terrorism

Western Leaders Aid Islamist Ascendency

Western Leaders Aid Islamist Ascendency

By Erik Rush

In January of this year, British Prime Minister Theresa May said in a speech that “[W]e should always be careful to distinguish between this extreme and hateful ideology and the peaceful religion of Islam…” This is the sort of boilerplate oratory Western leaders have been employing for the last sixteen years to distinguish between Islamic militants and rank-and-file Muslims.

After a terrorist attack on London Bridge and Parliament in March which left four people dead, May again leaped to Islam’s defense, stating “[I]t is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith.” In a face-to-face interview with the UK’s Muslim News on June 2, May said “Islamophobia has no place in our society.”

After the third major Islamic terrorist attack in Britain this year in which seven perished and multiple people were injured, May finally said that Britain was “too tolerant” of Islamic extremism, but again qualified this (and effectively negated her first statement) by reiterating that Islamic militancy and terrorism is a “perversion of Islam.”

For decades, Western leaders have engaged in the wanton importation of Muslims into their nations; this was a much more vigorous program in Europe and Scandinavia than in the U.S., although it was certainly stepped-up during the Obama administration. Thus, President Donald Trump’s consideration of travel bans and cutting ties with Islamic nations that sponsor terrorism are decidedly prudent moves.

There’s a cognitive dissonance created in the minds of many in the West when they are admonished by liberals to accept the importation of Muslims into their countries. This is in part due to the fact that it has become quite clear based upon their rhetoric that emerging Muslim populations in Western nations intend to make third class citizens out of native populations (women typically being the second class in Islamic nations), and that many liberals themselves (namely gays, feminists, etc.) would be swiftly killed off should Western nations become predominantly Muslim.

In Islam, a dhimmi is a non-Muslim who has been relegated to living in a predominantly Muslim society. Such unfortunates usually suffer third class citizen status and are often saddled with various forms of oppression. One reason that Muslims don’t necessarily kill off all non-Muslims in an area when they come to power, whether through military conquest or attrition, is because the economic extortion of non-Muslims presents the potential to swell government coffers, and of course abusing non-Muslims in various ways has been a national pastime in Islamic countries for centuries.

Lately, the term dhimmi has been adapted to include those in Western nations whose sympathies regarding Muslims threaten to give rise to their own societies becoming predominantly Muslim, thereby rendering all non-Muslims therein as dhimmis.

Using this definition, modern liberals comprise the dhimmis of our day. Rank-and-file liberals who have subscribed to the notion that Islam is a “religion of peace” have been deluded over time by rhetoric like Theresa May’s. Like their American counterparts who’ve been railing against President Donald Trump’s proposed travel ban, the dhimmi citizenry of Europe and Scandinavia continue to defend Islam despite the fact that decades of Muslim immigration are rapidly transforming those regions into massive “no-go” zones.

Who would want to be consigned to third class citizen status within their own country? Well, as with many of the policies set out by progressive political leaders, liberal voters are being deceived as to the true objectives in play. They don’t believe they will actually be disenfranchised.

I have previously stated that this influx of Muslims into Western nations was intended to accomplish two things:

1. Expand the scope of social programs, which would cement émigrés’ loyalty to leftist politicos.
2. Facilitate just the sort of militancy we have seen in recent years from emerging Muslim populations; this would
ostensibly justify the implementation of draconian surveillance and police state policies.

In their unbridled hubris, Western leaders still believe they will somehow be able to manage the militant factions within these Muslim populations. One only need look to Europe to see that it seldom works out that way.

The conventional wisdom advanced by international socialist power players holds that only two percent of the world’s Muslims have been radicalized. Given that there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, that represents around 36 million individuals. That is the approximate population of Canada. It represents a nation.

It only took 19 Muslims to kill nearly 3,000 Americans one morning in September of 2001. That’s about 158 victims for each of the 9/11 hijackers. Using that math, the percentage of radicalized Muslims could conceivably dispatch 5.7 billion non-Muslim “infidels,” which is in the neighborhood of four-fifths of the planet’s population. One can only guess what the ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim survivors of this holocaust would be in such a scenario, since jihadis seem to have no reservations with regard to other Muslims being collateral damage in their campaigns.

Say each jihadi only racked up a third of the deaths their brethren accounted for on 9/11/01. Well, that would effectively adjust the planet’s ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims from two in six to two out of five. Cutting the casualty tolls in half, with just under 3 billion survivors, we wind up with a population (of the Earth, not the U.S.) that is half Muslim.

If America suddenly found herself at war with Canada but our leaders failed to acknowledge the threat and take appropriate measures, we could actually lose. Excepting the Trump administration’s recent overtures toward bolstering security, that’s precisely the deportment we’ve displayed with regard to Islamic militants.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Orlando: Obama’s Tirade & Liberalism’s Malignancy

Orlando: Obama’s Tirade & Liberalism’s Malignancy

On Sunday, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old resident of Florida who was of Afghan extraction, entered the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida armed to the teeth, killed 50 people and wounded more than 50 others before he was gunned down by law enforcement officers. The shooting is being called the worst mass shooting in our country’s history.

Omar Mateen was also a devout Muslim.

At first, the attack was seen as having been motivated by Islamic doctrine condemning homosexuals, particularly since the Pulse was chiefly frequented by people in Orlando’s gay community. It was also reported that the FBI in Orlando had become aware of Mateen in 2013, when co-workers alleged that he may have ties to terrorism, and that Mateen had recently sworn allegiance to the ISIS terror group.

Mateen was described by a former colleague as an “unhinged and unstable” person who regularly made racist, misogynist and homophobic remarks. Yet, the same individual also described Mateen as a devout Muslim who brought a prayer mat to work and prayed several times a day.

Subsequently, testimony surfaced placing Mateen at the Pulse on numerous occasions in the recent past, carousing with patrons there, and communicating with some of them through gay online chat and dating applications.

So, was Omar Mateen a devout Muslim, a jihadi, and possibly a member of ISIS? Was he a conflicted, self-loathing homosexual? Was he mentally ill? If the latter, his behavior was still consistent with quite a few Muslims who went on to commit murder in the name of Islam. According to reports released by the FBI on Tuesday, the attack was at least well-planned and involved the indirect involvement of Mateen’s wife, who is now cooperating with law enforcement.

Within hours of the massacre, President Barack Hussein Obama was standing before reporters in the White House briefing room, completely ignoring Mateen’s Islamist bent, but parroting activists’ calls for more gun control and blaming Mateen’s actions on the easy access to firearms in America.

This example of institutional denial did not sit well with some however, and when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump renewed his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration and some in the GOP complained about Obama’s refusal to call a spade a spade with regard to Islamic terrorism, Obama reacted on Tuesday with a petulant tirade against those who’ve criticized him in this area.

Speaking from the White House, Obama said that “There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” which he said is merely “a political talking point.” Obama made the nebulous claim that his reluctance to use the phrase “radical Islam” has “nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.” He also asserted that indentifying acts such as the Orlando and Santa Barbara shootings as examples of Islamic extremism would somehow validate and empower Islamic extremists and groups like ISIS, who “want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims who reject their crazy notions.”

Obama’s attempt to explain the delicate tone of his references to the actions of militant Islamists to date reflects a policy of incoherent rhetoric, one which not only minimizes the threat of Islamic terrorism, but mischaracterizes its nature and often draws a fallacious equivalency between the threat posed by Islamists and that posed by right wing extremists, even placing the actions of truly unhinged mass murderers with no political agenda in the “Right Wing Extremist” column in order to validate this convoluted logic.

Indeed, neither history nor the ongoing silence of “over a billion Muslims” give any indication whatsoever that they reject militants’ “crazy notions.”

Obama also played the “American Values Card,” claiming that moves to limit Muslim immigration or single out Muslims in America as a threat “betrays the very values America stands for.” This was echoed by Republican House Speaker and treasonous invertebrate Paul Ryan, who said on Tuesday that “I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest.”

These positions are in keeping with the agenda of international socialist elites in government who have been facilitating Islamic militancy in order to destabilize their nations and necessitate draconian policies in the interest of public safety. In short, their efforts are calculated to bring about a police state. The dogged efforts of the Obama administration in blaming the access Americans have to firearms for this violence is a clear indicator of that strategy. One can only imagine the kind of nation we will have when guns become scarce, Americans are at the mercy of murderous Muslims, and law enforcement is loath to intercede over political correctness, but the prospect is chilling to say the very least.

Unfortunately, this policy of incoherent rhetoric also plays upon the predilection for denial which many in the West possess.

I’ve used the phrase “liberalism is communism [or socialism] on the installment plan” fairly frequently. For all I know, I may have coined the phrase. While even many conservatives may be skeptical of what I deem an inevitable progression, the empirical evidence bears it out.

The bottom line is that the American people must wake up to the fact that we are at war against Islam, and against international socialism. Muslims and socialists are our enemies, and both of the major political parties are lousy with the latter. Rank and file political liberals, as agents of the incremental ascendancy of socialism, are also the enemy, no matter how innocuous they may attempt to make themselves appear, or how benign we may want to believe they and their intentions are.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The West’s Compulsion for Societal Suicide

The West’s Compulsion for Societal Suicide

Perhaps it’s my twisted imagination, but I can’t help observing current geopolitical machinations and wonder what individuals from another juncture in history or even a non-Earthbound civilization might conclude about our society and, more importantly, those who currently hold power and preeminence among us.

There are things occurring on the geopolitical scene that simply do not merit debate over what is actually transpiring, yet on a daily basis, these are being misrepresented by political leaders, media, the press, and even religious leaders to such a degree that it is surreal beyond description.

One of the most noteworthy examples of this phenomenon has been our scurvy knave of a low-born, treasonous scoundrel president, Barack Hussein Obama, as he attempts to characterize Muslim populations as benign and assimilable. Specifically, I refer to Obama’s recent rhetoric in light of the massive uptick in terror attacks by Muslims over the last several years. He’s found it necessary to admonish Americans not to hold animosity nor suspicion toward “America’s Mooslims” as a result of their worldwide terror attacks, their ongoing invasion of Europe, and the tinderbox that they have made of the Middle East and parts of Africa. Presumably this is toward strengthening his argument for allowing untold numbers of Muslim “refugees” into the United States.

It bordered on hysterical (as in outrageously humorous) a couple of days ago when Obama reminded us once again of the “many contributions” that Muslims have made to the rich history of our country. I defy anybody to name one significant contribution that Muslims have made to this nation – with the qualifier that it is a positive contribution.

To the east, European socialist leaders refuse to acknowledge the damage to life, limb, and their economies being done by over a million invaders who should have been strafed as their raggedy columns approached the borders of prospective host nations.

“All of us together, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Copts, Evangelical brothers and sisters — children of the same God — we want to live in peace, integrated…”

– Pope Francis’ Easter Address, March 27

All want to live in peace, integrated? I beg to differ, since the Muslim faction included in Pope Francis’ Easter Address clearly have no desire to integrate.

I’ve always had a great respect for the Catholic Church, and I understand the reality of modern popes being political as much as spiritual leaders, but I am about a hair’s breadth away from declaring this pontiff an apostate Christian. In both his Christmas and Easter addresses, Pope Francis excoriated those who wish to prevent migrants from the Middle East and North Africa from entering Europe, even as they run roughshod over the nations of that continent. He has paid gratuitous, embarrassing deference to the world’s smirking, treacherous Muslim leaders, and although the pope has condemned the recent persecution (rape, maiming, murder, enslavement, etc.) of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims, he has spent just as much time misrepresenting Islam as benign as his contemporary political leaders have.

So is this pope stupid, naïve, or evil?

Last week, the Detroit Free Press reported that Muslim parents of elementary school students in Dearborn, Michigan became upset after their children received flyers promoting an Easter Egg hunt at a local church. While attending public elementary schools in New York during the 1960s, I cannot count the number of handouts I received for events celebrating religious holidays that my family did not celebrate. No one got intimidated, no one got offended, and no one went crying to The New York Times.

But you see, Muslims have made significant inroads into politics in Michigan, so they can afford to be uppity in that state. They’ve also become savvy to the practices employed by every other special interest group in the American left’s big tent: Claim persecution, gain sympathy, secure genuinely unconstitutional protections under the law, and then you’re free to persecute your political opponents.

So, the poor, intimidated little Muslim parents went to the press, complaining that their childrens’ virgin eyes falling upon these horrid, blasphemous Easter flyers was somehow a form of religious persecution that naturally violates the Constitution.

Clever, aren’t they? Well, that’s how it starts. Give it a decade or two, and Muslims in America will have earned the right to Sharia courts, to rape non-Muslim women at will, to kidnap non-Muslim children for use as sex slaves, and to behead American servicemen in broad daylight, just as they have in Britain, Europe, and Scandinavia.

For the record: Although a link to the Detroit Free Press story now defaults to the publication’s home page for some unfathomable reason, other online news outlets did pick it up.

Where those whom we have trusted with our governance and safety should now be ever more committed to the support and defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same, it is apparently more important that they show solidarity with the miniscule number of Americans who oppose an obscure state law blocking individuals from using public bathrooms that don’t match their biological gender, and campaign against the scourge of microaggressions.

What might those from another time in history or some exotic, off-world civilization conclude about us? Clearly, that we in the West are suffering from a form of mass insanity manifesting in a compulsion for societal suicide.

Why any society, in any age, or on any conceivable world, would choose such a path is, I’m afraid, a question that’s above my current pay grade.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
Jeh Johnson: A Tad Late on Stateside Terrorist Threat

Jeh Johnson: A Tad Late on Stateside Terrorist Threat

According to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, there are probably terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. at this very moment.

On CNN’s “State of the Union” program Sunday, Johnson said that there are individuals living in the United States today who have contact with the Islamic State (ISIS) and other terrorist groups who have “a desire to conduct an attack” on U.S. soil.

Johnson would not say how many such individuals the government is aware of, but did say the number is dwarfed by the number of people in Europe intent on carrying out acts of terror there.

So, we should feel really secure here in the ‘States.

As circumstances in America deteriorate more rapidly (with the advancement of the Obama administration’s unimpeded agenda), I have noted an increasing instance of certain grave issues coming to light months after my having reported them (usually here on WND). Granted that there have been sources in the alternative media covering terrorist cells on our soil for a long time, but most recently, a few of us tried our level best to inform our audiences as to more immediate threats that had come to light.

Citing the intelligence, military and law enforcement sources who were providing our information at that time, we attempted to draw attention to their reports of jihadis actively mustered on the Ciudad Juarez area of our border with Mexico, and those allegedly insinuating themselves among the thousands of “unaccompanied minors” who assailed the border last summer. According to law enforcement and Border Control personnel, evidence of individuals crossing the border into the U.S. from predominantly Islamic nations has increased dramatically over the last few years. This would include not only physical evidence, but interdicted individuals from those nations.

None of this was ever addressed by the establishment news organizations (mainstream media).

Several of us have reported on the network of radical immigration-focused nonprofits and quasi-religious organizations that have been working as surrogates for the Obama administration in the disposition of illegal alien minors. Many of these émigrés have serious criminal records, come from deeply dysfunctional families and environments and/or belong to dangerous gangs, such as the dreaded MS-13. Much of the clandestine disposition determination (transportation, housing, and the like) being done by these groups is technically illegal, but sharing a worldview and some common objectives with the perverse, treasonous Obama cabal, they should hardly have reservations.

Last summer, I rather vigorously referenced a January 2014 fbo.gov (Federal Business Opportunities website) solicitation for individuals or enterprises being sought to contract with the U.S. government to accompany “undocumented minor” children expected to arrive in large numbers later in the year.

Yet, when the tsunami of illegal minors from Mexico and Central America hit, the press and the Obama administration (which probably learned about it on the news) carried the narrative of everyone concerned being caught wholly by surprise. These minors’ nations of origin were oppressive, impoverished and war-torn, you see, so they could hardly be blamed for wanted to flee. Such conditions presented even more of an obligation on our part to accept and hastily ferry them to communities all over America.

And people wonder why we are seeing outbreaks of measles and other nondescript infections among America’s school age children.

There were reports – admittedly unconfirmed – at the time of the border siege, that drug cartels had picked up some of the contracts to from fbo.gov to “accompany” said minors into the U.S. using jetliners leased with our tax dollars. Drug lords reportedly got to dump thousands of pounds of diseased humanity on America, and get paid handsomely – by us – to boot.

Last year, we were made aware that the Obama administration had released tens of thousands of criminal illegals into our population. This apparently fell within the sphere of dangerous and indefensible policies about which Obama’s supposed political opponents (read GOP leadership) would have nothing to say.

More recently, a Freedom of Information Act request by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed that since 2009, the Obama administration issued roughly 5.5 million work permits to non-citizens beyond what Congress has authorized, in what is being called an illegal “shadow” or “parallel” immigration system, stifling wages and taking jobs from Americans.

With regard to this stunning discovery of patently illegal practices on the part of the White House, I would remind the reader of some practices that were in place during the onslaught of unaccompanied minors last year: The temporary housing and staging areas comprised of sweltering barracks with immigrants packed in like sardines, children suffering from all manner of disease and parasitic infestation, overworked doctors, Border Patrol, and Customs personnel who were threatened with job loss or jail if they spoke to the press and members of Congress who were refused entry to the facilities.

At this point, it should be no surprise that every undertaking of this administration has resembled a criminal enterprise – because quite often, they are criminal enterprises.

It would also appear that the collusion of the press with the administration extends to ignoring or suppressing major stories of national security and public safety interest – unless they’re presented with the blessing of the White House, containing the right spin, and at the appropriate time.

Originally published at WorldNetDaily.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Who Let CAIR Off the Hook in the First Place?

Who Let CAIR Off the Hook in the First Place?

As was widely reported this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society were recently designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates. The two American groups were named alongside ISIS, al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood branches in a list numbering 83 Islamist groups.

CAIR, which claims to be a mainstream “religious community service organization,” is widely known to be a terror sponsor and a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – itself the wellspring from which all global Sunni Muslim terror organizations flow. They were named by federal prosecutors in 2007 as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas funding case connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial. Hamas has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2007.

If you’re thinking that the Muslim UAE’s designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization speaks volumes vis-à-vis the group’s geopolitical toxicity, you’re quite right. CAIR was also one of the organizations that sponsored the first Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral last Friday, by the way.

Earlier this week, it was also revealed that CAIR is spearheading efforts to exacerbate racial tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, by using social media to advance the claim that Michael Brown (the black teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in August) and Luqman Ameen Abdullah (a Muslim activist shot during an FBI raid in 2009) were victims of racist police targeting blacks. According to federal prosecutors, Abdullah was a radical Islamist intent upon overthrowing the U.S. government.

In July of 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge A. Solis supported CAIR’s request to strike its name from documents listing it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. While Solis is often portrayed as having been critical of CAIR (sometimes even being credited with publicly outing the CAIR-Hamas connection), the fact that he essentially acted on the organization’s behalf is evident in his order.

Then, in October of 2010, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Justice Department had violated the Fifth Amendment rights of CAIR and another Muslim advocacy organization by including them on the publicly filed co-conspirator list in the case.

The pressing question here is how the government got from the firm belief in CAIR as a terror supporter to practically being an advocate for their so-called civil rights.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Aaron Alexis: Madman or race warrior?

aaronalexis1The shooting spree executed by Aaron Alexis at the Washington, D.C., Naval Yard on Sept. 16 has given rise to a dizzying host of questions. Among them are those of Alexis’ questionable mental capacity, the Navy’s failure to take precautions despite having been warned of his alleged mental incapacity, the security of the Navy Yard and military installations across the country, Alexis’ access to firearms after having been involved in firearms-related altercations, his arrest record and many others.

Then there is the question of the troubled ex-reservist and civilian contractor’s motivation for entering the facility on Monday morning, then 12 twelve people and wounding eight others before being neutralized by police. This question becomes more confusing the more that is added to the narrative. It was reported that Alexis’ military career itself was catalyzed by his anger at the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. While his father reportedly told police that Alexis participated in rescue operations at Ground Zero (he would have been 22 at the time), there is no evidence that this occurred, although he was employed within eye-shot of the Twin Towers when they were destroyed. He is also purported to have claimed that he’d suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of having witnessed the carnage of that day.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Racism

Comprehending the Incomprehensible


It is now apparent that not only did Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev abuse the United States’ asylum system, but that untold others hailing from countries with large populations of America-haters (many of them Muslims) have probably been doing likewise. The United States’ compassion for seekers of asylum from oppressive regimes has long been of benefit to the politically oppressed around the world.

Now this, as well as other doorways of opportunity within our immigration and naturalization bureaucracy are routinely being exploited in order to gain access to Americans with the intention of doing us harm.

obama_islam1The granting of asylum is one of the manners by which the federal government is allowing terrorist cells to develop here, according to Iowa Rep. Steve King, a member of the House Judiciary Committee. This week, my colleague Aaron Klein reported that Ilyas Akhmadov, a high-ranking Chechen separatist leader accused of terrorism by Russia, was granted political asylum in the U.S. and lived for a period of time in – drum roll – Boston.

And what of the young Saudi national, Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi, who was injured in the Marathon bombing, and about whom so much controversy and government obfuscation ensued? His whereabouts remain unknown. Al-Harbi has known the Obamas since 2009, when he entered the US; White House visitor logs have confirmed this. Although there have been several rumors representing his background, none have been substantiated. There’s no doubt that the White House is attempting to make this question go the way of Fast and Furious and the Justice Department’s non-prosecution of certain ethnic minorities controversy.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, Terrorism