JOE BIDEN'S IMPORTED MUSLIMS:
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
Afghanistan in 1996 witnessed a young woman’s finger being chopped off by the Taliban; she had dared to paint her nails. A woman named Bibi Aisha was forced into a nightmarish marriage as a trade-off to settle a family dispute. When she tried to escape the violent and abusive marriage, the Taliban, to shame her for her act of disobedience and to set a warning example for the other young women in the community, severed her nose and ears.
Rep. Omar's Jihad Against Senate Parliamentarian
6 comments
Democrats and their media love to lecture about political norms. Except when they're ones brutally violating those norms.
In response to the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that Dems couldn't impose illegal alien amnesty using budget reconciliation in their insane $3.5 trillion spending boondoggle, Rep. Ilhan Omar resumed her Jihad against the non-partisan official.
Omar had previously called for firing the parliamentarian after she blocked rolling a $15 minimum wage in. Now the racist Somali immigrant is once again calling for her head, urging Biden and Schumer to ignore her, after blocking illegal alien amnesty.
And the media, so quick to lecture about political norms when it involves Republicans, has nothing to say about Omar.
Considering Biden's illegal move on the CDC eviction moratorium, it's not at all impossible that an administration of radicals will back yet another radical move that upends political norms.
After all, AOC and Omar and other extremists and racists have far more sway over the Biden administration than any moderates.
JOE BIDEN'S IMPORTED MUSLIMS:
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
Jews, Not Muslims, Are the Primary Victims of Religion-Based Hate Crimes in the U.S.
Yet the media continues to focus on the phantom of “Islamophobia.”
As the nation observed the twentieth anniversary of the 9/11 jihad terror attacks, the establishment media’s focus was largely on how Muslims were victimized in the wake of the attacks. A wave of “Islamophobia” supposedly swept over the United States, and is still very much with us. Reality, however, is (as usual) sharply different from the establishment media narrative. Jews, not Muslims, have both before 9/11 and after been the far most common victim of hate crimes in the United States. Yet the media indefatigably focuses on “Islamophobia,” not anti-Semitism.
George W. Bush got the ball rolling on September 17, 2001. He appeared at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., in the company of several prominent Muslim leaders, including Nihad Awad of the The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Abdurahman Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council, who is now in prison for funding al-Qaeda, and put the spotlight squarely on Muslims as victims:
America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect.
In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect. Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value. I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.
Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.
The only problem with this was that Muslims were not being subjected to wholesale vigilante attacks in the United States, at that time or at any point subsequently. A Sikh, Balbir Singh Sodhi, was mistaken for a Muslim and murdered on September 15, 2001; the following day, a Muslim, Waqar Hasan, was murdered. On October 4, 2001, the man who murdered Hasan, Mark Anthony Stroman, killed a Hindu named Vasudev Patel, mistaking him for a Muslim.
That was all. These three murders were heinous crimes; Balbir Singh Sodhi’s killer, Frank Silva Roque, is serving life in prison, and Mark Stroman was executed in 2011. But to claim that “9/11 released a dangerous wave of white supremacy and Islamophobia that, two decades later, continues to manifest in attacks on members of a variety of belief traditions,” as AP did in noting the anniversary of Balbir Singh Sodhi’s murder Thursday, is wildly exaggerated. Muslims have not suffered widespread persecution, discrimination, and harassment in the U.S. since 9/11. FBI hate crime statistics bear this out.
In 2000, the year before the 9/11 attacks, the FBI noted 33 anti-Islamic hate crimes; in 2001, that number skyrocketed to 546. That’s 546 too many, but a bit of perspective is in order: also in 2001, there were 1,117 anti-Jewish hate crimes. These were not, mind you, all violent incidents: the FBI report explained that “A review of the total offenses (11,451) demonstrated that intimidation was the most frequently reported hate crime, accounting for 37.9 percent of the total. Destruction/damage/vandalism made up 26.4 percent; simple assault, 18.8 percent; aggravated assault, 10.8 percent. The remaining offenses accounted for 6.1 percent of the total.” Intimidation can be just saying something rude, or something perceived as rude.
In 2002, the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes fell sharply, to 170; the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes held steady at 1,039. And so it has been every year since then. In 2018, there were 225 anti-Muslim hate crimes, and 896 anti-Jewish hate crimes; in 2019, there were 219 anti-Muslim hate crimes, and 995 anti-Jewish hate crimes. In 2020, anti-Muslim hate crimes decreased by 42%.
Yet ABC News gave a Muslims-As-Victims spin to all this on September 11 when it stated: “Hate crimes against Muslims rose 1617% from 2000 to 2001, according to the FBI marking some of the highest numbers of Islamophobic hate crimes ever in the U.S. But even as the country moved further from the attacks and the Muslim American population in the country grew, discrimination against this community has not waned, Pew Research Center reports.”
This kind of “journalism” is published as Jew-hatred becomes increasingly legitimized on the Left. Around the time of the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel last spring, Palestinian Muslims and their supporters committed acts of violence against Jews and supporters of Israel all over the United States. In New York City, a Muslim mob screaming “Allahu akbar” attacked a Jewish man in midtown Manhattan. Also in Manhattan, Palestinians threatened violence and screamed anti-Semitic slurs at Jews. One threw a mini-firebomb. Pro-jihad protesters stormed a restaurant and spat on Jewish patrons; one of the thugs threw a bottle. A Muslim, Waseem Awawdeh, was arrested for viciously beating a Jew in Times Square.
In Los Angeles, Palestinian protesters asked people dining at the Sushi Fumi restaurant if they were Jewish, and proceeded to attack them with knives. Elsewhere in Los Angeles, two cars festooned with Palestinian flags chased a Jewish man down a street as he was leaving his synagogue. In Florida, a van also bearing a Palestinian flag and emblazoned with the slogan “Hitler was Right” drove past a pro-Israel demonstration. In Skokie, Illinois, a pro-jihad vandal wearing an Arab headdress smashed a synagogue window and left a Palestine flag and a pro-jihad sign inside. And in Boston, an anti-Semitic Muslim migrant named Khaled Awad approached a rabbi outside a Jewish day school and stabbed him eight times.
There will likely be much more of this, while the media continues to hunt for “Islamophobia” and demonize and stigmatize all those who stand against jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women. The facts are clear to anyone who searches for them, but most people won’t; and establishment media “journalists” will continue to do all they can to hoodwink Americans into swallowing their tendentious, inaccurate, and divisive narrative.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Bringing in Afghan Refugees with All of Their ‘Luggage’
What's not being talked about.
Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban and American forces are withdrawing. As with such ventures, this has resulted in tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees fleeing their own country. And as night follows day, this has also resulted in calls by many American individuals and organizations to bring in as many of those refugees as possible, because we “owe” it to the Afghans.
To hear such claims, one would think that these many thousands of refugees will immediately become part of America, sharing our values and ideas, and contributing to our communities.
What is not being talked about are the values, ideas, and culture those refugees are bringing with them.
In order to better understand the people many are calling to be brought in by the tens of thousands, let’s look at some considerations about the society from which these refugees are coming.
National Security
There are two national security issues that must be acknowledged.
First, a 2019 study found that 13% of Afghans had a lot of (4%) or a little (9%) sympathy for the Taliban.[1] This means that for every 100,000 Afghan refugees brought into the United States, we could expect about 13,000 of them to have varying degrees of sympathy for the Taliban.
Then we need to take into consideration that 39% of Afghans think that “suicide bombing” in defense of Islam is often or sometimes justified.[2] If we use the 4% number for those with a lot of sympathy for the Taliban, this means that out of every 100,000 Afghans we could have up to about 1,560 Afghans believing that “suicide bombing” could often be justified.[3]
Combining these two issues means we could be bringing in a potentially significant base of support for a jihadist group; and that base of support could include a large number willing to engage in jihadist attacks in the United States using explosives.
History of Violence
Then there is Afghanistan’s violent history. What is the impact of this history on many of those refugees we are bringing in? Consider this 2018 article:
…Afghanistan is home to nearly two generations that have grown up knowing only conflict and war. As a result, violent and aggressive behavior—particularly from young men—has become an accepted norm of Afghan society…a significant number of Afghan youth have become involved in organized crime or other illegal—and often violent—activities to fulfill their perceived obligations and duties to family…In many parts of Afghanistan, displays of aggression and intimidation represent a rite of passage for adolescent boys and a symbol of manhood for men. The social acceptance of such behavior, however, heightens the risk that intolerance of diversity and interpersonal violence, including violence against women and children, become an everyday fact of life. A 2009 report…described violence as “an everyday occurrence in the lives of a huge proportion of Afghan women.”…a majority of Afghans are exposed to violence beginning at an early age, including physical abuse at home by parents and relatives as well as the liberal use of corporal punishment at mosques, madrassas, and schools. Children witness their mothers and sisters being violently abused at the hands of family members, which comes to be accepted as a social and cultural norm, resulting in the acceptance of violence as a first—and sometimes only—option for resolving conflicts.[4]
We are importing from a culture of violence.
Rights of Women
What is the attitude many of these refugees have toward women? Here are two assessments:
Women and girls in Afghanistan continue to face widespread discrimination and human rights abuses. The country ranks among the least favourable on the Gender Inequality Index and the literacy rate for women is among the lowest in the world. Violence against women and girls is rife and the majority don’t go to school.[5]
And,
About two-thirds of men thought women in Afghanistan had too many rights and that women were too emotional to become leaders, compared to less than a third of women. And while nearly three quarters of women said a married woman should have equal rights with their partner to work outside the home, only 15 percent of men agreed. More than half of men also agreed with the statement that “more rights for women mean that men lose out”.[6]
Wife-beating is largely acceptable in Afghanistan:
Overall, 92 percent of women in Afghanistan feel that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife for at least one of these reasons: going out without telling the husband, neglecting the children, arguing with the husband, refusing sex, and burning the food. Seventy-eight percent of women believe that going out without telling the husband is justification for beating, while 31 percent think the same about burning the food…The Afghanistan survey added an additional question to reflect local attitudes—wearing inappropriate clothes. Sixty-three percent of Afghan women feel a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife if she wears inappropriate clothing.[7]
94% of Afghans completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband,[8] and two-thirds of Afghan men agree or strongly agree with the statement, “Women in Afghanistan have too many rights.”[9]
Considering the information in this and the previous section, it is not surprising to hear this warning from Pierre-Marie Seve, the director and spokesman of the French think tank Institute for Justice. He noted that migrants are over-represented in nearly all categories of crime [in France] and stated that Afghans, in particular, commit more crimes than asylum seekers from other countries.[10]
Prepubescent Marriage
Prepubescent marriage is acceptable in Afghanistan. In 2016, the Pew Research Center released a report titled “Many countries allow child marriage.”[11] An appendix to that report titled “Marriage Laws around the World” provided this interesting information about approaches to child marriage in Afghanistan:[12]
Despite a law setting the legal minimum age for marriage at 16 (15 with the consent of a parent or guardian and the court) for girls and 18 for boys, international and local observers continued to report widespread early marriage… By law a marriage contract requires verification that the bride is 16 years of age, but only a small fraction of the population had birth certificates…some girls as young as six or seven were promised in marriage, with the understanding the actual marriage would be delayed until the child reached puberty. Reports indicated, however, that this delay was rarely observed and young girls were sexually violated by the groom or by older men in the family, particularly if the groom was also a child.
Will instances of prepubescent marriage soon be coming to your community or to a community nearby?
Sharia as the official Law of the Land
Afghans almost uniformly agree (99%) that Sharia should be the official law of the land.[13] And among those Afghans who say Sharia should be the law of the land, 61% say it should apply to all citizens.[14]
81% of the Afghans who support Sharia as the official law of the land favor corporal punishments for theft; 85% favor stoning as the punishment for adultery, and 79% favor the death penalty for apostasy.[15]
In terms of honor killings for pre- or extra-marital sex, 60% of Afghans believed honor killings of women were often or sometimes justified; 59% believed the same about killing men in those circumstances.[16]
These are majority views among Afghans that are incompatible with American values and laws.
Integrating into American society
The Afghan values and beliefs mentioned above are major hurdles to the idea of Afghans integrating as a group into American society. In addition, only 5% of Afghans speak English,[17] and the adult literacy rate is only about 43% (although the numbers vary). 66% of Afghans believe Western popular culture harms morality in their country,[18] and 96% believe that trying to convert others to Islam is a religious duty.[19]
These are not harbingers of widespread social/cultural integration by these refugees into American society.
Conclusion
Those on the side of bringing tens of thousands of Afghan refugees into the United States have been able to rely on noble sounding rhetoric and emotional arguments to confront those who are not as enthusiastic about that venture.
However, the facts presented in this article show that in reality these refugees are coming from a culture and a land whose values and history are completely different from, and largely incompatible with, those of the United States.
What is being generally overlooked is that there are more socially/culturally compatible countries for these refugees that actually border Afghanistan. Perhaps what we might “owe” these refugees is assistance in finding refuge in those neighboring countries.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” The Asia Foundation, p. 315, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019_Afghan_Survey_Full-Report_.pdf.
[2] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, pp. 29 and 70, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[3] For why it is not accurate to use the term “suicide bomber” in these circumstances, see my article “Suicide or Paradise?” Arutz Sheva 7 – Israel National News, June 7, 2017, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20604.
[4] Belquis Ahmadi and Rafiullah Stanikzai, “Redefining Masculinity in Afghanistan,” United States Institute of Peace, February 15, 2018, https://www.usip.org/publications/2018/02/redefining-masculinity-afghanistan.
[5] Gender Focus, UNICEF, accessed on August 27, 2021, https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/gender-focus.
[6] Sonia Elks, “Afghan men oppose more women’s rights; elders less hardline,” Reuters, January 29, 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-women-equality/afghan-men-oppose-more-womens-rights-elders-less-hardline-idUSKCN1PN0TZ.
[7] Donna Clifton, “Most Women in Afghanistan Justify Domestic Violence,” PRB, September 13, 2012, https://www.prb.org/resources/most-women-in-afghanistan-justify-domestic-violence/.
[8] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” Pew Research Center, April 30, 2013, p. 93, https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/.
[9] “Afghanistan Flash Surveys on Perceptions of Peace, Covid-19, and the Economy: Wave 1 Findings,” The Asia Foundation, 2020, p. 43, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Afghanistan-Flash-Survey-Wave-1_fullreport_.pdf.
[10] Chris Tomlinson, “French Think Tank Warns Afghan Migrant Increase Means Increased Crime,” Breitbart, August 28, 2021, https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/08/28/french-think-tank-warns-afghan-migrant-increase-means-increased-crime/.
[11] Aleksandra Sandstrom and Angelina E. Theodorou, “Many countries allow child marriage,” Pew Research Center, September 12, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/12/many-countries-allow-child-marriage/.
[12] “Marriage Laws around the World,” Pew Research Center, https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/09/FT_Marriage_Age_Appendix_2016_09_08.pdf.
[13] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 15.
[14] Ibid., p. 48.
[15] Ibid., pp. 52, 54 and 55.
[16] Ibid., p. 89.
[17] “A Survey of the Afghan People, Afghanistan in 2019,” p. 336.
[18] “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” p. 136.
[19] Ibid., p. 112.
Migration Groups Want $8 Billion for Afghan Migrants
Handout/Bundeswehr via Getty Images
2 Sep 20210
4:49
Pro-migration groups want at least $8 billion in Americans’ money — and a new citizenship law — to help fast-track at least 50,000 mostly unvetted Afghan migrants, according to the Washington Post.
“The number we’ve been floating around, just on the back of the napkin, is $5 billion for [the Department of Health and Human Services], $2 billion for [the Department of] State, and $1 billion for [the Department of Homeland Security], at a minimum,” said Mark Hetfield, president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.
The advocates also told the Washington Post that they want the incoming Afghans to jump the line in the nation’s asylum courts. The line is several years long because Democrats have allowed at least two million Central American migrants into the United States since 2009 under the claim that they need asylum from crime and poverty. The Post reported:
Congress could create a mechanism to allow them to “adjust” to legal permanent residency, aid groups say, along the lines of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 or more recent programs to aid Iraqis.
The [Afghan] parolees could apply for asylum, stating a fear of persecution if returned to Afghanistan, but the U.S. asylum system is badly overloaded by applicants from the Mexico border.
A survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that the public does not approve of the Democrats’ rush to naturalize tens of thousands of Afghans. A majority of Americans oppose the resettlement of more than 50,000 Afghans in the United States, according to an August 18-19 survey of 1,000 likely voters by Rasmussen.
Refugees walk through the departure terminal to a bus at Dulles International Airport after being evacuated from Kabul following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan on August 31, 2021, in Dulles, Virginia. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Many of the migrants could impose more chaotic diversity to Americans’ society, in part, because many are fundamentalist Muslims who lack passports.
Many pro-migration lobby groups are lavishly funded by wealthy pro-migration donors, including Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, and others who hide their identity.
But the groups say they cannot get access to usual spigots of taxpayer cash because many Afghan migrants are being sneaked into the United States via small a side door in U.S. immigration law.
For example, only a few of the Afghans fought alongside the U.S. military, so only a few can get “Special Immigrant Visas” (SIV) created by Congress.
Also, only a few of the migrants were legally approved as refugees amid the rush by thousands of Afghans into American aircraft.
Afghan citizens pack inside a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III, as they are transported from Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan, August 15, 2021. The Taliban on Sunday swept into Kabul, the Afghan capital, after capturing most of Afghanistan. (Capt. Chris Herbert/U.S. Air Force via AP)
So most of the roughly 20,000 migrants now in the United States were allowed into the United States via the little-used “parole” side door in U.S. immigration law. The parole side door was intended for a few charitable cases such as sick passengers on an international flight, “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” according to federal law.
President Joe Biden’s border chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, may try to admit 50,000 Afghans via the parole door, Hetfield told the Washington Post.
The requested $8 billion in cash “would give [Afghan] parolees the same amount of assistance as refugees or SIVs would get,” Hetfield said.
The changed citizenship laws would allow the paroled Afghans to quickly win green cards and citizenship, many of whom lack vital identification documents or even endorsements by U.S. soldiers. That fast-track process could deliver tens of thousands from Afghanistan to the polling booths by 2028.
Afghan refugees arrive at Dulles International Airport in Northern Virginia while en route to military facilities in the U.S. (Jack Gruber-USA TODAY)
Meanwhile, many millions of Americans are unemployed, earn little money, and have difficulty paying their rents. Much of that economic distress is caused by the federal government’s policy of encouraging migration into the United States.
Overall, Biden’s government is expected to import 1.6 million migrants in 2021, or roughly one migrant for every two American births in the year. This policy extracts many new workers, consumers, and renters from poor countries for the benefit of U.S. employers, investors, and government agencies — and also to eventually deliver many potential voters to the Democratic party.
This policy of extraction migration damages ordinary Americans’ career opportunities, cuts their wages, and raises their housing costs.
More migration also means that coastal investors can hire cheap foreign labor on the coasts instead of investing in heartland jobs or deploying wage-boosting robots. Immigration also shrinks Americans’ political clout and wrecks their open-minded, equality-promoting civic culture.
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
Study: Over Half of Migrants Are on American Taxpayer-Funded Welfare
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
2 Sep 20210
3:09
More than half of the nation’s non-citizen population — including legal immigrants, foreign visa workers, and illegal aliens — use American taxpayer-funded welfare after arriving in the United States, a new analysis reveals.
Research by Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarota finds that about 55 percent of non-citizen households in the U.S. use at least one form of welfare compared to just 32 percent of households headed by native-born Americans.
Camarota’s research analyzes the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation data from 2018, showing that 49 percent of households headed by foreign-born residents, including naturalized American citizens, use at least one welfare program.
In 2017, economist George Borjas called the U.S. immigration system “the largest anti-poverty program in the world” at the expense of America’s working and middle class.
(Center for Immigration Studies)
Specifically, foreign-born residents used vastly more Medicaid compared to native-born Americans and food stamps. For example, while 33 percent of foreign-born residents use Medicaid, just 20 percent of native-born Americans do so.
Likewise, while 31 percent of foreign-born residents are on food stamps, only 19 percent of native-born Americans use the program.
Camarota’s research reveals that even after years and years of residing in the U.S., foreign-born resident households continue to use high levels of welfare.
About 44 percent of foreign-born residents who resided in the U.S. for 10 years or less use at least one form of welfare. Roughly 50 percent of those who resided in the U.S. for more than 10 years are on welfare.
When naturalized Americans are excluded from that count, the level of welfare use rises significantly for those who have resided in the U.S. for a while. For example, among non-citizen households who resided in the U.S. for 10 years or less, 40 percent use welfare. For those in the U.S. for more than 10 years, about 62 percent are on welfare.
The latest data comes after similar numbers were released in March 2019 that showed that, in 2014, non-citizen households used nearly twice as much welfare as native-born Americans.
Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year — more than 1.5 million annually — are low-skilled foreign nationals who go on to compete for jobs against working class Americans.
At current legal immigration levels, the Census Bureau projects that about 1-in-6 U.S. residents will be foreign-born by 2060 with the foreign-born population hitting a record 69 million.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Report: Afghans Arriving at U.S. Military Bases to Get $1,250 Payments
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
2 Sep 20210
2:30
Afghans arriving in the United States and being temporarily resettled at U.S. military bases will receive one-time payments from the State Department, funded by American taxpayers.
As Breitbart News reported, President Joe Biden’s administration is looking to turn various military bases in Texas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Virginia, New Mexico, and Indiana into refugee camps that can accommodate about 50,000 Afghans.
Most of all Afghans headed to military bases for temporary resettlement are arriving on “humanitarian parole,” which does not expire for at least two years. These Afghans are not eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), P-2 visas, or refugee status.
According to the Washington Post, Afghans arriving at military bases will secure a $1,250 one-time payment provided to them through the State Department and funded by American taxpayers.
Among the Afghans arriving in the U.S. — from Dulles International Airport in Virginia and Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania — are those who have little-to-no ties to America and many who do not have the most basic paperwork to prove their identities. The Biden administration, the Post notes, has yet to disclose what they are doing with Afghans who fail the vetting process.
Last week, Bloomberg reported that Afghans flagged with “ongoing security concerns” may still be resettled across the U.S. with some monitoring by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This week, top Biden officials confirmed that Afghans “flagged for concerns” have sought entry to the U.S.
Over the last 20 years, nearly a million refugees have been resettled in the nation — more than double that of residents living in Miami, Florida, and it would be the equivalent of annually adding the population of Pensacola, Florida.
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Copulating with Corpses: The Taliban Exposed
The necrophilic inclinations of Afghanistan’s new masters.
Fri Aug 27, 2021
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
According to an August 22 report, a female Afghan refugee to India just “revealed that the Taliban has sex with dead bodies.” While discussing how the terrorist group thrives on raping women, she asserted that “They rape dead bodies too. They don’t care whether the person is dead or alive… Can you imagine this?”
The report continues: “The practice of having sex with corpses is called necrophilia. She revealed that Taliban either picked up [dead?] women or shot them. Muskan revealed that a woman was picked up by the Taliban only yesterday.”
What to make of this macabre revelation? No doubt, many will point to it as “proof” that the Taliban’s Islam was, as the apologists of Islam had long claimed, always skin deep—a veneer to legitimize their otherwise illegitimate and corrupt rule. After all, if they were “students [of Islam]”—the very definition of taliban—they more than the average Afghan would know that Islam forbids such a disgusting practice. Right?
Alas, the opposite is true. Just as pedophilia with boys (Afghanistan’s bacha bazi or “dancing boys”) has Islamic backing, so too does necrophilia, by way of Muslim scriptures, commentaries, and fatwas (Islamic decrees).
It begins, as usual, with the prophet of Islam: Muhammad. According to a bizarre hadith (a recorded tradition concerning his sayings and doings) that exists in six of Islam’s classical reference texts (including the important Kanz al-‘Umal and al-Hujja fi Biyan al-Mahujja), Muhammad once took off his shirt, placed it on a dead woman, and then descended into her grave to “lay with her.”
As they hurled dirt atop the corpse and Muhammad, the grave diggers exclaimed, “O Prophet, we see you doing a thing you never did with anyone else,” to which he responded: “I dressed her in my shirt so that she may be dressed in heavenly robes, and I lay with her in her grave so that the pressures of the grave [also known as Islam’s torments of the grave] may be alleviated from her.”
One can interpret this, and there certainly is no reason to insist that Muhammad was actually copulating with the corpse. There are, however, some hurdles:
First, the two Arabic words (ataja‘ ma‘ha اضطجع معها) which I translate above as “lay with her,” are also used in Arabic to mean “intercourse.” This is similar to the English idiom, “to lay with her,” which can literally mean nothing more than laying down with a woman, but often is an indirect reference to sex. More than a few Muslim clerics have made this linguistic observation.
Second, Sunni Islam’s four orthodox schools of jurisprudence (or madhahib al- fiqh)—namely, al-Hanafi, al-Hanbali, al-Maliki, and al-Shafi‘i—implicitly permit necrophilia. None of them actually addresses it on its own; rather, they give it a nod whenever it comes up in the context of other topics. Thus, in the section on adultery, the Maliki teaching is that “If a husband enters his dead wife—any which way, from front or behind—there is no penalty for him” (Sharh Mukhtasar al-Khalil fi al-fiqh al-Maliki).
Similarly, Shafi‘i rulings on ablution point out that it is unnecessary to rewash the body of the dead—male or female adds the Hanbali madhhab—after penetrating it, though the penis of the penetrator does require washing.
Regardless of all the above, it is not for the non-Muslim—certainly not for me—to tell Muslims what their texts are really saying and teaching. That is the job of their ulema: scholars and clerics devoted to learning the deep truths of Islam. Thus, the real question remains: do modern day ulema permit necrophilia?
The lamentable answer is yes. For instance, in 2011 a leading Moroccan cleric and founding member of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Sheikh Abdul Bari Zamzami, issued a fatwa permitting the Muslim husband to copulate with his dead wife. He prefaced his decree by saying that, although he does not necessarily approve of this act, it is not for him to ban what Islam permits. As proof, he cited the aforementioned rulings of Islam’s schools of jurisprudence.
Soon thereafter, in April 2012, when the Muslim Brotherhood held the presidency of Egypt, news that Islamist Egyptian parliamentarians were trying to pass a law legalizing necrophilia appeared. Although Al Ahram, Egypt’s most reputable paper reported the story, it was quickly dismissed as a hoax in Western media (which often happens whenever Islam makes the news in ways that do not comport with Western sensibilities). As one journalist argued, “This ugly rumor and hoax, thought to originate in a fatwa by [the aforementioned] sheikh Zamzami, a noted Moroccan cleric, should be doubted for the simple reason that no Egyptian Islamist sheikh, or any other Imam, has ever been reported to approve of necrophilia.”
If that was true in 2012, it wasn’t in 2017, when necrophilia was yet again mentioned and legitimized, this time by Sheikh Sabri Abdul Raeuf, a professor at Egypt’s Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s most prestigious university (which Pope Francis considers an ally). During a televised show in Egypt, the Sheikh/professor was asked if it is permissible for a husband to penetrate his wife after death. He replied, “It is not favorable in Islam; however Islamic law considers it as halal”—that is, permissible, not a crime or sin deserving of punishment in the here or hereafter (unlike, for example, the heinous crime of apostasy, leaving Islam).
A subsequent Youm7 Arabic report titled (in translation) “The Books of al-Shafi‘i, al-Hanbali, and al-Hanafi Reveal that Sex with a Dead Wife is Not Adultery,” verified the Al Azhar professor’s claims.
Nor, it should be noted, is necrophilia limited to crazy terrorists lurking halfway around the world. In the UK, late one night in 2019, a Muslim man, Kasim Khuram, broke into a funeral home, opened several coffins, and, having made his “selections,” proceeded to yank out and “rape” two female corpses. When police arrested him, Khuram explained his actions by laughingly saying, “Every hole is a goal.”
At any rate, after the expenditure of two decades’ worth of American blood and treasure, here is yet another, especially disgusting, reminder of who the Biden administration has left in charge of Afgha
India: Another Hindu Woman Converted to Islam, Sold Off, Slaughtered by Muslim Husband
An everyday occurrence in India.
Thu Aug 26, 2021
Muslim men initiating romantic associations with Hindu women, marrying them, converting them to Islam, putting them through endless agonies and finally killing them has become an everyday occurrence in India. The horror of these stories remains constant; what changes is the intensity of violence these women are made to endure during their partnership with these men.
Yet another shocking case of this has been reported from Kota in the western state of Rajasthan, India; a 26-year-old mother of three, Rizwana, was attacked and killed by her husband Imran in the middle of the street in broad daylight, because she had been staying away from him and seeking a divorce.
The deceased was originally a Hindu girl named Antima. She was a 15-year-old minor when she met and fell in love with welding worker Imran, and did a “love marriage” with him. Shortly after the marriage, she converted to Islam and adopted the name Rizwana. This marriage was never a smooth and loving one. But Antima, the ninth of ten siblings, held on to the marriage, hoping for things would improve gradually. The couple also had three children, but the arrival of their children didn’t change things for the better, either. In fact, as children were added to his family, Imran picked up the habit of whipping the children as well.
Imran, as reported by Antima’s sister Anita, was a drunkard who would physically assault his wife regularly, in fits of rage. Anita further notes that Imran would often burn Antima with cigarettes.
The sister of the deceased also told the media that Imran had once taken Antima to the popular Indian tourist destination Goa, and sold her off to the skin trade. With a great deal of effort, Antima somehow rescued herself. She then, however, made a disastrous decision: she chose to stay with Imran and give him another chance.
Her living conditions kept deteriorating, and the beating and battering only grew more frequent. Antima finally decided to walk away from this toxic marriage, and moved in with her elder sister. But Imran would call her and threaten her with dire consequences; her mother-in-law (Imran’s mother) would also harass her every day, according to Anita.
“A couple of months ago, Imran had ferociously attacked her with a cricket bat. The wounds Antima received from that beating were so critical that she had to be given 17 stitches,” adds Anita.
Antima stayed away from Imran for two years, but Imran continued to threaten her, and one day forcefully took her to his dwelling. This time he was more ferocious in his tortures of the hapless woman.
For the previous two months, Antima had been staying with her elder sister. On Wednesday, August 18, Antima was on her way to perform her regular chores when Imran ambushed her and repeatedly struck her with a sharp knife; he then fled the scene. Antima’s niece, who was accompanying Antima on her way, also sustained knife injuries in the mayhem. Locals rushed Antima to a local hospital. She was bleeding profusely from the multiple injuries she had received; her throat was slit as well. Doctors at the local hospital referred her to the New Medical College. Unfortunately, she was pronounced dead on arrival at the medical college. Antima met the same fate as hundreds of thousands of Hindu girls who are trapped in Love Jihad in India. The three children she has left behind are now orphaned.
This is the second known case of Hindu women being killed by Muslim partners in India this week. The first one was Diksha Mishra, who was killed by her lover, also named Imran, although he was pretending to be a Hindu, Rishabh Tiwari.
Taliban’s Regulations For Women
It will send chills down your spine.
Thu Aug 26, 2021
Conventional media have put all their resources into whitewashing the brutalities of the Taliban and giving them an image makeover, so as to make them acceptable to the modern world and perhaps win these mountain savages a seat at the United Nations. They tell us that Taliban 2.0 is a whole different entity and is not comparable to the Taliban that had wreaked havoc in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. After all, the Muslim group has promised to honor women rights and allow them to continue to work as usual. Little girls could receive education as well.
We are a little confused by the Taliban’s commitment to permitting girls to go to school, because quite recently, Taliban jihadis were going door-to-door hunting down girls as young as twelve years old, to take them as sex slaves. We have learned of a woman being lashed for wearing revealing slippers and another burka-clad woman being shot dead for not covering her face enough. And these atrocities have happened under the rule of the moderate, women’s-rights-acknowledging Taliban 2.0.
Leaders of the Muslim outfit have clarified their views on women’s rights in the country: “The rights of women will be under the Sharia law,” affirmed Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, during their first press conference since conquering Kabul.
And what are the rights granted to women by this esteemed Islamic law? Let’s look at the “rights” Afghan women enjoyed during Taliban 1.0 from 1996 to 2001; or shall we call them impositions?
Women were not allowed to walk out of their homes without a burqa covering every inch of their skin, including their feet, hands and face. Most women during that period opted for the shuttlecock burqa that covered them from head to toe; there was a little gap for the eyes, but with a net or mesh covering the gap so that their eyes couldn’t be seen. It was mandatory for every woman to be accompanied by a male family member – a blood relative – while she was out on the street.
No man should be able to hear the footsteps of a woman, hence, high heels or any kind of footwear that produced a sound while walking were banned from use by women.
A woman’s voice must not reach the ears of a man who is not related to her. Hence she must watch the level of sound she was producing while talking. Would it be “Islamophobia” if we said that the Taliban had perfected the textbook version of silencing a woman?
Again, as women were prohibited from being viewed by men who were not related to her by blood, it was mandatory that the windows of all ground floors be painted in a dark tint, covered, or shut at all times, just in case a woman passed by and became visible to a man in the ground floor.
Also, women were barred from standing at the balconies of their houses, as that could allow men on the streets or male neighbors to catch a glimpse of them.
The word “woman” was removed from all public places or names of public places.
Women were precluded from having their pictures taken or being filmed. No images of women could be printed on the pages of books or newspapers, or kept at stores or in homes.
It goes without saying that women were not allowed to be in movies or on television, or to work at radio stations. They were forbidden from forming groups outdoors or holding public gatherings.
Women have never been allowed to work in offices under the Taliban. They cannot work as journalists, bankers, teachers, nurses, doctors or hold administrative positions, as these jobs would land them amidst male colleagues who are not related to them. Office jobs held by women were subsequently passed on to their male family members.
Little girls were banned from going to school. Numerous schools imparting education to girls have been bombed or burned down by the Taliban, not only in Afghanistan, but in several countries where they have gained the slightest foothold.
No woman under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan ever enjoyed the basic human right of speaking her mind or dressing as she liked. Women who flouted any of the above commandments were subjected to harsh, undreamed-of and ruthless punishments by the religious police. They could be stoned to death, mutilated, or given hundreds of lashes with a meter-long metal lash. Many of these women perished in the midst of receiving their penalty.
Afghanistan in 1996 witnessed a young woman’s finger being chopped off by the Taliban; she had dared to paint her nails. A woman named Bibi Aisha was forced into a nightmarish marriage as a trade-off to settle a family dispute. When she tried to escape the violent and abusive marriage, the Taliban, to shame her for her act of disobedience and to set a warning example for the other young women in the community, severed her nose and ears.
One must be an absolute ignoramus living in denial to even begin to trust that the Taliban will leave the Afghan women alone this time.
Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged
How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.
Fri Sep 11, 2020
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 12th 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
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.
Raymond Ibrahim Interview: Truth About Islam Must Be Acknowledged
How an ideology's teachings are antithetical to Western values.
Fri Sep 11, 2020
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 12th 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.
Two Afghans Brought to U.S. Charged with Child Sex Crimes, Strangling Wife While Living on WI Military Base
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment