds five others in the Laala Gozar village of Yangi Qala District.
April 30 — Sinai, Egypt — An ISIS improvised explosive device (IED) kills up to ten soldiers near the southern city of Bir al-Abd.
April 30 — Diyala, Iraq — ISIS snipers wound two policemen.
April 30 — Dhaka, Bangladesh — Unknown terrorists target house of Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami leader, killing a child and wounding 11.
April 30 — Helmand, Afghanistan — Taliban IED kills the head of the intelligence office of Nawa district and his bodyguard.
April 30 — Deir Ezzor, Syria — ISIS IED strikes a bus carrying Syrian soldiers, killing six Syrian soldiers.
April 30 — Aleppo, Syria — Al-Qaeda-linked Hayyat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) kills a civilian, injures five others.
April 30 — Idlib, Syria — HTS kills a Kurdish civilian.

Muslim Deceit and the Burden of Proof

In his recent defense of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (dismantled here), Usama Hasan of the UK think tank Quilliam made the following admission:
It is true that hardened islamist terrorists, such as the Al-Qaeda & ISIS supporter Usman Khan who murdered two people at Fishmongers’ Hall [after pretending to have been “rehabilitated”], do misuse the principle of taqiyyah in order to further their cause. However, the charge that all Muslims are generally religiously obligated to lie, and do so routinely, is both dangerous and untrue.
However true this may be, it is also irrelevant.  After all, how is the infidel to know which Muslim is and isn’t “misusing the principle of taqiyyah”?  Moreover, why should the burden of proof be on the non-Muslim -- who stands to (and often does) suffer and even die from ignoring the role of deceit in Islam -- and not on the Muslim, whose religion allows deception in the first place? This is particularly so since more than a few “hardened islamist terrorists” are convinced that their creed allows them to dissimulate to their heart’s content -- so long as doing so can be seen as helping further the cause of Islam.
In this, as in virtually all things Islamic, Muslims have their prophet’s example -- two that are especially poignant -- to turn to. 
First is the assassination of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf (d. 624), an elderly Jew.  Because he dared mock Muhammad, the latter exclaimed, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to Ka‘b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew. 
Allah’s messenger agreed. So Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to complain about Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that Ka‘b eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.
After behaving as his friend for some time, Ibn Maslama eventually appeared with another Muslim, also pretending to have apostatized.  Then, while a trusting Ka‘b’s guard was down, they attacked and slaughtered him, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!”
In another account, after Muhammad and his followers had attacked, plundered, and massacred a number of non-Muslim Arabs and Jews, the latter assembled and were poised to defeat the Muslims (at the Battle of the Trench, 627).   But then Naim bin Mas‘ud, one of the leaders of these non-Muslim “confederates,” as they came to be known in history, secretly went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his tribesmen and allies -- without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp -- and to try to get them to abandon the siege.  “For,” Muhammad assured him, “war is deceit.”
Mas‘ud returned, pretending to be loyal to his former kinsmen and allies, all while giving them bad advice. He also subtly instigated quarrels between the various tribes until, no longer trusting each other, they disbanded -- thereby becoming a celebrated hero in Islamic tradition.
In the two well-known examples above, Muslims deceived non-Muslims not because they were being persecuted for being Muslim but as a tactic to empower Islam.  (Even the Battle of the Trench was precipitated precisely because Muhammad and his followers had first attacked the confederates at the Battle of Badr and massacred hundreds of them on other occasions.)
Despite these stories being part of the Sunna to which Sunnis adhere, UCLA’s Abou El Fadl -- the primary expert the Washington Post once quoted to show that Islam does not promote deceit -- claims that “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.”
Tell that to Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, whose head was cut off for believing Muslim lies.  The prophet of Islam allowed his followers to deceive the Jew to slaughter him -- even though Ka‘b posed no threat to any Muslim’s life.
Especially revealing is that, in Dr. Sami Makerem’s seminal book on the topic, Al-Taqiyya fi’l Islam (Taqiyya in Islam), he cites the two aforementioned examples from the prophet’s biography as prime examples of taqiyya.
It comes to this: even if  one were to accept the limited definition of taqiyya as permitting deception only under life-threatening circumstances (as Usama Hasan and any number of apologists insist), the fact remains: Islam also permits lies and deception in order to empower itself.  Accordingly, and considering that Islam considers itself in a constant state of war with non-Islam (typified by the classical formulation of Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb) any Muslim who feels this or that piece of deception over the infidel is somehow benefiting Islam will believe that he has a blank check to lie. 
That’s the inconvenient fact -- passingly admitted to by Usama Hasan -- that needs addressing; and that’s why the burden of proof belongs on Muslims, not non-Muslims.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center; a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute; and a Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


'Hating and Loving' for Islam

Understanding the roots of terror.
January 17, 2020 
Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
During a New Year’s Eve Islamic terror attack that took place in Russia minutes before the clock struck midnight, two Muslim men—Akhmed Imagozhev, 22 and Mikail Miziyev, 18—drove their car into and stabbed to death two police officers, one a married father of four.  Other officers subsequently shot one of the jihadis dead, while hospitalizing the other.
An image of the two Muslim men posing with knives was later found on social media.  Beneath it appeared the words, “love and hatred based on Tawhid!”  This is hardly the first time this ostensibly oxymoronic phrase appears in connection with Islamic acts of terror.  After launching a successful terror attack that killed two policemen in the Kashmir Valley, the militant commander of Kashmir’s Hizb al-Mujahidin—“the Party of Jihadis”—justified the murders by saying,  “We love and hate for the sake of Allah.”
Interestingly, in this otherwise cryptic motto lie the roots of Islam’s conflict with the rest of the world.  “Loving and hating” is one of several translations of the Islamic doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ (which since 2006 I have generally translated as “Loyalty and Enmity”).
The wala’ portion—“love,” “loyalty,” etc.—requires Muslims always to aid and support fellow Muslims (including jihadis, for example through funds or zakat).  As one medieval Muslim authority explained, the believer “is obligated to befriend a believer—even if he is oppressive and violent toward you — while he must be hostile to the infidel—even if he is liberal and kind to you” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 64 ).   This is a clear reflection of Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.”
But it is the bara’—the “hate,” the “enmity”—that manifests itself so regularly that even those in the West who are not necessarily acquainted with the particulars of Muslim doctrine sense it.  For instance, in November 2015, after a series of deadly Islamic terror strikes in the West, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “I think Islam hates us.  There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
This “tremendous” and “unbelievable hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an “extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching.  Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself.  As Osama bin Laden once wrote:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion.  (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Similarly, the Islamic State confessed to the West in the context of Koran 60: 4 that “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.”  As for any and all political “grievances,” these are “secondary” reasons for the jihad, ISIS said:
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
Koran 58:22 goes as far as to praise Muslims who kill their own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.”
According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother, a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his non-Muslim son, and Omar, the second righteous caliph, slaughtered his relatives).   Ibn Kathir adds that Allah was immensely pleased by their unwavering zeal for his cause and rewarded them with paradise. (The Al Qaeda Reader75-76).
In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ permeate the Koran (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1).  There is one caveat, captured by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims, as long as the hate carries on in their hearts (such is taqiyya; see herehere, and here for examples; for other Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir).
Little wonder, then, that America’s supposed best Muslim friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—are on record calling on all Muslims to hate.  According to a Saudi governmental run website,  Muslims must “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”
Indeed, because enmity for non-Muslims is so ironclad in the Koran, mainstream Islamic teaching holds that Muslim men must even hate—and show that they hate—their non-Muslim wives, for no other reason than that they are “infidels.”
If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Islamic world as trying to undermine Islam?
In short, jihad—or terrorism, war on non-Muslims for no less a reason than that they are non-Muslims—is simply the physical realization of an overlooked concept that precedes it: Islam’s unequivocal command for Muslims to hate non-Muslims.



“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI

Koran 2:191 "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".

“The tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply penetrated the world. The Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear threat in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood also wages its deadly campaign through its dozens of well-established and functioning branches all over the world.”

“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI

* We will take advantage of their immigration policy to infiltrate them.

* We will use their own welfare system to provide us with food, housing, schooling, and health care, while we out breed them and plot against them. We will Caliphate on their dime.

* We will use political correctness as a weapon. Anyone who criticizes us, we will take the opportunity to grandstand and curry favor from the media and Democrats and loudly accuse our critics of being an Islamophobe.

* We will use their own discrimination laws against them and slowly introduce Sharia Law into their culture..


Duping Americans on Sharia

A detailed look at how Islamic apologist extraordinaire John Esposito whitewashes Islamic terror.
January 14, 2020 
Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Does Islam itself promote hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties between the West and Islam based on secondary factors—from “radical” interpretations of Islam, to economics and grievances?
This is the fundamental question.
Obviously, if “anti-infidel” hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential—a true clash of civilizations, with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications along the horizon.
Because of this truism, those whose job it is to whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the opposite—that all difficulties are temporal and not rooted to innate Islamic teachings.
Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know, co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas.  The authors’ goal is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western criticism or fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and “sensationalism.”
In their introductory chapters they define Shariah as being built upon the words of the Koran and the Sunna (or example) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained in sahih (canonical) hadiths.  They add: “Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing.  The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation, application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind throughout this book…. Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law (fiqh) is fallible and changeable.”
Next the authors highlight how important Shariah is to a majority of Muslims.  They cite a 2013 Pew Poll which found that  69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73% in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Shariah is God’s [Allah’s] divine revelation.”
Even larger numbers “favored the establishment of Shariah as official law”: 99% in Afghanistan, 84% in South Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 64% in sub-Saharan Africa.
So far so good.  The authors’ introductory claims (that Shariah is fundamental to Islam) and statistics (that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented) are correct.
But they also beg the aforementioned question: is Shariah itself behind the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed in the name of Islam?
Here, the hitherto objective authors shift gears and take on the mantle of apologists. Their thesis is simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are to be pinned on anything and everything—so long as it’s not Shariah.
In order to support this otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the remainder of the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots of contextual omissions and historical distortions.
A small sampling follows:
Shariah on Women
The authors quote and discuss at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive (Koran 30:21, 3:195, and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that permit husbands to beat their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed however you wish” (2:223).  Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions that women are “lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s denizens, as recounted in a canonical hadith.
They partially quote Koran 4:3: “…marry those that please you of other women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then marry only one.”  This suits the authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as implicitly recommending only one wife, since it acknowledges the near impossibility for a man to treat all wives equally.  Yet the authors deliberately cut off the continuation of that verse—which permits Muslim men to copulate with an unlimited amount of sex slaves (ma malakat aymanukum) even if they are married.
They also dissemble about child marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but only when “the child reaches a mature age.”   Yet they make no mention that, based on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha—that is, based on his Sunna, which is immutable and part of Shariah—nine is considered a “mature age.”
Freedom of Religion and Non-Muslims
The authors claim that “There are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of religion and conscience.”  They quote many at length and assert that “The guiding Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is that believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”
Yet they fail to mention or sideline the many contradictory verses that call for relentless war on non-Muslims—who are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran 25:44 —until they surrender, one way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29).
They fail to quote the verses that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (“Loyalty and Enmity”), including Koran 5:51, which forbids Muslims from befriending Jews and Christians, and Koran 60:4, which commands Muslims to harbor only “hate” for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah alone.”
Needless to say, they ignore Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign friendship for non-Muslims, whenever the former are under the latter’s authority (such is the doctrine of taqiyya; see herehereherehere, and here for examples).
It is, incidentally, because of all these divisive Koran verses—because of Shariah—that the Islamic State forthrightly explained, “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.”
The closest the authors get to address these issues is in a section titled, “Can Muslims in the West be Loyal Citizens.”  They respond with a yes—but the evidence they cite are polls (based on wishful interpretations), which of course tells the reader little about the topic they purport to “de-mythologize”: Shariah.
As might be expected, when the authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches a new level.  They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Shariah, is simply the Muslim counterpart of Western Just War theory, which teaches that war and aggression are permissible, but only in defense or to recover one’s territory from occupiers:  “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending Islam and the Muslim community.”   As usual, they spend much time quoting and elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while ignoring or sidelining the many contradictory verses.  In reality, mainstream Islam holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and 9:29) have abrogated all the peaceful ones, thereby making warfare on non-Muslims—for no less a reason than that they are non-Muslims—obligatory.
Consider Koran 9:29:  “Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [Islam] from the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
What, exactly, is “defensive” about this verse?
Similarly, they claim that dar al-harb, or “abode of war”—Islam’s designation for all those non-Muslim territories (such as Europe) that Muslims were historically in a permanent state of war with—“applied to other parties with whom Muslims were in conflict.” Again, they fail to mention that the primary reason Muslims were “in conflict” with them was because they were non-Muslim, and that all non-Muslim territories were by default part of the “abode of war,” except when treaties advantageous to Islam were drawn.
Instead, the authors say, “The territories classified as the abode of war were those that refused to provide such protection to Muslims and their clients”—thereby implying Muslims were hostile to, say, Europe, because Europe was first hostile to Muslims.  (Reality, as chronicled in Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, was the exact opposite.)
Miscellaneous Subterfuge
One can go on and on; the authors engage in other forms of subterfuge to exonerate Shariah.  They frequently project a Western veneer to Islamic terms and concepts, saying for example that Shariah is ultimately about “promoting good and preventing evil”—which sounds admirable—without pointing out that, based on the Koran and Sunna (that is, Shariah), conquering non-Muslim territories is about “promoting good” and keeping women under wraps and indoors, beating them as required, is about “preventing vice.”
While admitting that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities are currently being persecuted, not only do the authors insist that this has nothing to do with Shariah, but they invoke relativistic thinking: “Just as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are often concerned with their rights and civil liberties as minorities,” they say, “so some consider the rights and status of non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim countries to be a parallel issue.” In other words, because some Americans view Muslims in their midst with suspicion, the ongoing enslavement and slaughter of Christians—more than 6,000 in Nigeria alone since January 2018—and ban on or destruction of churches is a sort of tit for tat, a “parallel issue” that can only be solved when the West becomes less critical about Islam.
Relativism is also invoked during the authors’ brief treatment of apostasy in Islam: “Historically, apostasy was sometimes punishable by death in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.”  They claim that apostasy is still a major issue in Islam due to “radical” interpretations or politics—bolstering their position by again quoting the same Koran verses that seem to support freedom of religion—without mentioning, say, the canonical hadith (meaning part of Shariah) where Muhammad said, “Whoever leaves his religion [Islam], kill him.”
Such is how Islam’s skilled apologists dupe the West: they admit to some of the more controversial aspects that many other apologists shy away from—namely that Shariah is indeed foundational to Islam and that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented—but then, having established trust with the reader, they slip back into the “game,” portraying all the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism daily committed in the name of Islam as products of anything and everything—fallible Muslim interpretations, self-serving clerics and terrorists, socio-economic pressures, Western criticism or encroachments—never Shariah itself.
Contrary to its subtitle, then, John Esposito’s  and Natana J. Delong-Bas’s Shariah is not “what everyone needs to know”; rather, it is what non-Muslims need to believe in order to give Shariah—which is fundamentally hostile to all persons and things un-Islamic—a free pass.