JOE BIDEN'S JIHAD ON AMERICA

 

Ingraham: Biden 'flooding America' as thousands of Afghans

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGMrd8zV5_M

 Hannity: Biden clearly lied

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtLvYnIPFA

 

Tucker: You don't see this everyday, in fact you never see it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OmWkozn_iQ

FLEECED! How aid billions were squandered in Afghanistan: £4 million on Tuscan goats for the cashmere trade, £120 million on Dubai villas for corrupt politicians and £400 million on aircraft left to rot

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9914921/How-aid-billions-squandered-Afghanistan-including-4m-Tuscan-goats-cashmere-trade.html

 

On Contact: The debacle in Afghanistan

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7ZQHssDTbc

How U.S. Failure in Afghanistan Validates the Koran’s Jihadist Teachings

Jihadist zeal is at an all-time high, for the Koran always “foretold” America’s failure.

Thu Sep 23, 2021 

Raymond Ibrahim

 7 comments

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

While it should be a no-brainer that the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan has emboldened like-minded (read: “radical”) Muslims to no end, few in the West appreciate how this episode—especially America’s disastrous retreat under Biden—is being used to validate the Koran itself, and thus reignite Muslim zeal and faith in Islam.

Since August 15, 2021, when the Taliban reconquered Afghanistan, anytime I watched an Arabic language program or sheikh speak, they cited several Koran verses as “proof” that it was only inevitable—only a matter of time—that the U.S. would be humiliated and the Taliban exalted.

Consider, as one example, the words of popular sheikh, Wagdi Ghoneim (pictured above). An Egyptian scholar of Islam and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he is notorious for issuing violent fatwas against Israel and inciting hatred against other “infidels” (including by threatening Egypt’s indigenous Christian minority, the Copts with genocide). With such “credentials,” it should come as no surprise that he once served as the imam of the Islamic Institute of Orange County, California, and was a fundraiser for the Toledo, Ohio charity, KindHearts (a Hamas front).

On August 15, 2021, this Ghoneim offered a “victory” speech that—at least as of publication of this article—still appears on YouTube, titled (in translation), “Allahu Akbar: The Taliban’s Victory Represents the Power of Jihad in Allah’s Way.”   He began his talk by quoting the Koran on the virtues of jihad, for example:

O believers! Be mindful of Allah and seek what brings you closer to him and perform jihad in his way, so you may be successful (5:35).

O believers! March forth [into battle] whether it is easy or difficult for you, and perform jihad with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if only you knew (9:41).

Having laid the doctrinal framework for jihad, Ghoneim moved on to its most important aspect—perseverance: “The Taliban persevered in its jihad for 20 years,” he stressed.  “This isn’t a problem—what’s 20 years in the context of history? Who said [the outcome of] jihad is instantaneous?  No! It requires patience and time!”

In fact, patience and perseverance in the jihad was his grand point—not to mention the grand takeaway lesson of Afghanistan for all Muslims.  It is for Allah to decree when the jihad succeeds; for every day Muslims, there duty is simply and always to wage it.  If they do so, Allah, according to his word, shall eventually bless them with victory.

Supporting Koran verses Ghoneim cited include,

We will certainly test you until we learn who among you are the true mujahidin [jihadists] who remain steadfast and how you conduct yourselves (47:31).

Do you think you will enter Paradise without Allah proving which of you truly performed jihad for his cause and patiently endured? (3:142).

O believers! Patiently endure, persevere, stand on guard, and be mindful of Allah, that you may be successful (3:200).

Interestingly, the phrase “stand on guard” in Koran 3:200 literally means “perform ribat,” that is, man the frontier zone, whence the infidels should be harried, including through guerilla tactics—precisely what the Taliban did.

Finally, Ghoneim moved onto Allah’s words concerning infidels, especially those who try to prevent Muslims from performing jihad and enforcing sharia; he quoted Koran 8:36: “Surely the infidels spend their wealth to prevent others from the Way of Allah [sabil allah, i.e., jihad]. They will continue to spend to the point of regret. Then they will be defeated and the infidels will be driven into hell.”

As countless other Muslim clerics and leaders have done, are doing, and will do for years to come, Ghoneim proceeded to expound how that particular Koran verse foretold America’s defeat—that is, so long as there were always Muslims willing to persevere in the jihad, namely the Taliban.  At one point he descended into wild gloating: “See how much they lost by way of dead and wounded—and trillions, all lost!...  So you see, trillions they have lost!”

Because Ghoneim made this video on August 15, when it was still unknown that billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. weapons had fallen into the hands of the Taliban, he did not mention it—though countless other clerics have since, citing it as proof of how Allah blesses his jihadist servants, while humiliating their infidel enemies.

At any rate, the take away lesson from Afghanistan for millions of Muslims the world over is that perseverance in jihad and patience pays off—just as the Koran says it will.   Put differently, the roles of both the Taliban and the U.S. have now confirmed for Muslims the truths of the Koran, specifically, that perseverance in the jihad always leads to victory over and leaves infidels broken—even if it takes years and decades.

“Therefore, thanks be to Allah,” concluded Ghoneim, “that they [Taliban] were patient and steadfast, and Allah rewarded them with victory over the infidel nations.”  He closed by supplicating Allah to let the umma, the entire Muslim world, learn from the Taliban—from “those heroes who raised all of our heads up high and cast the infidels’ heads down in shame.”

As such, expect a renewed and unwavering commitment to the jihad—in all its manifestations, violent and nonviolent—in the foreseeable future.

Biden Taps ‘Sanctuary City’ Supporter To Oversee ICE Prosecutions

Move comes as Biden administration faces an influx of illegal immigrants in Del Rio, Tex.

LA JOYA, TEXAS - APRIL 10: A U.S. Border Patrol agent takes the names of Central American immigrants near the U.S.-Mexico border on April 10, 2021 in La Joya, Texas. A surge of immigrants crossing into the United States, including record numbers of children, continues along the southern border. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Joseph Simonson • September 22, 2021 1:25 pm

SHARE

The Biden administration is tapping a left-wing attorney who has publicly endorsed sanctuary laws for illegal aliens to serve as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's top prosecutor, according to an internal memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

ICE announced the hiring of Kerry Doyle, a longtime partner at the Boston-based law firm Graves & Doyle, as the agency's new principal legal adviser, a role that oversees 25 field locations and 1,250 attorneys. The office serves as ICE’s representative in all removal proceedings and litigates cases against illegal aliens and terrorists. 

"Throughout her legal practice in Boston, Ms. Doyle worked closely with the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition and Massachusetts Law Reform Institute providing technical assistance and public testimony and various immigration-related policy issues before the state legislature and Boston City Council," the ICE memo reads. 

A spokesman for ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Doyle's appointment comes as the Biden administration faces an influx of Haitian refugees, who are overrunning the border city of Del Rio, Texas. After reversing a bevy of Trump-era immigration rules, an uptick in illegal migration across the Southern border has strained resources and presented a political problem for the president, who repudiated Trump's hardline approach to policing the border but risks political blowback from an influx of illegal residents. 

Doyle's LinkedIn profile spotlights her work as co-counsel in a case that pushed for — and won — a temporary restraining order against then-president Donald Trump’s 2017 travel ban. The attorney also spoke in favor of a Massachusetts bill called the "Safe Communities Act" in early 2020 arguing that ICE was "out of control." . The measure would have applied sanctuary city laws nationwide and sharply limited the state’s cooperation with the federal government on the deportation of illegal immigrants.

"The Safe Communities Act limits state cooperation … [with ICE]: don’t ask about immigration status; don’t pay for sheriffs to act as ICE agents; tell people their rights," a description of the bill by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts reads. In June, Doyle told a local news outlet that the state must pass the bill, saying state Democrats should not trust "the Biden administration’s more supportive tone as an excuse not to do what our state needs to do."

Doyle, who did not respond to a request for comment, has also helped represent illegal aliens convicted of crimes in the past. In March, she filed a petition with ACLU Massachusetts to release two criminal aliens with medical conditions, citing the COVID-19 pandemic. Doyle’s name has since been scrubbed from her previous law firm’s website.

One of President Joe Biden’s first executive orders in office was to suspend arrests, deportations, and investigations of most criminal aliens for 100 days. Deportations under Biden have hit a record low. U.S. immigration judges ordered just 25,000 deportations by the end of August, compared to 152,000 in August 2020. The total number of cases completed by immigration courts are at a 28-year low, even as Border Patrol apprehensions hit a 21-year high. 

Doyle will succeed John Trasviña, who assumed the role in January. 

Two Afghans Brought to U.S. Charged with Child Sex Crimes, Strangling Wife While Living on WI Military Base

DCSO

JOHN BINDER

22 Sep 20210

1:58

Two Afghan men, brought to the United States as part of President Joe Biden’s massive resettlement operation out of Afghanistan, have been charged with child sex crimes and domestic abuse while temporarily living at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced federal charges against Afghans Bahrullah Noori, 20-years-old, and Mohammad Haroon Imaad, 32-years-old.

According to prosecutors, Noori is accused of trying to forcefully engage in sexual acts with a minor while temporarily living at Fort McCoy since being brought to the U.S. with tens of thousands of other Afghans. Noori has also been charged with three counts of engaging in a sexual act with a minor and one count alleging the use of force.

An indictment against Noori states that his victims were under the age of 16 and were at least four years younger than him.

In a separate incident, Imaad is accused by prosecutors of strangling and suffocating his wife while temporarily living at Fort McCoy after arriving in the U.S. from Afghanistan. The alleged assault apparently took place on September 7.

Both Noori and Imaad appeared in court in Madison, Wisconsin, on September 16 to face the charges against them and are currently being detained at the Dane County Jail. Their immigration statuses, whether they arrived as refugees, Special Immigrant Visa-holders (SIVs), P-2 visa-holders, or parolees remains unclear.

Noori is facing a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. Imaad is facing a maximum of 10 years in prison.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.

Is Biden Bringing Terrorists From Afghanistan to America?

 By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 22, 2021 | 4:11am EDT

 

 

Afghan evacuees are escorted to a waiting bus after arriving at Dulles International Airport in Chantilly, Virginia on August 23, 2021. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

Is President Joe Biden bringing terrorists from Afghanistan to the United States?

The answer: Even Biden himself cannot know for sure.

The administration is bringing two distinct types of evacuees into the United States from Afghanistan. Some hold special immigrant visas. Others are so-called parolees.

In June, the Congressional Research Service published a report explaining SIVs.

"Congress has enacted a series of legislative provisions since 2006 to enable certain Iraqi and Afghan nationals to become U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPRs)," said CRS. "These provisions make certain Iraqis and Afghans who worked as translators or interpreters, or who were employed by, or on behalf of, the U.S. government in Iraq or Afghanistan, eligible for special immigrant visas (SIVs)."

Allowing Afghan SIV holders to come to the United States is not only understandable; it is laudable. These are people who aided our country in its war against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

But who is a parolee?

"The parole provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)," CRS has reported, "gives the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary authority to 'parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States."

"Parole does not grant, nor entitle beneficiaries to later obtain, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) status," said CRS.

So, the Afghan parolees who have been coming into the United States since the fall of Kabul are people who are not entitled to lawful permanent resident status here, but whom Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has decided to grant entry into our country.

Do any of these parolees belong to, or sympathize with, al-Qaida, ISIS or any other terrorist group?

In a hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 13, Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey questioned Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the vetting of Afghan evacuees brought to this country.

"Were there any gaps or weaknesses in the vetting process of Afghan evacuees, especially in light of the fact that reliable information on some, perhaps many, who got parole wasn't available to conduct a meaningful background check?" asked Smith. "Are you concerned that the Taliban may have embedded its members as evacuees?"

Blinken did not address the fundamental question of where and how the United States would get reliable background information on Afghan nationals, who, unlike SIV holders, had not worked for or on behalf of our government.

"With regard to the background checks, and this is very important, and you're right to focus on it," said Blinken, "as you know, before Afghans evacuated from Afghanistan reach the United States, they go to a transit country, and that's where the initial checks are done."

So, our government removed parolees from Afghanistan before it did background checks on them.

"We've surged Customs and Border Patrol. We've surged our intelligence and law enforcement capacity to do those initial checks," Blinken continued. "And then when they get to the United States, first, at a military base, those checks are continued using all of the law enforcement, intelligence, security agencies to do that so that we can make sure that we are not letting anyone into the country who could pose a threat or risk."

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey is one of the locations the U.S. government has been bringing Afghan evacuees.

In an interview with CNS News on Sept. 20, Rep. Smith described a visit he made to that base on Sept. 2, when he discovered that "more than 70%" of the Afghan evacuees there then were parolees — not SIV holders.

"Well, they had about 3,000 Afghan evacuees there then. Now, it's about 9,400," said Smith. "I saw the military doing a magnificent job to make people feel at home, to make sure they had accommodations. But I was extraordinarily worried and continue to be about the vetting process before they get there."

"I asked very serious questions about: How do you do a background check on someone, particularly somebody in the age where they might be more prone to be an al-Qaida enthusiast," said Smith. "How do you do a background check back in Afghanistan to determine who they are and what their affiliations might have been? From date forward, yeah, you can get fingerprints and all the rest, biometrics, but you can't really look back all that well. So, I didn't get good answers."

Following up on his visit to JB-MDL, Smith sent a letter to Mayorkas on Sept. 13 asking some fundamental questions about the Afghans being brought there.

The most fundamental sought to discover how our government actually determines the identity of an Afghan evacuee. "Is there a biometric and historical database to vet and confirm the identity of any Afghan evacuee who has arrived at a military base, including information about one's history before leaving Afghanistan?" Smith asked the DHS secretary.

Assistant DHS Secretary Alice Lugo sent Smith a letter two days later stating that DHS would answer his questions — sometime in the future.

"Your correspondence is very important to us," Lugo said. "The appropriate Department of Homeland Security Components are preparing information so we can respond with the accuracy and completeness that your letter deserves. Please know that the Department's leadership has accorded your letter a high priority, and we are endeavoring to respond to you as soon as possible."

As of the afternoon of Sept. 21, DHS had still not responded to Smith.

In the meantime, according to Smith, Afghan evacuees have been leaving JB-MDL and venturing into the United States.

Smith was asked by CNS News on Sept. 20: "Have some of the parolees actually left the base there?"

"Yes," said Smith. "I just got the number today. 115 have departed."

(Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews.com.)

10% of Biden’s Afghanistan Aid Will Go To Taliban

Why are American taxpayers funding the Taliban?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 

Daniel Greenfield

 22 comments

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Deborah Lyons, the head of the UN mission in Afghanistan, met with Sirajuddin Haqqani, a wanted terrorist with the Haqqani Network, a Taliban component with close ties to Al Qaeda.

Lyons had served as Canada's ambassador in Kabul when the Taliban carried out a suicide bombing against a Canadian embassy convoy. Lyons put up a monument to the security contractors who were wounded and killed, but they sued after being abandoned afterwards.

Sirajuddin Haqqani is a wanted terrorist with a $10 million FBI reward on his head.

“It is impossible to provide humanitarian assistance inside Afghanistan without engaging with the de facto authorities,”  U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned.

The de facto authorities being the Islamic terrorists of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The official word is that the Taliban won’t stop the UN humanitarian operations. Whether or not the Taliban will refrain from taxing the UN’s proposed $1.2 billion aid boom is another question.

Without waiting for that question to be settled, Biden has not only kicked in $64 million, but the Treasury Department issued a license for Afghanistan aid which states that it, "will continue to support the continuity of the U.S. government’s important humanitarian-related work in the region", while claiming that "we have not reduced sanctions pressure on Taliban leaders or the significant restrictions on their access to the international financial system."

The Taliban and most “humanitarian” groups in Afghanistan are using the Islamic Hawala system which enables international finance and massive terrorist fundraising at the same time.

And “humanitarian aid” is one of the best ways to fund Islamic terrorists. The Taliban impose an Islamic tithe which American taxpayers will end up paying once the millions in aid arrive.

The Taliban had set up its Commission for the Arrangement and Control of Companies and Organisations at least over a decade ago. Much like the old Afghan government, it made few distinctions between for-profit companies and non-profit charities, and taxed them both.

When the United States was in control of Afghanistan, USAID and the UN were exempted from government taxes. That was only fair considering that the vast majority of Afghanistan’s money came from USAID and the UN. But the local Afghan “implementing partners” paid taxes to the government and if they did business in Taliban territory, they also paid off the Jihadists.

We don’t know exactly how much taxpayer money went to the Taliban, but one survey found that contractors priced in 20% to 30% from their contracts as payoffs. More formally, the Taliban tend to charge a 10% Islamic tax on income and a 2.5% Islamic wealth tax. While this is modest compared to taxes in some western socialist countries, the only service the Taliban provide is not killing you. That doesn’t require much infrastructure, but is really valuable on the ground.

Every charity and humanitarian group has denied paying taxes to the Taliban because it’s illegal. All of them, or almost all of them, are likely lying because otherwise they’d be dead.

The Taliban had an extensive and sophisticated tax collection network long before they took Kabul which included all the usual elements of bureaucracy, registration, certificates, and assessments. They even have “NGO coordinators” who work with non-profit groups.

As an Economist article noted, "Britain’s Foreign Office had to remind ngos not to pay taxes to the Taliban."

The Taliban at one point provided a list of non-profits that had registered with their Commission for the Arrangement and Control of Companies and Organisations. The group “included UN agencies, national and international NGOs and human rights organisations” including those that  “rely on funding from a wide range of sources, including both the UN and the US government”.

That was back in 2013 when the Taliban had far less power and were less intimidating.

It’s a safe bet that nearly every non-profit still operating in Afghanistan is registered with the Commission, and was probably registered in previous years, and is paying off the Taliban.

Even if the UN succeeds in exempting its operations from taxes, the “implementing partners”, local Afghan groups, will still pay taxes to the Taliban. And their employees and those of the groups they fund will certainly be taxed. If the United States funds doctors and clinics, they will be taxed (as they were before the fall of Kabul), if we fund teachers, they will pay taxes to the Taliban, and so will every beneficiary of our “humanitarian aid”.

"We can maintain a humanitarian commitment to... the Afghan people in ways that do not have any funding or assistance pass through the coffers of a central government," Ned Price, Biden’s State Department spokesman, falsely claimed.

Price knows that’s a lie.

Even if the humanitarian aid doesn’t initially pass through the Taliban’s coffers, it will inevitably end up there as it works its way through Afghanistan. Even if we just shipped food and medicines, the Taliban will take its ‘cut’ of the medicine and food as they used to before. They will then be able to dispense it to their supporters or resell it on the black market. Both are common practices for Islamic terrorist groups like the Houthis in Yemen or Hamas in Israel.

That’s why it’s common for there to be a “humanitarian crisis” in terrorist hellholes like Yemen or Gaza. No matter how much aid is sent in, the crisis never goes away because the terrorists not only steal the aid, they deliberately create the crises so that they have more aid to steal.

The only way to stop the crisis is to either kill the terrorists or at least stop sending them aid.

The 10% in the headline is a crude estimate. Any money or aid dispatched to Afghanistan will resonate back and forth through the economy with the Taliban taking a cut at every end. And the final amount will be a whole lot more than the formal Islamic tithe which the Taliban impose.

There is no way to provide humanitarian aid to a terrorist state without funding its regime.

And that will mean difficult moral choices.

When the Great Famine struck Russia as a result of Communist collectivism, the United States undertook a massive aid effort, sending $20 million (a quarter million in today’s dollars) in food aid. The noble effort saved millions, and bailed out the Bolshevik regime which showed no gratitude and went on to kill millions anyway. Then it built up a massive nuclear program while plotting to destroy the United States and murder hundred of millions of Americans.

No one wants to deny aid to suffering people, but when the cause of the suffering is a genocidal enemy regime, subsidizing it only makes things worse. Refusing to provide aid or normalize economic relations with the Soviet Union might have saved far more lives in the long run.

The Taliban won because many Afghans decided to support them or not to resist them. That is a choice that they will have to live with and learn to regret if anything is going to change.

Providing aid to Afghanistan will bail out the Taliban. The more aid we send to Afghanistan, the more powerful, the more secure, and the more aggressive the Taliban’s ambitions will grow. The harder the Taliban have to work to maintain control over Afghanistan, the less scope they will have for terrorism abroad. The more aid we send, the broader the Taliban’s horizons will grow.

Senator Cory Booker foolishly argued that aid is a “strategic leverage that we have over the Taliban.” No, it’s strategic leverage that the Taliban have over us as the Biden administration and the UN negotiate with the terrorists over the right to bail out their vicious regime.

Biden kept falsely claiming that he had to get out of Afghanistan because we couldn’t keep spending money on the failed state. Yet he began sending more money to Afghanistan before all of the Americans he abandoned behind enemy lines had even been evacuated.

After leaving massive caches of weapons and vehicles for the Taliban to enjoy, Biden is dispatching another $64 million, of which millions will likely end up in the hands of the Taliban.

The Taliban will impose their Islamic tithe on the aid that Biden sends to Afghanistan. And taxpayers will be the ones paying the tithe to support the Taliban’s Jihad against non-Muslims.

Americans aren’t just paying taxes to the government, they’re paying them to the Taliban.

Tucker: Whenever you think we've reached peak insanity, Biden doubles-down

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7vnpqoR81o

 

It's 'hard to exaggerate' how 'dangerously bad

US President Joe Biden is

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KYzf-88lZk

 

Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged

How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.

Fri Sep 11, 2020 

Frontpagemag.com

 

8

 

Note: Journalist Niram Ferretti interviews Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center, for the Italian publication, L’Informale (original here).  Pasted below are excerpts from the English version.

Question: How much is the concept of jihad intended as holy war, central to the way Islam has interpreted itself during the centuries?

The concept of jihad was central from the start—at least according to the earliest Muslim historians who often portray the first warriors of Allah as being zealously motivated by the notion of jihad.

Question: The last time that Islam tried to penetrate Europe through war was on the 12^th of September 1683 at Kalhenberg, near Vienna, where 65.000 thousand Christians fought against 200,000 Ottoman Turks. For how long after that date did jihad against the West stopped and when and why was it resumed?

Raids continued for some time, particularly by sea, and well into the late 1700s, meaning for about a century after the successful defense of Vienna.  Even as the Ottoman Empire was beginning its slow retreat from eastern Europe, the Muslim slavers of the so-called Barbary States of North Africa wreaked havoc all along the coasts of Europe—even as far as Iceland.  The United States of America’s first war—which it fought before it could even elect its first president—was against these Islamic slavers.  When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Barbary’s ambassador why his countrymen were enslaving American sailors, the “ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that … it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners….”

Question: In his seminal book of 1996, Samuel P. Huntington wrote about Islam and the West the following sentence, “Kto? Kovo? Who is to rule? Who is to be ruled? The central issue of politics defined by Lenin is the root of the contest between Islam and the West”. Do you agree?

Yes, inasmuch as that Muslims must always work to make Islam rule over non-Muslims, based on their sharia, which while allowing for truces and times of peace—particularly when Islam is weak vis-à-vis infidels—also sees the spread of Muslim rule as the culmination of the Islamic mission that began in the early 630s.

Question: Let us now talk about your new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. What has brought you to write a book focused specifically on the battles which have occurred along the centuries between Islam and the West?

Yes, as indicated by the title, the book is a military history between Islam and the West, narrated around their eight most decisive clashes, the first and last of which occurred more than a millennium apart.  But while the eight battles/sieges form the centerpieces of the book’s eight chapters, the bulk of the narrative chronologically traces and tells the general, but much forgotten story of Islam and the West, most of which of course revolved around warfare—with all the attendant death, destruction, slavery, and geopolitical demarcations and map rearrangements. We can say I began working on portions of this book some twenty years ago—since around 1998-99, when I first started doing academic research for what became my MA thesis in History: a close examination, including through the original Arabic and Greek sources, of the battle of Yarmuk—the first major military encounter between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire in 636, highlighted in Chapter 1 of the Sword and Scimitar.

Question: To what extent is the Islamic terrorism that we are facing today a continuation of the battles between Islam and the West that you describe in Sword and Scimitar?   

To a very great extent.  Both the motivation and the pattern of terrorist acts are very much mirror reflections of past Islamic motivations and patterns.  In other words, from the start to finish, the book pages are full of all the ugly words and deeds committed by modern groups such as the Islamic State—ordering Europeans to convert to Islam or face the sword; the willful destruction of churches; the mass slaughter—including by beheading, crucifixion, or burning—of Christian defenders, and the mass enslavement and rape of Christian women and children—all of these permeate the pages of my book.

Question: Islam is a way of life. It is a complete set of ideas and rules which differs deeply from our Western values. Is there any chance of an accommodation between Islam and Western societies or this is just wishful thinking?

Can water and oil mix?  In the same manner, pure Islamic teachings and pure Western values are often antithetical to one another.  For example, the West believes in freedom of religion, whereas in Islam those who seek to apostatize are penalized, including by death; the West believes in freedom of speech, whereas in Islam any critical talk concerning Muhammad can get one killed.   One can go on and on but the point should be clear.  Of course, a nominal/secular Muslim may be able to assimilate in a Western society, but that is not a reflection of Islam, which is hardly nominal but rather a full way of life based on sharia.

Question: According to you what are the ways in which Europe on one side and the United States on the other should face the reality of Islam in such a manner that could be helpful both for Westerners and Muslims? What are the false assumptions that must be rejected?

First, the truth must be acknowledged—including for example the truth that, for well over a millennium, Muslims invaded European/Christian territory on the same logic that Islamic terror groups cite—that it is their right to invade, conquer, butcher, and enslave infidels for no less a reason that because they are non-Muslims.  If this is how Muslims have been behaving for centuries, is there really any need to find “reasons” why some of them are behaving so now?  Are grievances, territorial disputes, etc., necessary to explain this unwavering hostility?  Once these facts are embraced, the rest, including policy—for instance, the question of Muslim immigration—should become self-evident.

Question: How inbred is religious violence in Islam and how it differs from the way in which it is presented in the Bible and has accompanied Christianity in the course of its history?

Many apologist for Islam like to claim that the Bible, especially the Jewish scriptures (or the Old Testament), is just as if not more bloody and violent than the Koran—so why do we insist that Muslim violence is rooted to Muslim scriptures? The problem with comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Koran is that it conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Koran is doctrinally significant. The Koran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.

 

The Utopian Virus in Power

Why Marxist revolutionaries are able to sow as much destruction as they do today.

Fri Sep 11, 2020 

Jamie Glazov

 

15

 

Editors’ note: As we witness the Marxist revolution currently transpiring in America, alongside the surreal totalitarian lockdowns, a vital question confronts us: how did the Left achieve so much power to be able to now so effectively damage America and its democracy? What allowed the Left to gain so much control and influence?

This is, without doubt, one of the most pertinent questions of our time. Frontpage Mag editors have therefore deemed it vital to run, below, an excerpt from Jamie Glazov’s book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. The excerpt, which is the third chapter, titled "The Virus in Power," explores how the Left took power in America -- and why it had such an easy time doing so. This equips us with the understanding of why Marxists and Lockdown-Enforcers are now able to sow as much destruction as they do today.

Don't miss this essay.

[The essay has been slightly edited to meet current events. To read the chapter on what the Utopian Virus itself actually is, CLICK HERE.]

*

The Utopian Virus in Power.
By Jamie Glazov

As we learned in the previous chapter, the utopian virus gives birth to the Left and pushes it towards an alliance with the Jihadist Psychopath. It becomes clear, therefore, what a catastrophe the virus represents for the West, now that it has taken hold of the West's  main institutions and power structures. Having seized power in both America and Western Europe, the Left is now actively enabling a Marxist -- and an Islamic Supremacist -- destructive encroachment on its own democratic host societies.  

Trump’s entry into the White House brought much hope that the progressive/Islamic supremacist tide could be halted on several fronts, but the problem remained that the Left had its forces deeply entrenched in the federal government and within the Trump administration itself.^[1] The Left also remained extremely powerful, retaining control over the media, academia, Hollywood and the culture at large. This chapter will examine the Left’s dominion in each of these realms and reveal how and why it got there. In so doing, it will provide a concrete understanding of the Unholy Alliance’s^[2] strength and its inordinate ability to achieve power.

The leftist Obama administration ruled America for eight years and wreaked horrific damage in the process.^[3] Despite the coming to power of Donald Trump, the Left’s forces remained deeply embedded within the government and within the new administration itself. The Utopian Virus also continued to possess a suffocating grip on the culture at large and, consequently, on the boundaries of what is presented to be permitted discourse in America.

Consequently, our situation today:

In terms of the American media, the Left maintains almost complete control. While Fox News remains one of the conservative exceptions (with significant caveats), one only needs to watch MSNBC and CNN, or read the New York Times and Washington Post, to get a glimpse of how the Left rules U.S. media. No space exists in these outlets, for instance, for a real discussion about what Marxism is and how it inspires Black Lives Matter and Antifa ideology and violence. No space is provided for an authentic dialogue about what Islamic theology is and how its texts inspire and sanction Islamic Jihad. This is a tell-tale indicator of how the Left regulates language and thought in America.

There is, we should note, obviously an “independent” conservative media on the Internet, just as there are various conservative websites. Web-tv stations such as The Rebel, Info Wars, and the CRTV network, and websites such as Breitbart, Frontpagemag.com and JihadWatch.org are definitely part of a “resistance” movement that offers people information about the Left and Islamic supremacism that they will not find in the mainstream media. While these outlets are courageous in their dissident efforts, and while they maintain some strength and popularity, they still remain marginalized from the levers of power in the culture at large, and the malicious manner in which they are repeatedly censored -- and slandered by the Left (as being racist, Islamophobic, etc.) -- helps to keep them on the periphery of the national discourse.^[4]

With regard to academia, the situation today is an abomination. The Left completely controls the curricula and has brutally decimated free speech on campus. Leftist professors outnumber conservative professors roughly 12 to 1 at universities across America.[5] But although they are the overwhelming majority in numbers, leftists on campus now demand a “safe space” to shield them from any ideas they deem offensive -- and cowardly university administrators surrender to them on a regular basis. Conservative faculty and students know they will be demonized and ostracized if they dare to break from the leftist Party Line. Prominent conservatives who dare to come speak on a U.S. campus face fascistic riots, violence and threats.

The riots that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley in February 2017, followed by that university’s blocking of Ann Coulter’s and David Horowitz’s attempts to speak there in April 2017, are just a few examples of the fascist Left’s takeover of academia.^[6] Additional examples abound, including the violent protests that aimed to prevent Ben Shapiro from speaking at California State University in February 2016 and the major uproar that occurred at Yale when ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited to speak there in September 2014.^[7] All of these blatant illustrations of the Left’s totalitarianism on American campuses reveal how “progressives” have taken over academia and stamped out all intellectual diversity -- a phenomenon that David Horowitz has meticulously documented in many of his works.^[8] It is no surprise, of course, that it is especially Islamic Jihad and its true sources that cannot be discussed on a U.S. campus today, and the Unholy Alliance plays a central role in this narrative, seeing how the Saudi funding of American universities is heavy and has its obvious and intended results.[9] 

In Hollywood, it is a given that we are dealing with uncontested leftist terrain. One could never imagine even one movie about Black Lives Matter and its true Marxist roots and objectives. Nor could one ever imagine even one movie about the terror war that would honestly discuss Koranic texts in terms of how they inspire and sanction Jihadists’ war on the West. There are, to be sure, some rare exceptions where a film might dare to suggest that Jihadists are the bad guys, such as American Sniper. But Hollywood does not allow any depiction of Islamic terrorism as a function of Islamic theology -- and that is because the industry is ruled by the utopian virus. We know, of course, what Hollywood does allow: the propaganda which contends that “Islamophobia” -- and not Islam -- poses the real danger to the United States and to the world at large. And that is why anyone can be a terrorist in Hollywood movies -- anyone, that is, except a Muslim. Instead, Muslims are always the victims. Films such as Syriana, Traitor, Kingdom of Heaven and Redacted are perfect examples of this phenomenon.^[10]

It is no coincidence, just like with the academic setting, that Muslim Middle-East countries are investing in Hollywood.[11] Muslim Brotherhood front groups also apply consistent pressure on the industry to produce Islam-friendly films. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), for instance, which was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members,[12] has its own Hollywood Bureau which intimidates film-makers on the subject of Jihad and Islam, “offers” consultations for script approval, and gives out awards to those who portray Islam in the Brotherhood-approved way.[13]

Hollywood’s deference to its Unholy Alliance masters also explains why, along with aiding and abetting Islamic supremacism, its movies routinely assail the Judeo-Christian tradition while promoting all other radical agendas.^[14]

How did we come to this point, where the Left so thoroughly dominates the West’s popular culture? The key to understanding this phenomenon is to grasp that the Utopian Virus infects the psychic DNA of its host with the impulse to wage perpetual war. The virus is, in and of itself, a form of constant rebellion. When the serpent deceived Eve in the Garden, it wasn’t a momentary mental lapse that he had, in the sense that he was bored and, to pass the time, he whimsically approached Eve and deceived her. And it was not as if, upon having completed his task, he just contentedly turned his attention to other mundane and benign activities. No, the serpent is always at work in his rebellion against God. He is always at war, and his agenda is ferocious and destructive. And the progressive moment on earth is his war in its earthly incarnation.

The Left, in other words, never sleeps. Having inherited the utopian virus from the serpent,^[15] progressives are in a perpetual state of battle. Political war is their raison d'être, and their overriding goal is to destroy democratic-capitalist society and the Judeo-Christian tradition on which it is based. 

No author has dissected and explained the Left’s perpetual war better than David Horowitz. His scholarship thoroughly lays bare the Left’s basic nature, its preferred tactics, and the reasons behind its victories in political battle.[16] He crystallizes how the Left’s hatred and utopian vision inspires a missionary zeal which is perfectly suited to aggressive tactics and no-holds-barred combat. In illuminating this phenomenon, Horowitz also shows how conservatives are severally disadvantaged in fighting the Left because they are not trying to transform the world; they are not at war 24/7, the way the Left is. Conservatives are much more inclined to simply live their lives, rather than to be engaged in endless crusades to transform society. For them, unlike for leftists, the personal can be separated from the political.

For these reasons, conservatives commonly fail to understand that there is a political war in process. Many of them even disapprove of their fellow conservatives engaging in political war when they perceive one. For the most part, conservatives just want to be nice; they prioritize being polite, having tidy and well-trimmed lawns, and avoiding conflict. They do not realize that the Left is out to destroy them and the society that they love. Consequently, they are severely handicapped in fighting political war. Horowitz’s book, Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left, makes this point with crystal clarity, showing exactly why the Left is so good at political warfare, why conservatives fail at it, and what the latter need to do to fight back and win.[17]

Another crucial factor that facilitates the Left’s success in political battle is its shrewd focus on winning the culture. Italian Stalinist Antonio Gramsci played a pivotal role in teaching the Left this path to power. In his writings in the 1930s, Gramsci stressed that the Left had to put cultural institutions at the center of its revolutionary battle. In his vision, this meant infiltrating and taking over academia, the media, churches, the arts and all other realms of culture.^[18] By this process, progressive ideas would be introduced into the general culture and into the national discourse and, inevitably, people’s thinking would be reshaped. The leftist vision would mold the ruling ideas and, eventually, produce the ruling political class. In other words: capture the culture and own political power. Authors such as David Horowitz and Barry Rubin have  documented that it is precisely by this Gramscian prescription that the Left fought the culture war and subsequently captured power.^[19]

In terms of political power itself, the Left has thoroughly infiltrated and taken control of the Democratic Party in America. As Horowitz has documented in his book Shadow Party, radical billionaire George Soros played a major role in this development by putting together a coalition of wealthy funders, radical activists and political apparatchiks who eventually gained a lock on the Democratic Party’s political apparatus, excluding moderates and molding party policies in a radical direction.^[20] And the rest was history: After taking control of the Democratic Party, the Left captured the White House with the coming to power of Barack Obama.^[21] Obama’s entire political career, as Horowitz shows, was shaped, funded and made possible by the Left’s financial and political network.^[22]

In his documentation of the workings of the Shadow Party, Horowitz dispelled the myth that conservatives and the Republican Party somehow represent the rich and powerful, while progressives and the Democrats are “the party of the people.” Much to the contrary, Horowitz demonstrated that it is the Left that has successfully built the richest and most powerful political machine in American history. His work The New Leviathan exposed this influential and wealthy network and shows how the Left routinely moves radical ideas like Obamacare from the periphery of society, normalizes them, and then makes them the priority agendas of the Democratic Party.^[23]

It is precisely in this way that the Left has succeeded in maneuvering America’s entire national and social policy debate onto its own radical territory, thereby transforming the nation’s political and cultural climate.^[24] This is precisely why, as Horowitz has also demonstrated, Democrats and political leftists have controlled the governing councils and public schools of every major inner city in America for fifty years or more.^[25]

The Left has actually achieved so much power, and is effecting such fundamental toxic change in America, that Horowitz felt it necessary to create an entire online encyclopedia of the Left, DiscovertheNetworks.org, which provides a map of all of its networks, funding, operatives and agendas. The site identifies the purveyors of Islamic supremacism, lays bare the Left’s alliance with them, and describes all the radical networks that surrounded the Obama administration and the Democratic Party leadership up till the present.[26]

Thus, it becomes clear how and why the Left has taken so much power in America and has gained control of the boundaries of permitted discourse. We can see why the Left has been so successful, by means of its Unholy Alliance with radical Islam, in enabling the Marxist Revolution and totalitarian lockdowns today -- and the Jihadist Psychopath who is also currently conquering us.

One of the main weapons that the Left has used in its position of power to aid and abet the Jihadist Psychopath is Jihad Denial. By making us unable to see, and speak about, the true threat and enemy we face, it has crippled our ability to defend ourselves. Jihad Denial, therefore, is a vital component for us to explore and comprehend. And so, we deconstruct and unveil its dark character and mechanisms in the next chapter.

Notes:

[1] See Introduction, p.17 and Chapter 18.

[2] The Unholy Alliance is the term this work uses to label the Left-Islamic Supremacist alliance, a phenomenon documented by David Horowitz in his work, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004), and on his website/database, DiscovertheNetworks.org. See the description of the alliance in our Introduction, pp.xxxiii-xxxiv. For more discussion and analysis on the Left’s romance with Islamic Supremacism and how this romance is an extension of the Left’s alliance with communism during the Cold War, see Jamie Glazov, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror (Los Angeles: WND, 2009).

[3] See Chapter 1, “The Case.” The damage caused by the Obama administration will also be solidified in subsequent chapters, especially in Chapters 15-17.

[4] For two strong works that demonstrate how and why the Left controls our media, see: Tim Groseclose, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind (New York: St. Martin's Press: 2011) and Ben Shapiro, Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans (New York: Threshold Editions: 2014).

[5] Bradford Richardson, “Liberal professors outnumber conservatives nearly 12 to 1, study finds,” The Washington Times, October 6, 2016. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

[6] For the riots blocking Yiannopoulos’ talk, see Matthew Vadum, “Berkeley Riots Provoked by Freedom Center Campaign,” Frontpagemag.com, February 2, 2017. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265678/berkeley-riots-provoked-freedom-center-campaign-matthew-vadum. For the cancellations of Coulter’s and Horowitz’s appearances, see Thomas Fuller, “Conservative Groups Sue Berkeley Over Ann Coulter Cancellation,” NYTimes.com, April 24, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/ann-coulter-university-of-california-berkeley.html?_r=0 and David Horowitz, “My Free Speech at Berkeley, Not,” Frontpagemag.com, April 12, 2017. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266394/my-free-speech-berkeley-not-david-horowitz

[7] Daniel Mael, “Yale Students 'Disrespected' That Ayaan Hirsi Ali Is Speaking On Campus,” TruthRevolt.org, Sept. 11, 2014. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/yale-students-disrespected-ayaan-hirsi-ali-speaking-campus; Natalie Johnson, “Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation,” DailySignal.com, February 26, 2016. http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/

[8] See David Horowitz’s four works on the Left’s Stalinist control of American campuses: The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery 2006), Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War on Academic Freedom (New York: Encounter, 2009), One-Party Classroom -- co-authored with Jacob Laksin -- (New York: Crown, 2009), and Reforming Our Universities: The Campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2010).

[9] Denis MacEoin, “Western Universities: The Best Indoctrination Money Can Buy,” GatestoneInstitute.org, June 26, 2016. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8331/universities-indoctrination; “Saudi & Arab Influence on American Education,” DiscoverTheNetworks.org, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=213; Gitika Ahuja, “Saudi Prince Donates $40 Million to Harvard, Georgetown Universities,” abcnews.go.com, http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1402008.

[10] For a powerful discussion on how the Left controls Hollywood’s boundaries of discourse on the terror war, see: Oliver Williams, “Hollywood, Islam and Political Correctness,” GatestoneInstitute.org, July 10, 2014. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4397/hollywood-islam-political-correctness.

[11] Georg Szalai, “Hollywood primes the pump for Mideast money,” HollywoodReporter.com, June 12, 2007. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-primes-pump-mideast-money-156661

[12] Andrew C. McCarthy, “The History of MPAC,” NationalReview.com, August 7, 2012. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/313257/history-mpac-andrew-c-mccarthy

[13] Deborah Weiss, “Islamist Influence in Hollywood,” HumanEvents.com, Aug 8, 2015. http://humanevents.com/2015/08/08/islamist-influence-in-hollywood/

[14] Ben Shapiro provides a strong work documenting the Left’s control of Hollywood in his book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV (New York: Broadside Books, 2011).

[15] See previous chapter, Chapter 2, “The Utopian Virus.”

[16] For the most comprehensive reading on the Left’s nature, ability to accumulate power, and how it wields that power, see David Horowitz’s nine volume series The Black Book of the American Left, which is the most complete, first-hand portrait of the Left as it has evolved from the inception of the Cold War through the era of Barack Obama. Visit: blackbookoftheamericanleft.com.

[17] David Horowitz, Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2014).

[18] For an excellent account of how the Left sees culture as the main vehicle through which to achieve power, how Gramsci molded this vision, and how the Left captured power through its culture wars, see Horowitz, The Black Book of the American Left Volume V: Culture Wars (Los Angeles: Second Thought Books, 2015).

[19] Ibid and Barry Rubin, Silent Revolution: How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance (New York: HarperCollins, 2014).

[20] David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson: 2006).

[21] Ibid.

[22] David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin, chapter 2, “The Making of a President” in The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future (New York: Crown Forum, 2012).

[23] Horowitz and Laksin, The New Leviathan.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Horowitz, Take No Prisoners.

[26] To learn more about the necessity and rationale for DiscovertheNetworks.org, which went online in February 2005, and the uproar surrounding its publication, see Volume 2, Progressives, of The Black Book of the American Left.