Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications from New English Review Press
The Tongue is Also a Fire
by James Como
Out Into The Beautiful World
by Theodore Dalrymple
Unreading Shakespeare
by David P. Gontar
Islam Through the Looking Glass: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J. B. Kelly, Vol. 3
edited by S. B. Kelly
The Real Nature of Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum

Friday, 5 February 2016
Realism about Immigration

In September 2015 the photo of a 3 year-old Syrian child lying dead on a Turkish beach next to his mother and 5 year-old brother who had all drowned, as had over 2,000 others, was a poignant picture. Everyone recognizes the need for humanitarian assistance to a reasonable degree for those trying to escape from the horrors of the brutality of the war in Syria and the barbarous Islamist terrorism.

While recognizing the moral problem involved, the countries of Europe are confronted with the pragmatic problem of responding in the context of 4.6 million Middle East refugees seeking asylum and 13.5 million people needing assistance inside Syria.  The numbers will grow as the civil war in Syria continues and ISIS, the Islamic State, still exists.

There are three factors involved. The first is the unwelcome straightforward issue of the number of would be migrants, genuine refugees, from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somali, and Eritrea, who can realistically be accepted by European countries and, to a lesser extent, by the United States. A second is whether those migrants, mostly Muslim, can be satisfactorily integrated into western democratic societies. Already in 2015 more than 1 million people came to Europe by sea, and another 34,000 by land. A third problem is the fear that some of them may be Islamists or jihadists prepared to cause harm, rather than genuine refugees.

By coincidence, these factors were discussed on successive days, February 3 and February 4, 2016. On the first day, the President of Finland Sauli Niinisto said that migration into European by people, almost all Muslims, was a serious threat to Western values, culture and identity. It is now clear that a considerable number of those seeking asylum are not genuine refugees fleeing war. Tougher laws are needed to prevent migrants from entering Europe simply because they are in search of a better life. The West should try to some extent to help those in distress or who are being persecuted but not those people who are not really in need.    

On February 4, 2016 a conference in London attended by representatives of 60 countries was held to raise funds to assist in the humanitarian crisis and to provide jobs and schools for refugees. Held one day after peace talks in Geneva on Syria had failed and been suspended, the London Conference agreed to raise more than $10 billion, the largest amount raised in one day in response to a humanitarian crisis. The sum of $6 billion was raised for 2016, and almost $5 billion for future years. Germany is to provide $2.5 billion, the UK $1.75 billion, the European Union 2.6 billion euros, and the U.S. $925 million.

This aid, however, does not resolve the European underlying dilemma and disagreements about admitting migrants, and the numbers of them, a dilemma that also faces the United States. The heated debate among the Republican presidential candidates continues on the various related issues: amnesty for illegal immigrants, temporary visas, green cards, the banning of all Muslims from entering the country, and the need to secure the US border. Already, 30 governors have declared their states would not accept any of the 10,000 Syrians that President Barack Obama had suggested could enter the country, while some of the presidential candidates have suggested admitting only Christian Syrians.

The debate is even more heated among the European countries, facing the largest migration crisis since World War II.  Many European citizens regard immigration as the major political concern and one that for two reasons calls for strict limitation on numbers that should be admitted. One is that it is simply not feasible for European societies now encountering economic difficulties, to manage to incorporate a large influx of foreigners that would be a burden on resources. The other is the reasonable expectation that the nature of their society would be changed for the worse.

That concern has a number of practical dimensions. The countries of the European Union, more concerned with their own interests than with collective EU solidarity, have difficulty in agreeing on a solution on admitting migrants. In September 2015 European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker declared that the 160,000 asylum seekers would be divided according to quotas based on country size, and economic output among the 28 countries of the EU. Germany, which has taken disproportionate numbers, was to take 17,000, and France 12,000, but the UK opted out of this quota proposal. The UK did not join the earlier plan in 2015 to relocate 40,000 migrants from Greece and Italy more evenly. Instead it built walls around the entrance of the Channel Tunnel to prevent migrants camped in Calais from entering it to get to Britain.

One fear has been that refugee camps in European countries may become breeding grounds for jihadists. That has come true according to new reports about young people in the Traiskirchen migrant camp in Austria that holds 1500 individuals. Those young people have apparently become radicalized because of the difficulty and their unwillingness to become integrated into Austrian society.

Austria, with a population of 9 million, received 90,000 asylum claims, but many of the claims were by economic, not political, migrants. The Austrian government deported 12,500, and argued that the European Union should stop giving aid to those Middle East countries that refuse to take back nationals whose asylum claims were rejected.

All the European countries recognize that the influx of migrants has caused difficulties in their social, economic, and political system. They face increasing burdens on social welfare programs. Those countries where unemployment is nearly 11 per cent have cut benefits.

 Politically, many of the countries have witnessed the rise of far right and nationalist political parties who call for limits on immigration, especially by those of Muslim culture and religion, who they argue are difficult to integrate into the existing system or even worse may be hostile to it as has been shown by the Islamist violence in Malmo, Sweden.

Among these parties are the French National Front, Dutch Party of Freedom, Ukip in the UK, the Italian Lega Nord, the Swedish Democrats, Pergida and Alternative for Germany in Germany, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Danish People’s Party, the Progressive party in Norway, the Finns in Finland, the Golden Dawn in Greece, the Flemish Interest in Belgium, the PVV in The Netherlands, Jobik  and Fidesz in Hungary. They change the landscape in European politics.

Some of these parties are virulent in their opposition to immigration and their fear of the challenge to Western values. Nevertheless, two factors are relevant. It is not racist to suggest that for practical reasons reasonable limits be put on those attempting to immigrate. Considering the millions desiring to leave not only from the Middle East but also from Africa, Europe faces the possibility of an enormous increase in scale and an uncontrollable pressure. That pressure becomes even more potent since the native population of Europe is aging and declining.

 More important is the perceived threat of Muslim migrants to western values and the possibility of social, cultural, and religious conflicts, and especially Islamist terrorism, they may bring. The question is not one of discrimination, but of real differences: educational levels, cultural behavior, religious and political views.

 The Finnish President on February 3, 2016 asked the question, “We have to ask ourselves whether we aim to protect European values and people …or inflexibly stick to the letter of our international obligation with no regard for the consequences.”  If Western democracies are to survive the answer is obvious.

Posted on 02/05/2016 11:44 AM by Michael Curtis
Friday, 5 February 2016
Wheelchair Passenger Suspected As Suicide Bomber In Somalia Plane Explosion


A wheelchair passenger who boarded a commercial plane in Somalia’s capital may have been a suicide bomber responsible for Tuesday’s explosion that ripped a hole in the side of the aircraft as it took off. Investigators suspect the man was able to use the wheelchair to bypass rigorous security screening at Mogadishu's international airport and then detonated a bomb that damaged the fuselage but failed to down the Daallo Airlines flight, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“An individual got onto the plane in a wheelchair and is suspected of being the suicide bomber,” a Western diplomat briefed on the investigation told the New York-based newspaper Thursday.

The strength of the explosion ejected the alleged suicide bomber from the plane’s cabin and his body tumbled near the district of Bal’ad, about 20 miles from the capital, where it was recovered by authorities. The Djibouti-bound Airbus A321 was forced to make an emergency landing Tuesday, just minutes after jetting off from Aden Abdulle International Airport in Mogadishu.

Hussien Mohamed, a freelance journalist in Mogadishu, spoke with eyewitnesses who watched in horror from the ground in Bal'ad as the incident unfolded in the sky above them. “First, they heard a heavy explosion before they saw a body fall from the plane,” Mohamed said in an interview Thursday.

Somali officials said the passenger who fell from the plane has been identified as Abdullahi Abdisalam Borleh, 55, from Somaliland. But they did not confirm if the man was the alleged suicide bomber. The crew and the 74 other passengers on board survived, though two people, Abdirashid Abdi Islamil and Ismail Ali Osoble, were wounded.

“Somalia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mohamed Omar Arte indicated that as soon as the investigation is concluded, he promised the government will step up airport security against any potential threat,” a spokesperson from Somlia's Office of the Prime Minister said in a statement Thursday.

Investigators suspect al-Shabab, a Somalia-based terrorist group, was behind the explosion, U.S. government sources told Reuters Wednesday. Al-Shabab has increased efforts in recent months to regain control of lost territories in Somalia, while seeking to topple the country’s Western-backed government. The al Qaeda affiliate emerged in 2006 from the now-defunct Islamic Courts Union that controlled Mogadishu.  Al-Shabab  launched its own insurgency on major Somali cities by 2009, controlling Mogadishu and southern Somalia until it was driven out by domestic and international forces around 2012. Many rural areas of Somalia are still controlled by al-Shabab and the Sunni Militant group regularly targets civilians, hotels and restaurants in the capital.

Posted on 02/05/2016 5:10 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Thursday, 4 February 2016
What happens if you express a negative view of Islam? Ask Tommy Robinson

Comments closed already at The Telegraph, although I am surprised they allowed them even for a few hours.

A few weeks back, Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League, sent me his self-published memoirs, called Enemy of the State. The book has been largely ignored by most of the established media, although has caused a bit of a stir among counter-Jihadist groups across Europe. I’d recommend people read it, although perhaps not for the reasons Tommy would like you to.

Analysts will find a lot to chew over in the stories about the EDL, and probably less in his views on religion and society.

But by far the most interesting parts of the book relate to his upbringing and his experience of the police. Though this is probably not his audience, for academics and civil liberties campaigners this book provides a wealth of almost accidental insight.

First, it’s notable just how much of his views about Islam are a result of his upbringing in Luton, and the troubles between Muslim and white youth. . . 

When his second cousin, who was a heroin addict, was groomed and sexually assaulted by a gang of Pakistani men, it cemented his view – which hasn’t changed since – that in the end Muslims will always stick together against non-Muslims. "Islam trumps everything," he writes.

Although my reading is that these troubles were with young men in gangs of Asian youths, Tommy sees it all linking back to religion. Ever since then, he’s been reading (and tweeting) stories which all support this thinking. To him, the Paris terrorist murders and recent Cologne sex attacks have been like a souped up, international version of what went on in his home town.

More interesting still are his accounts of the police, with whom he has had more experiences that most people.Tommy is convinced that from the moment he got involved with the EDL he was subjected to a non-stop campaign by the police to use every power they had to harass, disrupt, and, ultimately, recruit him. Prima facie it looks that way. He has been arrested and acquitted an incredible number of times; bail hearings were set at intentionally awkward times; bail conditions were sometimes highly dubious. He even claims that prison guards kept putting him on Muslim majority wings so he’d get beaten up. Perhaps most worrying of all is that, as I read it, most of this was probably all within the law – a series of quite clever, if very aggressive, policing tactics. It’s hard to make out whether or not there is a legal case to answer here, since the numerous claims he makes are difficult to investigate fully. A civil liberties specialist might look into it: but because it’s Tommy Robinson, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

And the reason I wouldn't hold my breath is because Tommy is a pariah. That’s really the background noise for the entire book, although Robinson doesn’t raise it explicitly: that life as a political activist on the fringes of polite opinion really is no fun at all. . . Step too far outside mainstream opinion and life as an activist gets very hard indeed – especially if you're not media-trained and you're working-class.

How far people feel free – legally and socially – to voice controversial opinions is important even for those who detest Robinson’s politics. A society where people with views outside the mainstream have to go through all this is not a healthy one in the long term. In a strange sort of way, how we treat people we disagree with is an indication of how free society really is. I think we still have some work to do.

Posted on 02/04/2016 5:09 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Thursday, 4 February 2016
France Proposes Peace in the Middle East

In recent years the government of France has tried to play a role in Middle Eastern affairs, and in the struggle against Islamist terrorism. It has been particularly eager to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. In December 2014 France proposed an international conference to discuss the issue within a two year framework.

On Friday January 29, 2016 French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, qualifying the 2014 proposal, outlined the French position in two parts. One part was that France would organize an international conference, including the European countries, the U.S., and Arab countries, to agree on a two state solution, Israel and Palestine. The other part, considerably more controversial, was that France would “ live up to our responsibilities” by recognizing Palestine as an independent state if the conference was unsuccessful.

No one can doubt the good intentions of Fabius or the French hopes for a peaceful conclusion of the century old conflict. However, both parts of his proposal are arguable in view of the reality in the area. Palestinian authorities are divided into factions, some of which are determined not to allow the State of Israel to exist. Although the Palestinian Authority exists its ability to make decision is challenged, and therefore it is unclear who is supposed to be the representative body at any peace conference.

Two issues are involved. One is that Hamas, the terrorist ruling group in the Gaza Strip, may insist on its own state, separate from that in the West Bank. The other is that the various Palestinian leaders will not or cannot control Palestinian violence, or even their incitement to violence.

That violence never stops. On Wednesday February 3, 2016 two female Israeli Border Police officers were attacked by three Palestinians in Jerusalem near the Old City, outside the Damascus Gate. One of them, a 19 year-old woman, who had recently joined the Border Police, died. The attackers, who came from the Jenin area and who were armed with a rifle, knives, and an explosive device, were shot and killed by Israeli police.

Immediately, the mainstream media provided a misleading and anti-Israeli account of the attacks. In this CBS News was prominent. Its disgraceful headline was “Three Palestinians killed as daily violence grinds on.” After protests were made about this prejudiced presentation, CBS changed it to “Israeli police kill three alleged (sic) Palestinian attackers.” It then changed the headline again, this time to a more correct one, to “Palestinians attack 2 Israeli officers before being killed.”

This was an unhappy coincidence between the French proposal and initiative and the brutal Palestinian attack on two young women. Unfortunately, the Palestinian response to the proposal is not likely to limit the terrorist attacks or plans. A few day after the Fabius proposal, another two members of the military wing of Hamas were killed on February 2, 2016 while rebuilding one of the tunnels in the Gaza Strip, used as a launching pad for attacks against Israeli civilians. The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismael Haniyeh, said the reconstruction of the tunnels, and the digging of rocks must continue. The Hamas spokesperson, Hussam Badrun, called the February 3 attack a “severe blow to the security apparatus of Israel and as a turning point in Al-Quds Intifada.”

In their turn, the Fatah leaders have praised the acts of terrorists as “heroic,” and honored them.

European countries have already started on the path of recognition of “Palestine.” The European Parliament in December 2014 adopted a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state. So far, Sweden in October 2014 is the only EU country to grant official recognition of the phantom state. However, the UN General Assembly on November 29, 2012 decided by a vote of 138-9-41 that Palestine was a non-member Observer State. All these actions in upgrading the UN status have bypassed the supposed negotiations on the issue. Nevertheless, neither the European decisions nor those of the UN have issued the birth certificate of Palestine.

The EU also in November 2015 issued guidelines that produce made in Israeli settlements must not be labeled “Made in Israel.” This is tantamount to participating in the BDS movement.

There are therefore serious problems with the French initiative, helpful though it intended to be. There are at least two factors. M. Fabius must first ensure that Palestinians are truly interested in negotiations and not dedicated to the elimination of Israel. The second is agreement on the basis of negotiations. President Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues have insisted on conditions, such as Israeli full construction freeze in settlements, and the release of Palestinian prisoners. In contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to enter into negotiations without preconditions and without dictated conditions.   

It cannot be encouraging for Fabius, who has proposed the recognition of Palestine even if the negotiations fail, to listen to the ongoing utterances of Palestinian leaders. The adviser to PA Chairman Abbas and member of the Fatah Central Committee , Sultan Abu Al-Einein in January 2016 praised the Palestinian terror wave in which Palestinians have murdered 28 Israelis and wounded 287. He bowed “before every drop of blood that has dripped from our children and women…those seeking knives today will seek rifles and weapons tomorrow.”

Once again this Palestinian leader uses the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood. He falsely claimed that the terror wave began because of what was happening in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the deliberate falsehood that Israel was seeking to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque.

A more general problem, especially for France in spite of the efforts of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, is the disturbing fact of the increasing  number of anti-Israel and antisemitic views of  citizens in European countries. A number of recent studies show that more than 40 per cent of the population in the European Union held that Israelis were behaving like Nazis, a view that is akin to anti-Semitic attitudes. As we know the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism has often been blurred.

If an international conference is well and impartially organized by France the issues are well known. A two state solution with various swaps of land, to which some political leaders of Israel have agreed, is acceptable to most mainstream, if not all, Israelis. The Palestinians, which ever group is in power, must end all violence, accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel, stop denouncing Israel in international forums and end the BDS campaign, must give up the concept of the “Right of Return” in so far as it applies to Israeli territory, and accept the provisions that Israel has made for its security in border controls and fences.

Fabius might also insist that Palestinian gross violations of human rights cease. Even the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights exposed that torture, whippings, hanging a person from his hands, verbal abuse, and sleep deprivation is being carried out in detention centers.

One encouraging event is that a large vulture that had flown from an Israeli game reserve and landed in a Lebanese village and had been detained in Lebanon on suspicion of spying for Israel was released after UN intervention. The vulture, part of an Israeli conservation project had tags on its wings, “Tel Aviv University, Israel.”

Laurent Fabius must tread carefully in the hunt not for the vulture but for the dove of peace.

Posted on 02/04/2016 6:49 AM by Michael Curtis
Thursday, 4 February 2016
Britain says Russia trying to carve out mini-state for Assad in Syria

Once again, Russia is playing the adult in the room. How else will non-Sunnis in Syria be protected? This is something no one in the Presidential field is addressing. Reuters:

Britain said on Tuesday Russia could be trying to carve out an Alawite mini-state in Syria for its ally President Bashar al-Assad by bombing his opponents instead of fighting Islamic State militants.

Russia and Britain have been trading barbs after British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told Reuters he believed President Vladimir Putin was worsening the Syrian civil war by bombing opponents of Islamic State.

Hammond dismissed Russian criticism that he was spreading "dangerous disinformation", saying there was a limit to how long Russia could pose as a promoter of the peace process while bombing Assad's opponents, who the West hopes can shape Syria once the president is gone.

The West won't be able to shape Syria by kicking Assad out. See Iraq, Libya and Egypt.

Posted on 02/04/2016 6:37 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Thursday, 4 February 2016
The Preposterous Nonsense Known as Homoeopathy

The preposterous nonsense known as homoeopathy has long exasperated doctors: but at whom, exactly, is their exasperation directed? At the homoeopaths themselves, or at the credulous and foolish public that persists in its patronage of such quackery on quite a large scale? According to a recent commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 2 percent of Americans patronized homoeopaths last year.

The absurdity of homoeopathic theory – that diseases are cured by substances that produce similar symptoms to themselves, that those substances are more powerful the more dilute they became and so forth — was recognized by doctors very early on. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a famous polemic against it, as did Sir James Young Simpson, the discoverer of the anaesthetic properties of chloroform. But homoeopathy had one great advantage over its orthodox rival at the time of its development, the beginning of the nineteenth century, namely that at least it did no harm. This was an immense advantage, for the remedies used by orthodox medicine of the time were often worse than the diseases for whose cure they were employed.

The article in the Journal draws attention to the anomaly, as it sees it, of the lack of regulatory oversight of homoeopathic remedies sold over the counter. But one may ask why there should be such oversight of products that are sometimes so dilute that the chances are they do not contain a single molecule of the allegedly therapeutic substance. What harm can be done by such substances?

There are two possible answers to this. The first is that it is in principle wrong to deceive the public about the properties of what it buys. Therapeutic claims for homoeopathic remedies are inherently bogus and therefore ought to be prohibited, for falsehood is harmful in itself. And the second reason is that people who use such supposed remedies might continue to suffer from curable diseases for which, because of their resort to homoeopathy, they do not seek proper curative treatment.

Let us take the second argument first. As far as I am aware, no study has ever shown that people who resort to homoeopathy actually do suffer unnecessarily from curable diseases as a consequence, and research by a friend of mine showed why: he found that alternative medicine is usually not so much alternative as additional. When people who believe in homoeopathy have serious conditions, they therefore do not deprive themselves of orthodox medicine. In other words, the potential of homoeopathy to harm the public health on these grounds is very slight.

The first argument, that deception, whether it be conscious or not, should be prohibited, is to treat the public as minors incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood and therefore in need of state protection. In fact the promotion and sale of many goods relies both on the suggestion of falsehood and the suppression of truth, at least to some degree; and since homoeopathic remedies are harmless rather than poisonous, there is very little to protect the public from if it chooses to accept falsehood.

There is another great advantage of homoeopathic remedies not mentioned in the article in the Journal. Doctors are nowadays not permitted deliberately to prescribe placebos, and so, if they wish to take advantage on behalf of their patients of the placebo effect, have to prescribe pharmacologically active drugs with real side-effects. If they prescribed homoeopathic remedies instead, this problem would be avoided. The impressive flim-flam of homoeopathic labeling would impress the credulous and eliminate the risk of serious side-effects.       

The advantage would be bought at the cost of a little deception, of course. Whether the end would justify the means I leave to philosophers to decide.

First published in PJ Media.

Posted on 02/04/2016 5:46 AM by Theodore Dalrymple
Thursday, 4 February 2016
Obama, Islam, and History

“‘Thomas Jefferson’s opponents tried to stir things up by suggesting he was a Muslim. So I was not the first,’ Obama said, sparking laughter. ‘No, it’s true. Look it up. I’m in good company.'” — From USA Today on Barack Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore, February 3, 2016

Barack Obama paid a visit — his first — to an American mosque yesterday. He did so in the same feelgood spirit with which he held his first “Annual Iftar Dinner” in 2010. That dinner prompted a post which, considerably modified and enlarged, is reprinted below.

“The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan — making it the first known iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” — Barack Obama, speaking on August 14, 2010, at the “Annual Iftar Dinner” at the White House

Really? Is that what happened? Was there a “first known Iftar at the White House” given by none other than President Thomas Jefferson for the “first Muslim ambassador to the United States”? That’s what Barack Obama and his dutiful speechwriters told the Muslims in attendance at what was billed as the “Annual Iftar Dinner,” knowing full well that the remarks would be published for all Americans to see. Apparently Obama, and those who helped write this speech for him, and others still who vetted it, found nothing wrong with attempting, as part of the administration’s policy of both trying to win Muslim hearts and Muslim mind and to convince Americans that Islam has always been part of America’s history, to misrepresent that history. For the dinner Jefferson gave was not intended to be an Iftar dinner, and his guest that evening was not “the first Muslim ambassador…. from Tunisia,” but in using such words, Obama was engaged in a little nunc pro tunc backdating, so that the Iftar dinner that he gave in 2010 could be presented as part of a supposed tradition of such presidential Iftar dinners, going all the way back to the time of Jefferson.

But before explaining what that “first Iftar dinner” really was, let’s go back to an earlier but even more egregious example of Obama’s rewriting: the speech he delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009. In that speech, he described Islam and America sharing basic principles:

“I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

And then for his Muslim guests he segued into a flattering lesson in History. First he described Western Civ. which, he said, owed so much of its development to Islam:

“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” (Applause.)

And  Islam played — according to Obama — a significant role in American history, too:

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they’ve excelled in our sports arenas, they’ve won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

We could go through those paragraphs accompanied by such keen students of history as Gibbon, John Quincy Adams,, Jacob Burckhardt, and Winston Churchill, all of whom had occasion to study and comment upon Islam, their remarks rebutting proleptically Obama’s vaporings with their much more informed and sober take on the faith — but that is for another occasion. We can note, however, that when Obama in his Cairo speech talks about “the light of learning” being held aloft at places like Al-Azhar, he misstates: some Greek texts were translated into Arabic and thereby “kept alive” instead of being lost to history, but the translators were mostly Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews, not Muslims, and the work of translation went on not at Al-Azhar but at the courts of Cordoba  and Baghdad. The word “algebra” is certainly Arab, but algebra itself was a product of Sanskrit mathematicians. The printing press was not a Musim invention and its use was accepted in the Muslim East only long after it had been in use in Western Christendom. Indeed, in Islam itself the very notion of innovation, or “bida,” is frowned upon, and not only, as some Muslim apologists have claimed, in theological matters. And so on.

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.”

The picture Obama paints by implication, of Muslims being deeply  involved in the grand sweep of American history practically from the time of the Framers (at least he didn’t make the mistake of the State Department flunkie who claimed Muslims accompanied Columbus on his voyages) is simply false. The first mosque in North America was a one-room affair in 1929; the second mosque was not built until 1934. The first Muslim to be elected to Congress was Keith Ellison, less than a decade ago. The Muslim appearance in America is very late. As for Morocco being the first country to recognize the United States in a treaty, Morocco also soon violated that very treaty and became the first country to go to war with the young Republic. That is something Obama’s advisers may not have told him.

When Obama quotes that single phrase from John Adams, made at the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli, a treaty designed to free American ships and seaman from the ever-present threat from the marauding Muslim corsairs in the Mediterranean that attacked Christian shipping at will (and when America became independent, it could no longer count on the Royal Navy to protect its ships) he wants us to think that our second president was approving of Islam.  But that is to misinterpret his statement, clearly meant to be taken to have this meaning: we in the United States, have a priori nothing against Islam. Rhetoric designed to diplomatically please. But based on his subsequent experiences with the North African Muslims, including his experiences with them after various treaties were made and then broken, Adams came to a different and negative view of Islam, a view that  was shared by all those Americans who, whether diplomats or seized seamen, had any direct dealings  with Muslims.  America’s first encounter with Muslims was that with the Barbary Pirates, from Morocco to Algiers to Tunis to Tripoli, and their behavior rendered Adams’s initial “the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims” null and void. And it was not John Adams himself, but his son John Quincy Adams (our most learned President), who studied Islam in depth, and it was he to whom Obama ought to have turned to find out more about Islam. For he would have found, among other piercing and accurate remarks by J. Q. Adams, the following:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

Isn’t it amazing that not a single American official — and not just Obama — has ever alluded to the study of Islam that one of our most illustrious presidents produced?

Again, Obama, with a jumble of Jefferson, Ellison, and Holy Koran:

 “And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.”

When Obama notes that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of the Qur’an in his “personal” library, he is subtly implying that Jefferson approved of its contents. Keith Ellison did much the same when he ostentatiously used that very copy of the Qur’an for his own swearing-in as the first Muslim Congressman. But Jefferson, a curious and cultivated man, with a large library, had a copy of the Qur’an for the same reason you or I might possess a copy, that is simply to find out what was in it. And we might note in passing that it was not the “Holy Koran” that Jefferson possessed and Ellison borrowed, but an English translation by George Sales of the “Koran.” According to Muslims, the epithet “Holy” can only be attached to a Koran written and read in the original Arabic. White House, for the next time, take note.

There is not a single American statesman or traveler or diplomat in the days of the early Republic who had a good word for Islam once he had studied it, or had had dealings with Muslims or had travelled to their countries. Look high, look low, consult whatever records you want in the National Archives or the Library of Congress, and you will not find any such testimony. And the very idea that an American President would someday praise Islam to the skies in Obama’s fulsome manner would have astounded them all.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance” 

Also sprach Obama. But Islam is based on an uncompromising division of humanity into Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Unbelievers, and Unbelievers, at best, can be allowed to live in a Muslim polity — be “tolerated” — only if they accept a position of permanent and humiliating inferiority.  It would be fascinating if Obama could name even one example of Islam demonstrating through words and deeds “the possibilities of religious tolerance.”

But let’s return to Obama’s assertion about Jefferson’s “Iftar Dinner,” or rather, to that dinner that Barack Obama would have us all believe was the first “Iftar Dinner” at the White House, way back in 1805.

Here is the background to that meal in 1805 which not Jefferson, but Obama, calls an “Iftar Dinner”:

“In the Mediterranean, American ships, now deprived of the protection formerly offered by the Royal Navy, suffered constant depredations by Muslim corsairs, who were not so much pirates acting alone but were officially encouraged to prey on Christian shipping, and at times even recorded the areas of the Mediterranean where they planned to go in search of Christian prey. Under Jefferson, America took a more aggressive line:’

“Soon after the Revolutionary War and the consequent loss of the British navy’s protection, American merchant vessels had become prey for Barbary corsairs. Jefferson was outraged by the demands of ransom for civilians captured from American vessels and the Barbary states’ expectation of annual tribute.

“The crisis with Tunis erupted when the USS Constitution captured Tunisian vessels attempting to run the American blockade of Tripoli. The bey of Tunis threatened war and sent Mellimelli [Sidi Soliman Mellimelli] to the United States to negotiate full restitution for the captured vessels and to barter for tribute.”

Mellimelli was not, pace Obama, “the first Muslim ambassador to the United States”—there was no official exchange of ambassadors – but a temporary envoy with a single limited task: to get an agreement that would set free the Tunisian vessels and come to an agreement about future payment – if any — of tribute by, or to Tripoli. At the end of six months that envoy was to return home.

The Muslim envoy made some unexpected personal demands in Washington:

Jefferson balked at paying tribute but accepted the expectation that the host government would cover all expenses for such an emissary. He arranged for Mellimelli and his 11 attendants to be housed at a Washington hotel, and rationalized that the sale of the four horses and other fine gifts sent by the bey of Tunis would cover costs. Mellimelli’s request for “concubines” as a part of his accommodations was left to Secretary of State James Madison. Jefferson assured one senator that obtaining peace with the Barbary powers was important enough to “pass unnoticed the irregular conduct of their ministers.”

Some readers will no doubt be reminded by this request for “concubines” of how the State Department has supplied female companions to much more recent Arab visitors, including the late King Hussein of Jordan.

Mellimelli proved to be the exotic cynosure of all eyes, with his American hosts not really understanding some of his reactions, as his “surprise” at the “social freedom women enjoyed in America” and his belief that only Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed were acceptable “prophets” to follow, for they lacked the understanding of Islam that would have explained such reactions:

Despite whispers regarding his conduct, Mellimelli received invitations to numerous dinners and balls, and according to one Washington hostess was “the lion of the season.” At the president’s New Year’s Day levee the Tunisian envoy provided “its most brilliant and splendid spectacle,” and added to his melodramatic image at a later dinner party hosted by the secretary of state. Upon learning that the Madisons were unhappy at being childless, Mellimelli flung his “magical” cloak around Dolley Madison and murmured an incantation that promised she would bear a male child. His conjuring, however, did not work.

Differences in culture and customs stirred interest on both sides. Mellimelli’s generous use of scented rose oil was noted by many of those who met him, and guards had to be posted outside his lodgings to turn away the curious. For his part, the Tunisian was surprised at the social freedom women enjoyed in America and was especially intrigued by several delegations of Native Americans from the western territories then visiting Washington. Mellimelli inquired which prophet the Indians followed: Moses, Jesus Christ or Mohammed. When he was told none of them, that they worshiped “the Great Spirit” alone, he was reported to have pronounced them “vile hereticks.”

So that’s it. Sidi Soliman Mellimelli installed himself for six months at a Washington hotel, for which the American government apparently picked up the tab including, very likely, that for the requested “concubines.” He cut a dashing figure:

The curious were not to be disappointed by the appearance of the first Muslim envoy to the United States – a large figure with a full dark beard dressed in robes of richly embroidered fabrics and a turban of fine white muslin.”

“Over the next six months, this exotic representative from a distant and unfamiliar culture would add spice to the Washington social season but also test the diplomatic abilities of President Jefferson.”

During the time Mellimelli was here, Ramadan occurred. And as it happens, during that Ramadan observed by Mellimelli, President Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli for dinner at the White House. The dinner was not meant to be an “Iftar dinner” but just a dinner, albeit at the White House; it was originally set for three thirty in the afternoon (our founding fathers dined early in the pre-Edison days of their existence). Mellimelli said he could not come at that appointed hour of three thirty p.m. but only after sundown.

Jefferson, a courteous man, simply moved the dinner forward by a few hours. He didn’t change the menu, he didn’t change anything else, he did not see himself as offering an “Iftar Dinner” and there are no records to hint that he did. Barack Obama, 200 years later, is trying to rewrite American history, with some nunc-pro-tunc backdating, in order to flatter or please his Muslim guests. But he is misrepresenting American history to Americans, including schoolchildren who are now being subject to all kinds of Islamic propaganda, in newly-mandated textbooks, that so favorably depict Islam, and present it as so integral a part of American life.

Now there is a kind of coda to this dismal tale, and it is provided by the New York Times, which likes to put on airs and think of itself as “the newspaper of record,” whatever that means. The Times carried a front-page story on August 14, 2010, written by one Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and no doubt gone over by many vigilant editors. This story contains a predictably glowing account of Barack Obama’s remarks a few days before at the “Annual Iftar Dinner.” Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

“In hosting the iftar, Mr. Obama was following a White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson, who held a sunset dinner for the first Muslim ambassador to the United States. President George W. Bush hosted iftars annually.”

Question for Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and for her editors at The New York Times: You report that there is a “White House tradition that, while sporadic, dates to Thomas Jefferson.” I claim that you are wrong. I claim that there is no White House Tradition of Iftar Dinners. I claim that Thomas Jefferson, in moving forward by a few hours a dinner that changed in no other respect, for Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, did not think he thi not providing what he thought of as an “Iftar Dinner” but simply a dinner, at a time his guest requested. And to describe as a “White House tradition” wou first of the “Annual Iftar Dinners” that, the New York Times tells us, has since Jefferson’s non-existent “Iftar Dinner,” have been observed “sporadically.”

When, then, was the next in this long, but “sporadic” series of iftar dinners? I can find no record of any, for roughly the next two hundred years, until we come to the fall of the year 2001, that is, just after the deadliest attack on American civilians ever recorded, an attack carried out by a novemdectet of Muslims acting according to their orthodox understanding of the very same texts — Qur’an, Hadith, Sira — that all Muslims rely on for authority. It was President George Bush who decided that, to win Muslim “trust” or to end Muslim “mistrust” — I forget which — so that we could, non-Muslim and Muslim, collaborate on defeating those “violent extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion,” started this sporadic ball unsporadically rolling. And he did what he set out to, by golly, he did. He hosted an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. It was held just the month after the attacks on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, on a plane’s doomed pilots and passengers over a field in Pennsylvania.

And thus it is that, ever since 2001, we have had iftar dinner after iftar dinner. But it was not Jefferson or any other of our learned Presidents, who started this “tradition” that has been observed only “sporadically” — unless we were to count as an “iftar dinner” what was merely seen, by Jefferson, as a dinner given at a time convenient for his exotic guest.

George Bush, that profound student of history and of ideas, kept telling us, in those first few months after 9/11/2001, that as far as he was concerned, by gum, Islam was a religion of “peace and tolerance.” He and Obama agree on that. And just to prove it, by golly, he’d put on an Iftar Dinner with all the fixins. And that’s just what he did. And that’s how the long “tradition” that Sheryl Gay Stolberg, and her many vetting editors at the newspaper of comical record, The New York Times, referred to, began. It’s all of nine years old, having survived and thrived through the differently-disastrous presidencies of Bush and of Obama.

I have a request for The New York Times. It’s a most modest one. All I ask is that the editors of The New York Times apologize for that paper’s misapplication of the adjective “sporadic” in the front-page story by Sheryl Stolberg on the “Annual Iftar” dinner.

Put up, or shut up, dear newspaper of record. Tell us when that “tradition” of “Iftar Dinners” truly began. Cite those Presidents who held dinners that they considered to be “Iftar Dinners.” Give us chapter, give us verse. And if, as I believe, that hollow and recent and transparently determined-to-win-Muslim-hearts-and-minds “tradition” began only in 2001, then tell us. And since your story was on the front page, do what the lawyers do when they have to make legal announcements, and put your retraction, eat your humble pie, right on the same front page.

A failure to do so will be further, and for some the final confirmation, of the sorry record of The New York Times in its coverage of Islam. Most readers with some sense of what Islam is all about are now ready to take any coverage of the matter in The New York Times with a grain – a Pinch – of salt.

Clio, Muse of History, is a stern mistress. Subscribers to stories that live and die between editions may forget or forgive, but Mnemosyne does neither. If I were the “newspaper of record,” I’d want to propitiate not the gods, but the most vigilant and meticulous of muses. If I were Pinch Sulzberger, I’d be mortally embarrassed, and determined to make amends. But then, I have standards.

Which brings us up to today, and the glad news that. President Obama will be paying his first visit to a mosque on American soil. There will be some sort of feelgood exchange, and perhaps even a reference to the “long tradition” of Iftar dinners, or to the great contribution Muslims have made since the very beginning to our American story. No one will have the bad taste to bring up what is actually to be found in the Qur’an and Hadith. Someone may quote 2:256 and 5:32 (but not 5:33). John Quincy Adams will be passed over in silence. I can’t wait. Can you?

First published in Jihad Watch.

Posted on 02/04/2016 5:10 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
President addresses Baltimore Mosque with Terrorist Connections caught practicing Gender Apartheid

President Obama at the Islamic Center of Baltimore in Catonsville, Maryland, February 3, 2016

Source: Reuters

 President  Obama went to  Baltimore  today for a friendly gathering at the Islamic Center of Baltimore Mosque in Catonsville, Maryland . He was there  to convey a message that Muslims are as American as apple pie. Problem is that he chose a Mosque deep into political Islam, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood  affiliate , the Islamic Society of North America , supporting suicide bombers  and professing  hate  for US  ally Israel.  All despite the FBI file sent to the White House confirming this information.  No matter.  It was a photo op moment to show support for embattled American Muslims  given statements from Republican  hopeful, Donald Trump that he would stop  immigration of Muslims.

The scene was replete  with introduction by a hijab swathed college student on track for a medical career. The President in his remarks pointed out another  hijab wearing  fencing marvel that may be carrying the US flag at the Olympic Games in Rio de Janiero this summer.  The President spoke of the kind comments of  founding Fathers John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson who purportedly included Mohammedans in the ambit of freedom of worship in America guaranteed by our  First Amendment.

Problem is that he forgot to mention the real reason Thomas Jefferson had a copy of a Qur’an in his library at Monticello . A Qur’an, upon which , the first  elected  US Representative Keith  Ellison (D-MN) swore a private oath of office on January 4, 2007. I know I passed by his office with a clutch of TV cameramen recording this for posterity.  Ellison was at the ISB gathering,  as was the second elected Muslim Congressmen, Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN).  Doubtless, as this was the President’s alleged first visit to an American Mosque, there may have been notables at the Mosque in Catonsville from CAIR and ISNA.  But not too worry this was kumbaya day at the ISB.

Watch the You Tube video of the President’s expansive, yet, cautionary message of support for American Muslims:

American Muslims  that he pointed out  in his remarks  assembled Ford automobiles in Michigan, built the first  continuous Mosque in  Cedar Rapids,, Iowa, served  honorably in the US military and some were buried in the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery. Yes, there were those small pockets of extremists in the Muslim Ummah like ISIS or ISIL as he likes to call it with its self-declared Caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Barbarically beheading Christians, enslaving minority Yazidi women and children, destroying ancient cultures in the name of Allah, their God.  Then there are the extremist Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan killing women, homosexuals and Christian infidels. Oh, we forgot the Mahdist Shia in Tehran who the President makes deals with to prevent a nuclear war, he thinks. Last year, they only executed 1,000 for crimes of gender, homosexuality and heterodox beliefs.

As to the reason why Jefferson had a Qur’an in his library, just recall their encounter in London with the Tripolitanian Ambassador in their roles as US Commissioners trying to understand why the Bey of Tripoli enslaved American sailors he seized along with their ships in the Mediterranean.     Note this  Notable and Quotable in the Wall Street Journal:

From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:

We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

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

Clearly, Adams and Jefferson knew something that President Obama doesn’t choose to admit in public.  That Islam is not the religion of peace and tolerance that its religious theocrats make it out to be.  Subsequently, as the Third President of the US, Jefferson would conduct a covert war that freed American hostages with a few Marines at the fabled ‘walls of Tripoli’ from the likes of the Sharia-mad Bey. 

Leo Hohmann at WND, cited an Investigative Project Report by Steve Emerson giving details on why the FBI thought the ISB was a poor choice for the President for this encounter, “Obama.” Hohman cites Emerson  saying:

IPT founder and executive director  Steve Emerson told WND his organization was told by FBI sources that Obama was presented the evidence against the Islamic Society of Baltimore.

According to Emerson’s investigation, federal law enforcement officials told him they were asked about whether the Baltimore mosque had engaged in radical politics or was connected in any way to terrorism in the past.

“They prepared memos for the president’s aides that specifically laid out the sordid history and nexus to terrorism of the Islamic Society of Baltimore,” Emerson told WND.

So what did the president do?

“As he has done so many times in the past, he decided to ignore this evidence and still continue his plans to confer legitimacy on a mosque that has a history of having officials connected to Islamic terrorism and to this day still has officials making outrageously pro-terrorist statements that would seem to conflict with the president’s policies,” Emerson said.

The mosque is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA, which has its own sordid history.

ISNA was started by members of the international Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980s. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is banned in many countries as an extremist organization.

“One can only conclude that the selection of this mosque by the president was made as part of his consistent policy to not even utter the term ‘radical Islam’ and the simultaneous policy of inviting only radical Islamist groups and leaders to the White House that FBI documents clearly show were derived from the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas,” Emerson told WND.

But there was another problem with the  choice of the ISB, the occurrence of gender apartheid prior to this auspicious occasion.


The media was  atwitter about the President’s  presentation at the Islamic Society of Baltimore. All of those media pundits should read this New York Times op ed by a leader of the Muslim Reform Movement (MRM), Asra Nomani and Ify Okoye, a disaffected member of the Mosque, about the gender apartheid practiced at the ISB, “Obama’s mosque visit demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form of gender apartheid.”

 We have interviewed colleagues of Asra Nomani, Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser and Canadian leader of MRM, Raheel Raza who recently returned from a successful trip to Israel on The Lisa Benson Show. We hope to bring back Raza and introduce Ms. Nomani to discuss what the MRM is advocating and doing. Note what Nomani and Okoye wrote:

:At the Islamic Society of Baltimore this past Sunday, the air was filled with the scent of Sherwin-Williams paint that workers were rolling onto the walls of the run-down balcony section where women and girls are usually segregated, unable to see the imam unless they peek over the balcony’s edge. A sign outside the door to the balcony said, “STOP Please. No Shoes. No Strollers. No Diaper Change. Beyond this point.”

Asra slipped into the mosque’s main hall to join the “halaqa,” or study circle. There, the study circle leader, teaching a half dozen men gathered around him, talked about the virtues of the first Muslim community in Medina, saying that a society isn’t “civilized” just because it’s technological.

Then, a young man, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned “Who Do You Love?” piped up, “So that means the West isn’t civilized.”

“That’s right,” the study circle leader said.

Another man railed against the West and its “atheists.”

Asra took a deep breath, listening to the sound of the crew white-washing the mosque for the president’s visit. “That’s a very unfair conclusion,” she said. “You are sitting in the West and railing against the West as not being civilized? It is not fair to make the assumption that the West ‘isn’t civilized.’”

The men tried to backtrack. They spoke with more nuance, before the study leader digressed again into the idea that those who aren’t Muslim act out of “self-interest,” while Muslims act out of an “order from God to do righteousness,” a point that Asra also politely refuted as motivated by “self-interest” and as an unfair representation of the many good people who aren’t Muslim.

As women and girls, we should be supported by policies that allow us to be part of such conversations. The president can support this urgent cause by speaking out against gender segregation in American mosques. In the spirit of the civil rights moment when whites stood with blacks, we hope men and women will refuse the privilege that “interfaith” events give them, and, in act of solidarity, stand outside with us on Johnnycake Road and the other pathways leading to the mosques in our world, advocating for equal rights for all.

So,  the President did what he wanted to do  with the ISB visit; show solidarity with the plight of American Muslims, sidelined by GOP hopeful Donald Trump.  He chose to avoid the advice of the FBI busily tracking down and arresting ISIS inspired lone wolves out to kill Americans on the streets here in the US that he Mosque leaders consorted with terrorist networks. . That would upset  the President’s  alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood seeking their active participation in countering violent extremism and conducted a less than strenuous war against the Islamic State inspiring  tens of thousands from across the Ummah to join and practice the pure Islam in the self declared Caliphate.



Posted on 02/03/2016 10:40 PM by Jerry Gordon
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Migrant Crisis in Sweden and Europe: the views of Kent Ekeroth Sweden Democrat MP

Kent Ekeroth, a Jewish Deputy of the Sweden Democrats in the national parliament, the Riksdag, was a guest on the Sunday, January 31, 2016, Lisa Benson Show.   Benson, Richard Cutting, Advisory Board Member and this writer participated in the discussion with Ekeroth.  The topics discussed during the segment covered various aspects of the current migrant crisis in Sweden and Europe caused by the flood of one million asylees and migrants in 2015 who penetrated the broken Schengen borderless system. LISTEN to the podcast.

Kent Ekeroth, Sweden Democrats, MP, the Riksdag

 New Year’s Eve, the sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany by 1,000 North African and Arab looking migrants was evidence of threats to native European women and their communities.  We posted on the graphic violence perpetrated daily in Germany and the rising call for the resignation of German Chancellor n Angela Merkel. Then there was the disturbing Europol report that 10,000 migrant children have gone missing, presumed to victims of sex trafficking and slavery.

In Sweden, 200 men went on a rampage attacking Moroccan migrants at the central Stockholm rail station provoked by the murder of a 23 year old woman at a reception center.  The Swedish Interior Minister ordered  the expulsion of 80,000 migrants, virtually half of the 160,000 that poured into the country in 2015. The 23 year old woman victim was killed trying to stop an altercation involving a 15 year old Somali migrant.  One of the more than 35,000 unaccompanied minors who entered Sweden, four fifth of them young men.  

A Politico Magazine article on “Europe’s Man Problem”, noted this about migrant demographics in Sweden:

According to Swedish government statistics, as of the end of November, 71 percent of all applicants for asylum to Sweden in 2015 were male. More than 21 percent of all migrants to Sweden were classified as unaccompanied minors, representing more than half of all minor migrants to the country. For accompanied minors, the sex ratio was about 1.16 boys for every one girl. But for unaccompanied minors, the ratio was 11.3 boys for every one girl. In other words, the Swedish case confirms IOM’s statistic that more than 90 percent of unaccompanied minors are male.

Sweden’s current ruling left Social Democrats and the center right Alliance Party condoned the opening of mass Muslim immigration over several decades. Muslims in Sweden account for 700,000 of the country’s 9.8 million population.  Jews, in contrast account for less than 20,000 of Sweden’s population. Ekeroth mother is Jewish who emigrated from Poland. Ekeroth had served as an intern at the Swedish Embassy in Tel Aviv in 2006. He visited Israel in 2014 as part of a delegation of foreign Jewish parliamentarians. 

 Ekeroth’s debates with Margot Wallstrom, Foreign Minister of the ruling Social Democrats occurred over her accusations that Israel should be investigated for alleged “extrajudicial killings”.   He considers Swedish Foreign Minister Wallstrom both “gullible and antagonistic.”

On January 19, 2016, Itamar Marcus, executive director of Palestine Media Watch (PMW) followed up Ekeroth’s actions with a presentation to members of the Alliance and other parties in the Riksdag. At the conclusion of the presentation, Marcus proposed a resolution be introduced   by concerned MPs to end Swedish funding of Palestinian Authority education and media programs demonizing Jews and hatred of Israelis.

Watch this PMW video of the Swedish Parliamentarians presentation on Palestinian incitement of violence and anti-Semitic hatred:

In 2014, Ekeroth and the Sweden Democrats brought a bill before the Riksdag attempting to overturn the budget for the hundreds of millions of kroner in Palestinian Authority funding that was opposed by the remaining seven parties.  Center right Liberal   or Alliance parties and the current left Social Democrats, Ekeroth said, funded hundreds of millions of kroner for the Palestinian Authority that had engaged in incitement to violence and demonization of Israeli Jews. The Sweden Democrats introduced the bill in 2014 during the budget debates to stop all PA funding.

When we asked him following the Lisa Benson Show, what his reaction was to the resolution proposed by PMW during the January 19, 2016 presentation, he replied:

 I held the debate with [Foreign Minister] Wallstrom. Then other parties met with PMW from the Alliance-parties. What's funny though is that when they were in government and had the power they did nothing to stop the funding the PA.

On the position of the Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag, Ekeroth said that the party platform includes reduction of personal and business taxes, preservation of the existing welfare system, but zero tolerance for mass Muslim immigration and asylum.  He considers as legitimate refugees, not unlike his immigrant mother, those fleeing a conflict or persecution. Migrants, however, are those traveling to take advantage of benefits “provided by a naïve system” like that in Sweden and many EU countries. Once admitted, he said, the asylees can bring in others through family reunification or workforce immigration. During the period 2015 to early 2016, more than 200,000 so-called asylees and migrants entered Sweden. Regarding the smorgasbord of benefits available to migrants, Ekeroth noted that in 2005, the seven other parties in the Riksdag endorsed expansion of benefits to include free health, free schools and even assistance in starting a business.

When asked about the recent Interior Minister’s expulsion order, he doubts that the police can round up more than 4,000 a year. The rest may leave for other EU countries or go into hiding.

Regarding the attack by 200 Swedes against Moroccans at the Stockholm central railway station, he doesn’t condone violence. However, he said it was a reflection the police and state haven’t protected Swedish citizens from violence and petty crime.  On the question of sexual assaults by migrants, he indicated they have been grossly over represented since 1975. He pointed towards Swedish crime statistics for 2015 that indicated over 41% of those convicted were non-citizens. Further, he said if you included the sizable Swedish Muslim population the proportion would be well over 50%.

When asked about how Swedish youth reacted to these developments, he suggested that while the Sweden Democrats are the second largest party in the Riksdag, they tend to be less politically involved. Sweden men are more sympathetic to the programs of the Swedish Democrats; while female voters aged 18 to 24 in surveys are not as inclined as they are more prone to social pressures. He credits that to the treatment of the Sweden Democrats by the media that by turns calls the party "far right wing,"  “racist,” “anti-Immigrant,” and dismisses the party as “stupid peasants”.  Ekeroth said the state TV and media are overwhelmingly pro-immigrants. Surveys in Sweden he cited showed that 75% of working journalists are left wingers.  He said that some alternate media has been created, including one developed by the Sweden Democrats. But overall the media situation is biased.

When the matter of Sweden’s small Jewish community arose, Ekeroth has tried to convince them that mass immigration was problematic.  He said their opinion reflected their support for Muslim mass immigration. In effect, he said, the Jewish community told him that “they don’t want to awaken the bear that sleeps.”

In light of the current migrant crisis, he said who would have thought 20 years ago that today the Eastern European countries of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia would be the saviors of Europe.  The dialogue continues with Kent Ekeroth. He returns to The Lisa Benson Show for a reprise on Sunday, February 7, 2016.

Posted on 02/03/2016 7:38 PM by Jerry Gordon
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
The Chobani-Gulen Connection

Tabitha Korol writes in INN (with thanks to Moshe Dann):

Yogurt is “probiotic,” meaning “for life.” The “good” bacteria help the digestive tract and, because yogurt is made from milk, it’s a good source of calcium. The founder of Chobani yogurt is Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish Muslim whose net worth exceeds five billion dollars. He was named “one of the forty most successful entrepreneurs under 40” in 2009, and “Ernst & Young World Entrepreneur of the Year” in 2013. Unfortunately, the Chobani brand is not without serious side effects.

Hamdi Ulukaya is a member of the Turkish Confederation of Businessmen and Industrials (TUSKON), an organization of 40,000 employers (which also includes Godiva Chocolate) with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. So in addition to his dairy product activities, he is deeply committed to civilizational jihad, a “pre-violent” form of jihad, through the Gulen Movement, a transnational religious and social effort led by the somewhat reclusive Turkish Islamic scholar and preacher, Fethullah Gulen, who currently resides in Pennsylvania.

Gulen has been depicted as a Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., but he runs a $25 billion international network and was furtively responsible for changing Turkey from a secular to a strongly Islamized state, now governed by Erdogan. Along with the AKP party that turned Turkey away from the West toward Russia, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria, Gulen’s sect portrays itself as a supporter of tolerance and education, although it actually works to slowly and methodically guide, control, and ultimately become the Islamic regime.

Gulen helps to set Turkey’s political agenda, financial institutions, banks, industry, associations, and foundations, and an international network of thousands of schools, universities, and student residences, with the intent of total transformation. His imams have fired or pensioned off original officials and his graduates are deeply entrenched in Turkish government posts and in the 200,000-man police force, including the supervisory level and the director of intelligence at the Turkish Directorate of Security.

Having no more than a fifth grade education, Gulen developed the persona of an intellect and prophet, meeting with representatives of many faiths, including Pope John Paul II, and holding conferences in the US and Europe. Under his leadership, Turkey now has 85,000 active mosques (highest per capita in the world) and 90,000 imams (more than doctors or teachers). He concentrates his indoctrination on students in eighth through twelfth grades, and controls 75 percent of Turkey’s preparatory schools, thousands of secondary schools, colleges and dormitories, and private universities in 110 countries. Aware of Gulen’s radicalization activities, Russia and Uzbekistan have banned his schools and the Netherlands has cut funding, pending further investigation.

Gulen hires Turkish immigrants without education or leadership background to teach mostly underprivileged students in US charter schools at a cost of $150 million per year to taxpayers. Notwithstanding claims of a non-sectarian education that stresses math and science and boasts high achievement, reports indicate that there is no mission statement, curriculum, standards or library, and the students are supervised according to strict Islamic law, with an emphasis on jihad.

How does Hamdi Ulukaya fit into all of this? He brings in Muslim migrants (aka civilizational jihadists), many from Syria, as despairing refugees from the Middle East and North Africa who need unconditional acceptance in America. Idaho has received more than 11,000 migrants since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they continue to come despite protests from local residents. The world’s largest yogurt factory now employs 600 people, 30 percent of them refugees from the United Nations camps in the Middle East and Africa, and pressures corporate America to also provide jobs, services, and cash. Willing respondents included Google, Goldman Sachs, MasterCard, Ikea, UPS, LinkedIn, and Western Union. He has also taken his case to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, international leaders who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.

Ulukaya recently began a new project, The Tent, which he describes as being “more important than aid.” He explained, “This is a global commitment to invest in building our global capacity for meaningful, humanitarian change?”  What is the underlying meaning of the words, "global," and "meaningful humanitarian change?" That they will Islamize the globe to capacity? That they intend to change humanity worldwide, and enforce Sharia law on all infidels?

Ann Corcoran, author of the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch, says The Tent initiative will funnel money and technology into refugee work, leaving Americans and veterans jobless, and that many of the UPS jobs could well be filled by American workers. WND’s Leo Hohmann reported that the Obama administration is increasing our acceptance of the number of Muslim migrants, from 70,000 annually over the past ten years to 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017, which includes the 10,000 Syrians in 2016 and “many more” in 2017. And if that were not enough, Obama has also lowered the screening standards, allowing more than 1,500 jihadists who participated in terrorist activity to enter the US. 

As a reminder, milk must first be denatured when a culture of bacteria is introduced, and the ensuing process, fermentation, results in permanent change: yogurt. And so it is with America. Our country is currently being denatured with the culture of Islam, through the incoming hordes, and the ensuing process, Islamization, also results in permanent change – the deadly disintegration of our civilization.

Now is the time to contact and enlighten the naïve, altruistic corporations as well as the supermarkets that sell Chobani,  It is up to all of us to inform them that the Muslim Brotherhood reinforces 40,000 corporations that are importing jihadists who will bring us the same fears, riots, rapes, deadly attacks and Sharia law now experienced in Europe. Another such group is Global Impact, an alliance of more than 130 international relief and development “non-profit” organizations, including HIAS and Catholic Charities.  Stop supporting the businesses that seek our destruction.  

Posted on 02/03/2016 10:25 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Another Muslim Convert Planning Murder and Mayhem, Kills 1


A North Carolina man killed his neighbor and stole the man's money so he could buy an assault rifle to carry out an Islamic State-inspired shooting at a concert or club, according to an indictment unsealed Monday.

The federal indictment also accuses Justin Nojan Sullivan of offering an undercover FBI employee money to kill his parents, who he believed would interfere with his plans for an attack.

The 19-year-old suspect, who was arrested in June, "planned to carry out his attack in the following few days at a concert, bar or club where he believed that as many as 1,000 people could be killed using the assault rifle and silencer," the indictment said.

The indictment charges Sullivan with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State and trying to use social media to have his parents killed. He also faces firearms charges.

A grand jury in Burke County also indicted Sullivan on Monday on a murder charge in the death of 74-year-old John Bailey Clark, who lived a few doors down from him, said District Attorney David Learner.

A lawyer representing him on the murder charge, Victoria Jayne, said "it's far too early" to discuss how she expects the case to go. A defense attorney in the federal case declined to comment.

Sullivan, who lived with his parents in Morganton, a foothills town of about 17,000, converted to Islam and was watching videos of Islamic State beheadings by the fall of 2014, the indictment said. Authorities said he pledged his allegiance to the terror group.

In December 2014, he used a .22-caliber rifle stolen from his father's gun cabinet to shoot Clark in the head, according to the federal indictment. A news release said forensic testing shows the rifle was used to kill Clark.

Sullivan hid the rifle, a black ski mask, muddy clothes and a lock-picking kit in his parents' crawlspace, investigators wrote in the indictment, adding that he later told FBI agents that $689 in his possession had come from Clark. He believed the money was enough to buy a rifle and ammunition for the attack, the indictment said.

By the following June, investigators said, he was planning an attack in the U.S. He began having social media conversations with an undercover FBI employee whom he wanted to recruit, saying an attack in the U.S. was the best way to support the Islamic State because travel was risky.

He said during one of the conversations that he planned to buy "an AR-15 assault rifle" at a gun show, and he attempted to buy hollow point ammunition from a gun dealer, the indictment said. He researched how to make silencers and asked the undercover operative to make one for each of them.

"Our attacks need to be as big as possible," Sullivan is quoted as telling the person.

The FBI then sent a silencer to his home, where investigators say his mother opened the package.

"When Sullivan's parents questioned him about the silencer, Sullivan, believing that his parents would interfere with his plans to carry out an attack, offered to compensate the UCE to kill them," authorities wrote, referring to the undercover FBI employee.

Federal authorities have said they began investigating Sullivan after his father called 911 in April saying his son was destroying religious items in their home. He was arrested at the family's home without incident on June 19, and later told investigators that he planned to carry out an attack in the coming days when his parents were expected to be out of town, investigators have said.

Posted on 02/03/2016 5:25 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Sanders and Trump, Coming on Strong in New Hampshire

Bernie Sanders was the big winner in Iowa, as he had, as he called it, a “virtual tie” with Hillary Clinton, and the Vermont senator has set himself a fine launch into the neighboring state of New Hampshire, where he should trounce Mrs. Clinton next week. The Republican night was toe-curlingly excruciating. Donald Trump did well, apart from the expectations of the refreshingly inaccurate polls in the last two weeks that he would win; it had been forecast until two weeks ago that the margin would be wider in favor of Ted Cruz than it was, 3 points and about 6,000 votes. Trump was courteous in his speech and entirely positive, and reasonably graciously managed to avoid any mention of the winner, and of the other candidates, apart from Mike Huckabee, whom he commended as he dropped out of the race. Cruz was fluent but began with a gratuitous reference to the Almighty and rattled on so loquaciously that the networks deserted him in mid-speech and went to Mrs. Clinton, who seized the moment but was prudent enough not to claim victory. Mrs. Clinton spoke well and was on message, but platitudinous even by the standards of early election-year result-night addresses, with her alert but worryingly slack-jawed husband behind her.

Bernie Sanders was quite good, and deserves great credit for being the only candidate to hint at the corrupt slime-pit of the American criminal-justice system that has turned the United States into a carceral prosecutocracy, in which indictments are effectively issued by sensational journalists of the Nancy Grace school of media lynching and undue lack of process. He also implied that he would just write off a trillion dollars of student loans, which, as the basic arithmetic indicates, would be a burdensome straw on the camel’s back in a country that under the Obama economic miracle has doubled 233 years of accumulated American national debt in seven years, much of the increase in dubious bond sales to the central bank, a 100 percent subsidiary of the U.S. Treasury. Altruistic though his student-loan cancellation is, it is also a straight attempt to buy votes with the public’s money; suspension of interest and phased reductions would be more seemly and affordable.

He also bit down hard on, and swallowed whole, the requirement for government-enforced reduction of carbon emissions, dismissing the substantial doubts about global warming as if they were the paid and orchestrated dissent of the oil industry (though he did not explicitly say that). What an irony it would be if the United States — which the international (including the American) Left falsely accused of conducting two wars against Iraq in pursuit of oil, though it did not gain one barrel of oil from either war – were now to discourage fossil-fuel consumption at immense cost to the public just as it narrowed toward zero its half-century of foreign-oil dependence. I am sure that, in its heart, the nation longs for someone endowed with some international strategic insight. I refuse to accept that I was the only television viewer afflicted by nostalgia for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and even George H. W. Bush, presidents and presidential candidates who knew how to link the national interest to world affairs, and did so in office very effectively. Among the candidates, Bernie Sanders is almost uniquely lacking in that quality. Not all international involvements are insane and not even Rand Paul suggests that they are.

Of the caucus-night speeches I heard, the grand prize for counter-effectiveness goes to Marco Rubio, who had a good night, coming just one point behind Donald Trump in third place for the Republicans. I cannot believe that the country really wanted 20 minutes from the third-place candidate on his view of God, his gratitude to his parents (a rather commonplace sentiment, for obvious reasons), and his repeated encomia, with minor variations, to “the greatest country in human history.” The stature of the United States in the family of nations and on the canvas of history was not in dispute in this campaign and endless repetitions of the bumptious Fourth of July, small-town, Rotarian-meeting truisms are grueling for a national (and international) audience. Rubio is bucking to be the stop-Trump candidate, and seemed to strengthen his hand eight days before New Hampshire, where polls have had him running ahead of Cruz but well behind Trump. I suspect that the Trump lead in New Hampshire will lose some momentum as a result of his loss to Cruz, and I doubt if Cruz will gain much strength in New Hampshire, a state he has largely ignored. If Rubio had sounded more like a president, which at his best he is capable of doing, he might have put some blue water between himself and the other non-outsider candidates, Kasich, Bush, and Christie.

Now that the candidate-selection process has begun in earnest, the issue becomes, for the Republicans, who is the alternative to Donald Trump, and for the Democrats, do we really want to try the Clinton brand, which has been out there for a whole generation, once again without coming down a generation? This is (wronged) wife of Bill, not son or daughter of Bill, and Mrs. Clinton looks and sounds vigorous, but she isn’t running for the first time for president. Bernie Sanders will almost certainly take her to the woodshed in New Hampshire, but the Democratic party simply cannot elevate a 75-year-old Vermont socialist who makes sense half the time but otherwise sounds and looks like an escapee from a rustic home for politicians too attenuated by pink cabin fever.

On the Republican side, it is hard to see Donald Trump’s big lead in New Hampshire evaporating, although the polls in Iowa were almost all wildly off the mark. It is also hard to see the Iowa result giving Ted Cruz a huge boost in that state, and Cruz will not cut it generally by attributing his 28 percent poll-leading total to “courageous conservatives.” Everyone understands, and up to a point indulges, electoral hyperbole. But as most of the candidates seem to recognize, especially the outsiders (Trump, Sanders, Carson, and Cruz himself), after 20 years of corruption, belligerence from George W. Bush (when he should have been less impetuous), appeasement from Obama (when he should have been more forceful), fiscal incontinence from both, and a sclerotic and often contemptible bipartisan inter-branch leadership group, this is no time for Rubionic boosterism or the inanities of the theory that a vote for me and the nation jumps from P. T. Barnum’s nation of suckers to a Tocquevillean paradise.

In the jaded and jaundiced circumstances of a debt-ridden, floundering America with a middle class straining with stagnant real income and maxed-out credit cards, and the less advantaged scores of millions so anxious they come out in February in Iowa to vote for Cruz, Trump, and Sanders, this is no time for “our best days are ahead of us.” It is a time for a Lincoln who understands the problem, an FDR or Reagan who seems to know where to start and can uplift the people and at least knows how to lead America across the Francis Scott Key Bridge. In the absence of a great orator like those three, where Rubio stands out as fluent, but forgettable — like (Bill) Clinton and Obama — the country may turn to a person of substantive accomplishment. Sanders is too flaky to be elected, though it is hard not to like him. Hillary is carrying more baggage than the pack donkey in her party’s emblem.

Trump might make it if he becomes less unserious when precise policy suggestions are required; he is very intelligent and politically intuitive and should not be underestimated. Cruz is very intelligent and can speak well, but in the end he will scare even the majority of Republicans with his gun-loving, televangelical hard edge, a nasty elitist masquerading as a populist in his pick-up truck with a bazooka in the rear window. Rubio should have propelled himself forward from Iowa, but his reaction to his comparative success was a failure. He had less right to congratulate himself on his third-place finish than Bill Buckley had to give his magnificent “victory speech” when he ran third in the mayoral election in New York in 1965. (“Your achievement, in winning thirteen percent of the vote in the most liberal city in the world, will not go unnoticed in Albany, in Washington, or in Moscow,” he told his supporters. Nelson Rockefeller, Lyndon Johnson, and Leonid Brezhnev seemed to be unimpressed, but it was a great speech.) Rubio had his third-place moment on Monday night and bloviated, thanked God, his parents, and his wife, and sounded like an H. L. Mencken parody dismembering a candidate for alderman in fin-de-siècle (white) Baltimore. He was less a president than an irritating voice box repeating the same ghastly canned rubbish every time a coin of any denomination bearing the likeness of a great president is inserted in it.

Incredibly, the New York Times, which endorsed McGovern in 1972, expected Reagan to be defeated in 1984, and is utterly unqualified to opine knowledgeably or fair-mindedly on internecine Republican affairs, may have got it right in endorsing John Kasich. He has staked everything on New Hampshire and is running fairly strongly there, and is supported by the Sununu machine. He has been a successful governor in a large and difficult state (Ohio), and was a very respected nine-term congressman, who served for a time as ranking Republican on the armed-forces and budget committees. There is something in New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s snide reference to senators as people who talk, while governors actually have a serious administrative job, and he and Kasich and Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker have all been good governors. Christie had his chance when opportunity knocked and he passed. That caller doesn’t knock twice. Fort Lee killed him as president. And if he rose in the polls, the country would want to know why he apparently failed Mitt Romney’s ethics test as a vice-presidential candidate. Personally, as a foreigner, but someone with some experience of these things, I would never trust a prosecutor in the system Bernie Sanders rightly derides as draconian (a flattering upgrade on the facts), and especially one from a state where, as the old saying goes, “You know there’s a recession in New Jersey when the Mafia is laying off judges.” (The shared pride of Christie and Cruz at having been “tough prosecutors” should warn off any sensible voters about their fitness for the greatest office within the gift of any people on earth. At least Thomas E. Dewey convicted real criminals, and even he lost twice, to better candidates.)

Starting next Wednesday, the Republicans who don’t want Donald Trump will have to choose an alternative. Kasich, somewhat homely though he is, is qualified and reasonable and, all in all, probably the best of the alternatives, and would make it a good race. If Trump wins easily in New Hampshire and the opposition to him remains fragmented, he will win, and any recognizable Republican should win in November. As I have written here before, I am relaxed about a Trump victory and think he would be a good president, especially with a little stylistic fine tuning. But there is a large body of opinion that is unconvinced and it deserves a strong representative. John Kasich is the best alternative on offer and would make it a good race for the nomination, and would assure the country of a good Republican candidate either way.

First published in National Review Online.

Posted on 02/03/2016 5:04 AM by Conrad Black
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Asylum seekers as young as 11 come to Norway married

From the Norwegian edition of The Local

Of the 61 married minors who sought asylum in Norway in 2015, at least ten were under the country's sexual age of consent of 16, broadcaster NRK reported based on figures from the Norwegian Immigration Directorate (UDI) and the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir). 

At least ten of the girls were under the age of 16, while 49 girls and two boys who are married were 16 or 17 when they arrived in Norway. At least two of the girls under the age of 18 were expecting their second child. 

The youngest married asylum seeker was just 11 years old when she arrived in Norway. 

A 14-year-old pregnant girl crossed the Storskog border station in November with her 23-year-old husband and their 18-month-old child. Today, the two live separately and the 23-year-old is under police investigation. 

“We are looking very seriously at children under 18 who are in danger of being subjected to sexual abuse, violence and forced actions. We are committed to helping these children and to preventing forced situations. These could be criminal cases,” Bufdir director Mari Trommald told NRK. 

Most of the married minors came from Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. 

Posted on 02/02/2016 3:46 PM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
An Update on the “Islamochristian”

The phenomenon of the “islamochristian” deserves wider attention, and the word wider use. An “islamochristian” is, in its strictest sense, a Christian Arab who identifies with and works to advance the Islamic agenda, out of fear or out of a belief that his “Arabness” requires loyalty to Islam. Islamization by the Arab Muslim conquerors of Mesopotamia, Syria, and North Africa was a vehicle for Arab imperialism. This imperialism, the most successful in human history, convinced those who accepted Islam to also forget their own pre-Islamic or non-Islamic pasts. It caused them, in many cases, to forget their own languages and to adopt Arabic — and in using Arabic, and in adopting Arabic names, within a few generations they had convinced themselves that they were Arabs.

Some held out. The Copts in Egypt today are simply the remnants of a population that was entirely Coptic, and that has suffered steady and slow asphyxiation. How many of Egypt’s Arabs are in fact Copts who fail to realize this, much less have any sympathy or interest in how their Coptic ancestors, out of intolerable pressure, assumed the identity of Arabs?

In Lebanon, the mountains provided a refuge for the Maronites, by far the most successful group to withstand the Muslims. And most Maronites are quick to make the important distinction that, while they are “users of Arabic,” that does not make them “Arabs.” When they claim that they predate the Arab invasion (which of course they do) and are the descendants of the previous inhabitants of Lebanon, the Phoenicians, they are greeted with ridicule. But why? Where did the Phoenicians go? Did they just disappear? It is far more plausible to believe that the Maronites and the others in Lebanon are, most of them (for how many real “Arabs” actually came from the Arabian peninsula to conquer far more numerous populations of non-Arabs?) the descendants of those Phoenicians. The Maronites recognize this; the Muslims do not, because for them the superior people, the people to whom the Qur’an was “given” and “in their language,” are the Arabs. The sense of Arab supremacy comes not only from the fact that the Qur’an was written in Arabic (with bits of Aramaic still floating in it), but because the Sunna, the other great guide for Muslims, consists of, and is derived from, the hadith and the sira, and reflects the life of people in 7th century Arabia.

Thus one sees the forcibly-converted descendants of Hindus, the Muslims of India and Pakistan, full of supposed “descendants of the Prophet” who are identified by the name “Sayeed.” It is as if, in the middle of a former British colony, say Uganda, black Africans gave themselves such names as Anthony Chenevix-ffrench or Charles Hardcastle, and dressed like remote Englishmen at Agincourt, or Ascot, and insisted, to one and all, that they were indeed lineal descendants of Elizabeth the Virgin Queen, or Hereward the Wake, or Ethelred the Unready.

Yet when those whose ancestors were forcibly converted to Islam (and force can be not military force, but the incessant and relentless pressure of dhimmitude, which will over time cause many to give up and embrace the belief-system of the oppressor) and adopted the names, and mimicked the dress and the manners and customs of Muslims — which are essentially those of a distant time and place (Arabia, more than a thousand years ago) — we do not smile or think it absurd. A few Muslim “intellectuals” in East Asia occasionally suggest that local customs and ways, even local expressions of music and art, ought not to be sacrificed to the Sunna of Islam, but to no avail.

And so strong is the power of Islam among the Arabs, so ingrained is their desire to ward off Muslim displeasure, that unless they do not feel themselves to be Arabs but a self-contained community (Copts, Maronites) that has managed to survive, they are very likely to reflect the Muslim views and promote the Muslim agenda.

Nowhere can this be seen better than among the “Palestinian” Arabs. Michel Sabbagh is only one example. The Sabbagh who gave $6.5 million to support John Esposito’s pro-Muslim empire at Georgetown was a “Christian.” (Note to James V. Schall: can you convince Georgetown’s administration to sever its now-embarrassing tie to Esposito? At some point he, and Georgetown, have to part ways, for the sake of Georgetown’s reputation and continued support from alumni.) The gun-running icon-stealing Archbishop Hilarion Cappucci was, in name, a Melkite Greek Catholic; he was, in his essence, a PLO supporter.

Islamochristian promoters of the Jihad — beginning with the Jihad against Israel — include a few “Palestinian” Presybterians who have carefully burrowed within, and risen within, the bureaucracy of the Presbyterian Church in America (no names here, but you can easily find them out), and Naim Ateek, who comes to delude audiences of Christians about the “Palestinian struggle” even as the Christian population of the “Palestinian” territories has plummeted, since Israel relinquished control, from 20% to 2% — out of fear of Muslim “Palestinians.”

Nor, of course, do Michel Sabbagh and his ilk pay much attention to the situation of Christians in the Sudan, or Indonesia, or Pakistan. Why would they? It would get in the way of their promotion of the Islamic attempt not only to reduce Israel to the dimensions that will allow them to go in for the final kill, but to seize control of the Holy Land. What, after all, do you think would happen to that Holy Land if Israel were to disappear? Do you think the Christian sites would be as scrupulously preserved? As available to pilgrims? Would Christians walk around Jerusalem if it were under the rule of Muslims with quite the same feelings of security that they do now?

The above is, in full, an article I wrote and published here at Jihad Watch in 2005. Since I wrote it, the Christian communities of Iraq (Chaldeans, Assyrians) and Syria (Melkites, Orthodox, Roman Catholics) have been decimated; the Coptic community in Egypt been under continuous assault, and not only during the hyper-Islamic regime of Morsi; and Christians and churches have been attacked in Pakistan, the Philippines, and Indonesia by Muslims. And Muslim terrorists attack Infidel Christians in Dar al-Harb itself, in Paris and London and Amsterdam and Madrid and Moscow, as they have in New York, Washington, Boston, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino.

Given the past decade of Christian victims of Muslim despoliation and delirium — and with the list above I was just getting started — one might have assumed that the “islamochristian” was no longer to be found. But just the other day, Gregory III Laham, the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East, surfaced to solemnly declare: “We, the Arab Christians, always defend Islam and our Muslim brothers – no one defends Islam like the Arab Christians do.” Robert Spencer took the good Gregory to task, pointing out that this classic encapsulation of the dhimmi phenomenon had never won the Melkites any special favors, and that they had suffered just as much from Muslim aggression when they parroted this kind of nonsense as they would have had the good Gregory tried verbally to smite the Muslims hip and thigh. Perhaps, Spencer suggested, the time for dhimmitude had long passed, it never having panned out, and it was time for assorted patriarchs of the East to try a different and truer tack — what, after all, did the Melkites at this point have to lose? How much worse could their situation be under the Muslim thumb than it already is? Perhaps, if he could break with the past, and come to his senses, the Melkite bishop might recognize his first duty: to warn his own flock, and to warn other Christians too, about Islam. 

A second Christian who has had nothing but good things to say about Islam is one Craig Considine. He’s a mere lean lecturer in sociology, not so grand as Gregory, but even more obtuse. Not being an ethnic Arab, he doesn’t fit the strictest definition of the “islamochristian,” but as a declared Christian (Roman Catholic) working full-time to defend and promote Islam — and to accuse Israel, unsurprisingly, of every possible crime — he deserves a place in the pantheon here. Craig Considine’s studies — he’s been burning the midnight oil for years — have revealed to him that “Christians and Muslims share a similar ‘jihad.’ This ‘jihad’ is one of non-violence, the love of humanity, the perfection of the soul, and the search for knowledge.”

This will come as a surprise to any Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus who, at many different times and in many different places, have been on the receiving end of that Muslim “non-violence, love of humanity, perfection of the soul, and search for knowledge.” It came as a surprise to me. It no doubt comes as a surprise to you. And as I can add nothing to Robert Spencer’s dismemberment of Considine, readers are directed to this death on the installment plan here and here and here and here.

The ability of people to deny an unpleasant reality can be impressive. Look at Patriarch Gregory. Look at Craig Considine. Be suitably impressed.

Posted on 02/02/2016 4:53 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Suspected jihad recruiters; trial opens in Graz today

From the Austrian edition of The Local

The trials of 13 suspected jihadists who were arrested after massive police raids across Austria in 2014 will begin on Tuesday in Graz Criminal Court, under tight security.

The first defendant to appear in court on Tuesday is charged with belonging to a terrorist organisation, as well as heading up a criminal gang. Eight other suspects will be tried for belonging to a terrorist organisation and making false statements during police questioning.

The man who has been identified as the main suspect, a Vienna-based radical Islamist preacher, will appear in court on February 22nd charged with various terrorist offences, including murder.

All 13 suspects were arrested during police raids in Vienna, Graz and Linz which involved some 900 police officers. The raids followed a two-year investigation into several people suspected of recruiting young people to fight in Syria. Journalists have had to apply for accreditation to cover the trials and film and audio recording is prohibited in the courthouse.

Posted on 02/02/2016 4:17 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Tareena Shakil jailed for six years for taking boy to Syria to join IS

From the Harborough Mail, one of the local newspapers in the Midlands

A woman who took her toddler son to Syria to join Islamic State (IS) has been jailed for six years.

Tareena Shakil posed the little boy for pictures wearing an IS-branded balaclava in what a judge described as one of the most "abhorrent" features of the case, after she secretly ran away to the self-declared caliphate in October 2014. After a two-week Birmingham Crown Court trial which finished on Friday, the British 26-year-old was convicted of membership and encouraging acts of terror in Twitter posts made before she travelled.

Sentencing the bright former college student, Judge Melbourne Inman said: "You embraced Isis, you sent messages on the day of your arrival in Syria that you were not coming back and by October 28 you were sending a message to your brother-in-law that it was part of your faith to kill the murtadeen (apostates) and on December 9 you told your father you wanted to die a martyr."

The Recorder of Birmingham added: "You were well aware that the future which you had subjected your son to was very likely to be indoctrination and thereafter life as a terrorist fighter." 

The judge told Shakil it was clear she had been "radicalised" following online conversations with prominent members of the terrorist group, including Fabio Pocas.

"Exactly what occurred in Raqqa is far from clear," he added. "You told lie after lie to the police and in court between February and November 2015, including that you were kidnapped, were not responsible for any tweets and any incriminating photographs were staged against your will. You pleaded not guilty and told more lies to the jury which they have understandably rejected."

The judge described Shakil's decision to involve her young son, 14 months old at the time of travel, as a serious aggravating factor.

"Most alarming , however, is the fact that you took your son and how he was used," he said. "The most abhorrent photographs, however, were those taken of your son wearing a balaclava with an Isis logo and specifically the photograph of your son, no more than a toddler, standing next to an AK47 under a title which, translated from the Arabic, means 'father of the British jihad'."

Shakil had also encouraged other women to join her in Raqqa. The judge said: "Your role as a woman in Isis was different to that of a man but you embraced it and were willing to support those in Raqqa and potentially those outside to come and play their role in providing fighters of the future and were willing shamelessly to allow your son to be photographed in terms that could only be taken as a fighter of the future."

Jailing her for four years for membership and two years to run consecutively for encouraging acts of terror, the judge said he had had to consider the total length of her sentence.

An order of the court made under Section 47 of the Counter Terrorism Act means that, as a convicted terrorist, Shakil must notify police of her personal details, including her home address, for 15 years after her release.

Posted on 02/02/2016 4:03 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
Monday, 1 February 2016
Graphic Video Evidence of Muslim Migrant Violence in Germany amid Calls for Merkel’s Resignation