Dems Shop Around, Find Two Federal Judges to Strike Down Trump’s Revised Travel Ban

After President Trump’s first executive order ban on refugees from violent Islamic countries was struck down by two activist federal judges, Trump worked with some of the top legal minds to revise the language. The judges claimed that it unconstitutionally discriminated against the religion of Islam.

The new version removed Iraq from the list of countries banned for 90 days, leaving Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It exempted people with green cards and visas and removed a provision that appeared to prioritize acceptance of those whose religion was a minority in their home country. Those with new visas were banned from entering the U.S. for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. It was to go into effect yesterday.

Despite the changes, the revised version has just been struck down by two more federal district court judges. As with the original ban, left-wing activists went judge shopping in order to find liberal judges who would rule against Trump.

Peculiar Judicial Decisions

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama appointee who presides in Honolulu, issued a 43-page ruling on Wednesday. It came out less than two hours after listening to arguments, a sign he had already made up his mind and started writing the opinion well in advance. Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, also an Obama appointee, issued an opinion this morning. Chuang’s opinion only struck down the travel ban portion of the executive order.

A career government lawyer, Chuang was once accused by a Republican senator “of having a role in frustrating Congressional efforts to investigate the death of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, while he was serving on a special assignment at the State Department.” U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who blocked the initial travel ban last month, will also be issuing an opinion.

Judge Watson said the state had established “a strong likelihood of success” on the claim of religious discrimination. He also based his opinion on an assertion that the ban would hurt tourism. This is strange, since Hawaii has yet to accept any refugees. Perhaps he was referring to the foreign relatives of people currently in the state. However, the California man who is part of the lawsuits said his overseas mother hadn’t visited him in over 12 years. A 90-day ban probably wouldn’t change much there.

Judge Watson reasoned that since the six countries listed in the travel ban are over 90 percent Muslim, it amounts to a ban on that religion. He ignored the fact that up to 10 percent of the population in those countries are not Muslim yet still subject to the ban.

Strangely, instead of analyzing the federal law providing authorization for the travel ban, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the judges referenced Trump’s remarks about radical Islam that he made during the presidential campaign, not as president. Judge Watson called them “highly relevant.” Watson cited one of Trump’s campaign press releases: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” However, that is not what Trump ending up doing with his travel ban as president; instead, he banned entire countries.

Interestingly, Judge Chuang disagreed in part. Chuang said the plaintiffs didn’t sufficiently develop their argument that a temporary ban on refugees discriminates on the basis of religion.

Since immigration is a federal issue, the decisions by the federal court judges to continue the injunction apply across the country. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the injunction against the ban last month, which prompted the Trump administration to rewrite the executive order.

Trump’s Response

Trump strongly denounced both rulings. During a rally in Nashville today, he criticized the judges for failing to discuss the immigration law authorizing the travel ban, 212(F). “Even if you’re a bad student,” he said, “this is a real easy one. … Here is the real statute, which they don’t even want to quote when they overrule it. And it was put here for the security of our country.”

Trump went on to emphasize the national security interest against Islamic terrorism: “We’re talking about the safety of our nation, the safety and security of our people.”

This ruling makes us look weak — which by the way, we no longer are, believe me. … This is a watered down version of the first one. I was elected to change our broken down and dangerous system and thinking in government that has weakened and endangered our country, and left our people defenseless. And I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families, believe me. Not today, not ever. We’re gonna win it.

Although the two decisions will now be appealed to circuit courts which lean to the left, it is very likely the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately make the final decision. Trump is confident of success at the high court, saying during today’s rally, “Even liberal democratic lawyer Alan Dershowitz — good lawyer — just said that we would win this case before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Many of the news accounts of these two court decisions revealed their bias: They left out any discussion that the ban could be upheld by the Supreme Court, as well as any analysis of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which clearly gives the president the authority to issue immigration bans. If this continues, random liberal judges could be dictating US immigration and foreign policy, in direct contradiction to the US Constitution. (For more from the author of “Dems Shop Around, Find Two Federal Judges to Strike Down Trump’s Revised Travel Ban” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Fear of Islam Is Rational. It’s Not Islamophobia.

Last October, prodded by a petition asking that it recognize “that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam” and condemn “all forms of Islamophobia,” the Canadian House of Commons agreed on a statement repudiating Islamophobia. Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, then demanded that the government deal with the “Islamophobia” endemic to Canadian society. That demand is now under consideration.

Which caused me to wonder. What is Islamophobia? Might I, as a critic of Islam who nevertheless seeks to be kind to individual Muslims, suffer from this malady?

Phobias are inordinate fears — of heights, dogs, snakes, enclosed spaces and so on. The term “Islamophobia” implies that if you are afraid of Islam per se (rather than just “extremist individuals”), you are likely to be unjust or unkind, or perhaps launch wars against innocent Muslims.

Thus the Canadian petition went on to note (echoing the constant drumbeat in some American high school textbooks), that the Golden Age of Islam produced a series of literate, advanced empires with the Muslim faith at their ideological core. It claims that Islam then made contributions in “arts, culture, science, literature, medicine” and more.

To what extent Islam produced rather than obtaining these things through its conquests is hard to say. That is just one of the many ways in which Islam is more complicated than the Islamophobia-phobic let on. In fact, I think it is rational, moral and biblical to be wary of Islam as a whole, not just a few “extremists” within it — while offering kindness to individual Muslims.

Responses to Real Danger

Most phobias are exaggerated responses to real dangers, after all. Heights are dangerous, unless you’re Spider-Man. Bees sting. Snakes bite. Ask a coal miner or parakeet what can happen in an enclosed space. God implanted such fears in us to keep us in one piece.

So why then is “Islamophobia” a word, and not “Buddhaphobia?”

Ask a Coptic Christian in Egypt whose faith has been suppressed for more than a millennia. Ask Nigerian Christian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Ask a survivor, if you can find one, of the once great and ancient Jewish communities in Egypt, Iraq or Iran. Talk to Yazidi girls sold into sexual slavery in ISIS-controlled territory.

A young Saudi woman I got to know in Oxford told me, “The only way I’m going back to Saudi is in a body bag.” A former imam I met in the same city told me that “of course” Islamic law prescribes death for those who convert out, which is why (after miraculously converting to Christ) he could not go home.

The villains in some of these cases are considered “extremist,” in others, they represent mainstream Islam. But “extremist” is one of those chameleon-words like “fundamentalist,” that derives meaning only from its neighbors. Therefore “extremist Muslims” must by definition be outliers and cannot “represent” Islam. The question that immediately leads to then, is, What does define Islam?

Defining Islam

Like any ideology, Islam can be defined by (a) the life and teachings of its founder; (b) its canonical writings; or (c) its developed traditions.

Western liberals tend to accentuate its traditions (c) rather than (a) or (b). But even viewed “liberally” as a mere social phenomenon, Islam provides rational grounds for worry, even fear. The horror of 9/11 was no aberration. “The borders of Islam are bloody,” said historian Bernard Lewis. And modern Islamic societies, as shown by broad-based United Nations research, tend to suppress women, among other ills.

Things turn even darker when we look at Islam’s founder. Among Mohammed’s crimes, as chronicled in Muslim tradition, are child-rape, polygamy, torture, slave-trading, assassination, mass-murder, armed robbery and the waging of many aggressive wars.

As for its canonical writings, much of what the enlightened world decries in modern Islam’s treatment of women has its origins in the teachings and actions of the prophet. These include marrying children to old men, polygamy, wife-beating, keeping women indoors and covered. Some of this is enshrined within the sacred pages of the Koran — and stands in stark contrast to the example of Jesus.

One must still give credit where credit is due. Who cannot admire, for instance, a Libyan Muslim immigrant to the United States who takes in terminally-ill foster children? Since Jesus teaches us to recognize such “Good Samaritans,” we should also recognize whatever Muslims have accomplished in medicine, art and science.

That said, recall that Islam conquered several cradles of civilization — ancient Sumer, Persia, Egypt, Israel, and much of the Greek Byzantine Empire — and ruled over technologically-advanced Nestorian Christian and Jewish communities. Islam then conquered much of Christendom and India and enslaved millions of Africans and Slavs. While not as inherently vicious as Nazism, Communism, or Aztec religion, Islam thus proves itself an object of rational fear.

The Two “Extremes”

One should distinguish between phobias or inordinate fears and reasonable concerns. Jesus taught his followers that they would be persecuted for His sake. Was that fear-mongering? Jesus sometimes avoided angry mobs and warned against bullies and ideological predators (“wolves”). Life under Islamic rule taught many followers of Christ to take pragmatic steps to mitigate the dangers of Islamic theology. They did this even while placing ultimate trust in God, making friends in the Muslim community, and treating each individual with the dignity and compassion of Christ.

Thus it is rational to fear the influence of a man whose example and teachings have led to great harm — even if it includes some good.

Christians should place ultimate trust in God. We are called to love Muslims as well, some of whom may prove better men and women than ourselves.

Osama bin Laden was an “extremist” because he followed Mohammed too closely. And that example is the root of a rational fear of Islam in its normative state. Those who truly love their neighbors are “extreme” rather in their resemblance to Jesus, the normative state of Christianity, which overcomes, but does not simply ignore, rational dangers. (For more from the author of “Fear of Islam Is Rational. It’s Not Islamophobia.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Video Clip Shows IRGC Support for Terror in America

As Iran’s government claimed that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is widely known to be fighting terrorism in neighboring countries, a newly-emerged video clip purportedly shows an IRGC strategist threatening to unleash terror cells in the U.S., targeting nuclear missile launch facilities, among other things.

At a time when the Trump administration is considering listing the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said at the weekend U.S. efforts to sanction the organization have never benefited the U.S.

Zarif said the world at large agrees that the IRGC has extended the utmost support for neighboring countries in their fight against terrorism.

Iran is supporting Shi’a militias fighting alongside the Iraqi military against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) jihadists. The IRGC is also heavily involved, in conjunction with Tehran’s Hezbollah allies and other Shi’a fighters, in supporting the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war, where combatants include Sunni nationalists, Kurds, Salafists, and ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists.

The exiled Iranian opposition group National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) called Zarif’s claim that the IRGC fights terrorism “ridiculous.” (Read more from “Video Clip Shows IRGC Support for Terror in America” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Islamists Just Sawed off a Jew’s Finger. That’s Not Enough Bloodshed for the ‘Tolerant’ Left.

All these churches working their hearts out for “the religious liberty right” to import Shariah immigration — instead of fighting for religious conscience rights at home for Christians — ought to pay attention to what’s going on in Europe.

The issue of mass Islamic immigration to western countries has become the Waterloo of political correctness that has plagued western democracies in recent decades. That is because under the guise of “tolerance,” they have tolerated the intolerant, importing large numbers of individuals whose value system is irreconcilably against western enlightened values.

When liberals lecture us on the need to bring in record numbers of migrants from the Middle East under the guise of tolerance and compassion, they never discuss the results of such policies that are so vividly on display across the pond in Europe.

It is well known that Jews cannot live safely in many parts of Europe thanks to the suicidal immigration policies they have pursued over the past 50 years; policies, by the way, we have mimicked in recent years, placing us just one generation behind the tipping point they are experiencing today. Just to get a flavor of what has become so commonplace in Europe (that it is no longer newsworthy), here is a story of the most recent attack on Jews in France:

The kippah-wearing brothers, whose father is a Jewish leader in Bondy, were forced off the main road by another vehicle on to a side street, according to the BNVCA report. While the vehicle was in motion, the driver and a passenger shouted anti-Semitic slogans at the brothers that included “Dirty Jews, You’re going to die!” the father told BNVCA based on the complaint filed by his sons.

The vehicle forced the brothers to stop their car, and they were surrounded by several men whom they described as having a Middle Eastern appearance. The men came out of a hookah café on to the side street, according to the case report published by the news website JSSNews.

The alleged attackers surrounded the brothers, then kicked and punched them repeatedly while threatening that they would be murdered if they moved. One of the alleged attackers then sawed off the finger of one of the brothers.

This particularly gruesome incident is not an aberration. Jews need armed guards at all their major institutions, reminiscent of what Israel had to do for years during the intifada. The chief rabbi of Belgium said last year there is no future for Jews in Europe. It is actually safer for Jews living in Judea and Samaria near Middle Eastern Arabs than those living in parts of Europe because European countries don’t have a security apparatus to deal with suicidal immigration policies into western countries.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise everywhere in the world commensurate with the rise of Islam in western countries and the prominence of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups operating on campus and in other areas of society. Liberals, including Hillary Clinton, are suddenly discovering the growing anti-Semitism, but they are obfuscating the root cause of it and trying to pin it somehow on the few weeks since Trump assumed office.

Liberals refuse to recognize the common sense that our founders understood when they were so careful to bring in only individuals who championed our “republican values,” as Jefferson wrote in his essay on immigration in the “Notes on the State of Virginia.” Yet liberals are now importing the values of the Middle East.

According to Pew, most individuals in predominantly Muslim countries harbor virulent hatred for Jews. Obviously, if we bring in small numbers from these countries, it’s possible to assimilate some of them, but when admitted in such large quantities, we are invariably importing the values of the Middle East.

It’s amazing watching both liberals and pseudo-conservatives espouse a view on immigration completely divorced from our history and founding. It’s as if there is a default right for anyone to come here unless we can demonstrate up front that the individual is a known terrorist. The reality is that most of these attacks in Europe come from radicalized Shariah Muslims that either immigrated from North Africa or are children of immigrants that, at the time they came in, there was no way to “vet” their behavior aside from looking at their values system.

Why should we let in anyone with values antithetical to our universal values of enlightenment and true tolerance? While many of them won’t necessarily commit terror attacks, their cumulative growth in numbers cultivates the climate for those who do. Moreover, many of them grow up hating Americans and hating our values. Leo Hohman did a terrific job chronicling the cultural problems and the sexual harassment emanating from members of the Minneapolis Somali community in his new book, “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and the Resettlement Jihad” (Listen to my podcast interview with him here.)

To be clear, everyone who is in America has a right to be hateful and harbor a supremacist mindset as long as they don’t break the law. But there is no right to immigrate. The same way we should be careful about bringing in large numbers of immigrants from hypothetical parts of the world that are saturated — albeit not exclusively populated — with white supremacists. Shouldn’t the same apply for Islamic supremacists who are at war with our entire culture and pose a greater security threat than any other hateful ideology?

Amazingly, liberals have the nerve to compare not importing Shariah values to countries that refused to admit Jews in before the Holocaust. Well, maybe they should look at what’s going on in Europe, and they will understand that it is more analogous to not letting in the Nazis. Scandalously, these same liberals are the ones who want Israel to commit suicide, thereby eliminating the one safe harbor for European Jews fleeing anti-Semitism … thanks to their suicidal immigration policies in the West!

During the debate in the House of Representatives over the Naturalization Act of 1790, Theodore Sedgwick explained that Congress was handed the keys to immigration so that it would use discretion to “admit none but reputable citizens, such only were fit for the society into which they were blended.”

Madison expressed his desire to bring in only those who would be “a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.” This was a point he made 26 years earlier at the Constitutional Convention when he declared we should only admit “foreigners of merit & republican principles among us” in order “to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America.”

And remember, their concerns about undesirable immigration was about Europe, not the Islamic world. They could never have envisioned the self-immolation of today’s “leaders.” They are rolling over in their graves. (For more from the author of “Islamists Just Sawed off a Jew’s Finger. That’s Not Enough Bloodshed for the ‘Tolerant’ Left.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Quran_cover (1)

Schools Are Teaching Islam but Banning Christianity: These Jersey Moms Want to Find out Why

There’s a new trend in public school curriculum that, chances are, you know nothing about. If you think your kids are getting an unbiased education and that all forms of religion are left out of the classroom, think again. Your child, like many others, may be subjected to Islamic indoctrination. That’s exactly what’s happening in schools in New Jersey. But in one small town, two moms are fighting back.

‘No Bible in School’

It all started several years ago when Nancy Gayer’s middle-schooler put together a PowerPoint presentation about giving winter hats and gloves to children who couldn’t afford them. One slide of the presentation had a Bible verse: “Caring for the poor is lending to the Lord, and you will be well repaid.” (Prov. 19:17) The slide took all of 1.3 seconds, but that was enough to alarm the teacher, Nancy told The Stream in an interview. The teacher told the boy that his slide show belonged in Sunday School, not the classroom, and refused to allow him to present it to the class. She told Nancy that it was “proselytizing.” So Nancy went to the vice-principal. “He said, ‘No, no, no, no Bible in school. You cannot quote the Bible, it’s proselytizing.’” The superintendent said the same thing, but he also threatened to obtain legal advice. Nancy said she was intimidated by his threat and decided that she would let it go.

Fast-forward to this year.

Memorizing the Quran for Homework

Nancy and Libby Hilsenrath’s boys are in the seventh grade at the same school. The moms were disturbed to learn that the boys were studying the doctrines and tenets of the Muslim faith, including the five pillars of Islam, and memorizing the teachings of the Quran for homework. One assignment required them to complete the sentence, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger.” Further, the boys were subjected to a 20-slide PowerPoint presentation about Islam, and two videos of a cartoon character teaching a non-Muslim friend about Islam.

“We are not anti-religion, we are not anti-Muslim, we are not bigoted people by any means,” said Nancy. “We care about people. But we care about the truth.” The moms just want equality in teaching religions. “If Islam is taught, teach Christianity, too. [My son] couldn’t even put a Bible verse in his presentation that was student-initiated. So they’re not only teaching Islam, but they’re not allowing students to be free in expressing their religious beliefs,” one said.

The school is also flouting its own written rules. Chatham School District Policy 2270 states in part:

The Board of Education directs that no religious belief or nonbelief shall be promoted in the regular curriculum or in district-sponsored courses, programs or activities, and none shall be disparaged.

The Islamic Core Curriculum of New Jersey

Libby addressed this concern at the Board of Education meeting, asking that the Board, the Policy Committee and the Curriculum Committee review this course to determine whether it was in line with school policy. She received a dismissive response by Superintendent Dr. Michael LaSusa:

I don’t think we’ll be eliminating the instruction in Islam because it is part of the New Jersey curriculum core content standards to teach students about the various religions of the world.

At the meeting, Dr. LaSusa offered to meet privately with anyone if they had more questions. But that didn’t happen. In fact, when the two moms requested a meeting with LaSusa, he responded that he would not be meeting with the women as their meeting would not be “productive.”

On Monday, the women were invited as guests to the Tucker Carlson Tonight show to discuss the issues with the school’s curriculum.

Although the superintendent didn’t show, he did provide the show’s producer with a statement. He said, in part:

The lessons on Islam that some of our parents have raised as an issue comprise approximately three days out of a 180-day school year. Further, in the scope of our full curriculum, content addressing Islam does not represent a disproportionate amount of time or resources.

“[My] question to him would be, ‘Do you spend three days on Christianity? Do you spend three days on Judaism? Do you spend three days on Buddhism? Do you spend three days on Taoism? Do you spend three days on Sikhism?’” said Libby. “It’s an absolutely backwards argument.”

Libby tried to find out from the K-12 Director of Social Studies curriculum whether other religions beside Islam were covered. She got a response she considers laughable. “I asked him, ‘Do you teach the Bible in your curriculum?’ and he said, ‘No, but here’s where they will encounter Christianity and Judaism,’ and he listed a bunch of things. The one that I remember off the top of my head is during one of the classes they watch a speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., where he quotes Isaiah. His answers were absurd to me.”

A Vicious Backlash Against Parents

The women expected to get backlash from the school district. They didn’t expect the type of response they’ve received from the community. The women agree that of all the responses they’ve had, 99 percent has been negative. “They are mean, they are calling us names, they are calling us bigots and idiots,” said Nancy. “They have been so unkind with no facts at all.”

“The reception that we got from the Board of Education and from the superintendent in particular was dismissive,” said Libby. “And then, the reception we got from the public was just awful. And these are parents, these are adults. The same adults who say, ‘what example are you setting for your kids?’ Well, what example are you setting for your kids posting this horrible, horrible things on Facebook? What kind of example is that?”

How Long Will Public Schools Teach Islam?

For now, the women aren’t taking this to court, although that action hasn’t been ruled out. “Our plan is to go back to the next Board of Education meeting which is on March 6. We’ll ask the committees if they’re going to take it under consideration,” said Libby “…to hopefully affect change in the curriculum for the better.” Nancy added, “We’ve not been given the opportunity to address these things in a constructive, adult meeting. I think these are things that would benefit all students…. If they [the school board and principal] were more forthcoming, then the onus falls on the parent, ‘Okay, we put it out there and if you didn’t look at it, it’s on you.’ But it’s the opposite here.” (For more from the author of “Schools Are Teaching Islam but Banning Christianity: These Jersey Moms Want to Find out Why” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Baltimore Mosque Celebrates the Murderer of a ‘Blasphemer’

Last Sunday a mosque outside Baltimore reportedly honored the assassin of a Pakistani statesman who criticized his country’s blasphemy law.

According to Ehsan Rehan in the Rabwah Times, an online Pakistani newspaper often specializing in religious persecution reporting, here is what happened:

The Gulzar E Madina Mosque in Pikesville, Maryland hosted an “Urs” in honor of the infamous killer on February 12th. Urs is a traditional commemoration usually given to Saints and Holy personages. The Mosque also advertised the event in the February 9th edition of Urdu Times, America’s most widely distributed Urdu language newspaper.

Salman Taseer was governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province when he was killed in 2011 by his bodyguard Mumtaz Qadri for criticizing Pakistan’s law prohibiting blasphemy against Islam. Specifically Taseer had defended Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman under death sentence since 2009 for supposedly insulting Islam. Another senior Pakistani statesman, Shahbaz Bhati, was also assassinated in 2011 for publicly defending her.

The killer, who shot Taseer 27 times, was unrepentant and was widely supported by protests until his execution under Pakistani law last year. His grave has become a pilgrimage site, and a popular mosque in Islamabad is named in his honor. (Read more from “Baltimore Mosque Celebrates the Murderer of a ‘Blasphemer'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Does Trump’s New Pick for Labor Secretary Have a Cozy Relationship With Fringe Islamic Groups?

R. Alexander Acosta, President Donald Trump’s new nominee for secretary of labor, has a troubling history when it comes to standing up to Islamic supremacist groups in America.

President Trump announced Acosta’s nomination Thursday during a press conference at the White House. Acosta previously served as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the George W. Bush administration. The labor secretary nominee comes with an impressive resume.

A Harvard Law School graduate and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Acosta became dean of Florida International University law school in 2009. He also previously served on the National Labor Relations Board.

During his tenure in the Bush administration, however, Acosta became a celebrated brand amongst fringe Islamic advocacy groups.

In 2005, he received the annual “Friend in Government Award” from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, an extremist anti-Israel group that has made supportive statements toward the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups in the past.

In accepting the award, Acosta stated: “We’re all in this together and we’re all Americans. September 11th was not an attack by one people or one religion against another, but it was really an attack by a few desperate radicals against all of us.” After ignoring the fact that all of the hijackers were Arab Muslims, Acosta went on to showcase how Muslims, too, were killed and victims of the World Trade Center attack.

In 2006, the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) specifically thanked Acosta for refusing to note the Muslim identity of al-Qaeda linked suspects of terror arrests in Miami.

“Given that the reported beliefs of this bizarre group have nothing to do with Islam, we ask members of the media to refrain from calling them ‘Muslims,’” CAIR spokesman Ahmed Bedier said, thanking Acosta for saying that “today’s indictment … is not against a particular group or a particular faith” in his role as U.S. attorney.

In 2011, Alex Acosta testified in a “Protecting the Civil Rights of American Muslims” hearing, in which Democrats argued that police should stop conducting surveillance on potentially radical communities. Instead of discussing the threats promulgating from radicalized communities throughout the country, Trump’s labor secretary nominee lectured Americans about their supposed anti-Muslim tendencies.

He testified:

“As we approach the 10th Anniversary of 9-11, I feel obligated to state the obvious. As a nation, we have not forgotten the events of ten years ago. Emotions remain charged, and the desire to blame remains high. Now is good time to remember that no community has a monopoly on any particular type of crime.”

Acosta is a product of the disastrous policies put in place by the Bush administration to engage already-radicalized elements of the Islamic community in America. This approach led Bush to declare a politically correct “War on Terrorism” in which the administration refused to identify the religiously motivated enemy America was facing, for fear it would somehow upset moderate Islamic communities.

In reality, the Bush policies dutifully carried out by Alex Acosta hindered American efforts to fight global jihadism, and continued to be put into effect throughout President Obama’s unfortunate tenure. (For more from the author of “Does Trump’s New Pick for Labor Secretary Have a Cozy Relationship With Fringe Islamic Groups?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Democrats’ Warped View of Islam Is the Reason Our National Security Debate Is So Screwed Up

The Left’s persistent denialism over the relationship between Islam, jihadism, and our national security is, to somewhat-paraphrase Thomas Hobbes, brutish and nasty without the decency of being solitary or short. Some recent polling shows the cold hard data on just how unhinged from reality this persistent denialism is.

One recent CBS News poll found that 66 percent of Democrats believe that other world religions are just as violent as Islam, while Rasmussen found that Democrats are more likely to believe that Muslims are mistreated in the U.S. than to think Christians are in Muslim-majority countries.

These, of course, raise the eternal question: What color is the sky in the Democrat Party’s world?

The first assumption – that all religions are somehow equally violent – runs parallel to the equally ludicrous assertion of many on the Left that “right-wing extremism” poses a larger threat to the American people than jihadist terror.

Is there a concerted conspiracy of militant Christians all over the world to topple sovereign governments and institute a global theocracy? When was the last time it struck? How many Baptists have been radicalized into shooting up a gay nightclub or their office building for the glory of Jesus Christ lately? And please, if Catholic or Mormon extremists ever tried to lay waste to the Milwaukee Art Museum for that grotesque depiction of Pope Benedict XVI, please let me know; I can’t find it.

Of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, the vast majority are peaceful. But whether or not there is a liberty-loving American patriot within each remains a rightfully debated point, given the prevalence of Sharia-supremacist attitudes throughout the Muslim world (as well as in Muslim-heavy Western populations).

Such an assumption, however, would seem to be common creed and shibboleth among Democratic policymakers who would have their fellow citizens look the other way, pretending that not all worldviews are created equal. They’re clearly not. The distinction that needs to be made here is that Islam has a problem, rather than necessarily being the problem itself. But it’s a bigger, more violent problem than any other major religion.

Then, as illustrated by the Rasmussen survey, we have Democrats’ belief that Muslims in the United States are treated worse than Christians in Muslim-majority countries. That makes you wonder whether people are still confusing that part of the world with Agrabah, the fictional city from Disney’s “Aladdin.”

Yes, let’s hold up the United States — where the First Amendment and supporting legislation have defended Muslim citizens’ rights to abstain from transporting alcohol at work, pray in public schools, and maintain beards as first responders, and even as prisoners — to some helpful case studies in the Muslim-majority world.

The abuses visited on Christians and rarely-persecuted mob violence in the Middle East are so well documented, it barely merits response. One need only look at the horrors Christians face under ISIS, the state of the underground church in Iran, the ongoing trial of Asia Bibi and others in Pakistan, and attacks on Christians by Muslims even in refugee camps to know that even a one-to-one comparison with Muslims’ wellbeing in America would be sheer lunacy.

In addition to the cases mentioned above, it’s also important to remember that Muslims in America are free to convert to other religions, profess atheistic views, or to openly question the teachings of their own faith without government coercion to the contrary.

A quick survey of Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and others with apostasy and blasphemy laws show that this is not the case for millions of their foreign counterparts, many of whom can face death for such activities.

Some will say that the real persecution doesn’t necessarily come from the state, but rather intolerance in the population. This is equally overblown.

Regardless of what you think of hate crime legislation, Muslims in the United States are protected by a justice system — bound by our laws and Constitution — that tracks, prosecutes, aggregates, and publicly reports incidents of religiously motivated hate crimes. An examination of that report shows that incidents against Muslims significantly trail behind those of Jews (with nary a word from the media, academia, and Hollywood).

While vigilante persecution of any religion is an anathema to who we are as Americans, it’s also important to keep proportion and frequency in mind. This message doubly applies to the post-election hijab hoaxers and their deceptive ilk.

Following President Trump’s travel suspension and the error-laden legal battle surrounding it, the breathless dungeon of public discussion involving Islam, terrorism, national security, and religious freedom has only gotten more hostile and dysfunctional.

It’s not because one side of the debate is pushing an agenda that oversteps the limits of power prescribed by the Constitution, thereby ushering in some sort of fascist dystopia — it’s because the other side, as the polls show, is completely detached from reality. (For more from the author of “Democrats’ Warped View of Islam Is the Reason Our National Security Debate Is So Screwed Up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Former Muslim Refugee: Think ‘Rationally’ About Dangers of Radical Islam

A former Muslim refugee is asking her fellow American citizens to think “rationally” about the dangers of radical Islam.

“I know what it’s like to fear rejection, deportation and the dangers that await you back home,” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim of Somali origin, writes in the Huffington Post.

Ali writes that she became an American citizen after escaping an arranged marriage and working in the Netherlands at a factory and as an interpreter for abused Muslim women. Overtime, she says she made the decision to leave the religion of Islam because it was “too intolerant of free thought.”

She was “excited” when she heard Trump’s August 2016 speech about combatting the underlying ideology of radical Islam which oppresses women, the LGBT community and other religions. She was also encouraged by his promise to help moderate Muslims who strove to combat radicalism.

Four Types of Muslim Immigrants

“In the course of working with Muslim communities over the past two decades, I have come to distinguish between four types of Muslim immigrants: adapters, menaces, coasters and fanatics,” Ali says.

The adapters are those who adapt to the customs and embrace the freedoms of Western civilization; menaces are often young men who are subject to and then commit crimes of domestic violence; coasters are those who want to take advantage of welfare without working; and fanatics “use the freedoms of the countries that gave them sanctuary to spread an uncompromising practice of Islam.”

Ali writes that some people move from one category to the other over time, which makes it more difficult to distinguish between adapters and troublemakers.

“[T]he problem of Islamist terrorism will not be solved by immigration controls and extreme vetting alone,” she writes. “That’s because the problem is already inside our borders.”

Ali cites surveys which reveal majorities of Sharia-supporting Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iraq — whence most Muslim immigrants are expected to come to the U.S. in the coming decades — agree with the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

Ali writes:

Such attitudes imply a readiness to turn a blind eye to the use of violence and intimidation tactics against, say, apostates and dissidents — and a clear aversion to the hard-won achievements of Western feminists and campaigners for minority rights. Admitting individuals with such views is not in the American national interest.

While Ali says she was disappointed in the clumsy implementation of Trump’s temporary travel ban, she still supports the president’s longterm plan of rejecting any would-be immigrants who support terrorist groups or believe in Sharia law over the Constitution.

“American citizens — including immigrants — must be protected from that ideology and the violence that it promotes,” she writes. “But the threat is too multifaceted to be dealt with by executive orders. That is why Trump was right to argue in August for a commission of some kind — I would favor congressional hearings — to establish the full magnitude and nature of the threat.”

“Until we recognize that this ideology is already in our midst, we shall expend all our energies in feverish debates about executive orders, when what is needed is cool, comprehensive legislation,” Ali writes. (For more from the author of “Former Muslim Refugee: Think ‘Rationally’ About Dangers of Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Survival of the Evilest: We Must Reimpose Sanctions on the Islamist Sudanese Government

Former President Obama lifted sanctions on the Islamist Sudanese government on January 13, 2017. The Islamist Sudanese government had long survived even with the sanctions in place. Don’t dismiss the genius behind its longevity by believing — as many have — that things have changed; that the influence of the hardliners, radical Islamists, has diminished during the past 20 years. The hardliners remain deep inside the government, still trying to build a global Caliphate and incite jihad.

Sudan’s Leaders

The leaders of Sudan are all hardliners who were committed to building a global Caliphate long before ISIS. They play a game of “Change the Face.” It’s a Darwinian dance to alter the regime’s appearance and fool the outside world while pursuing their agenda to bring Sharia and Arabization to all of Sudan and then to the entire African continent.

The late former Sudan Prime Minister, Hassan al Turabi, was a Change the Face expert. Turabi looked like a jolly old uncle, but the tiny Sorbonne-educated Muslim Brotherhood leader not only oversaw the forced Islamization and Arabization of the south, he managed the murahaleen, Arab militias that raided villages in South Sudan and the Nuba Mountains, burning crops and livestock, killing men and taking women and children into slavery. They were forerunners of the Janjaweed (devils on horseback), responsible for the Darfur genocide.

Turabi accepted Bibles from naïve American pastors and nodded winsomely when they gushed that they were both “people of the Book”! He charmed the brains out of many Western visitors, but his Islamic ideology never changed. How could it? He was the founder of the Popular Arab and Islamic Congress, working for the globalization of radical Islam, and of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sudanese branch.

Another Change the Face expert was Sudan’s previous foreign minister (architect of the jihad in Darfur and the Nuba Mountains) Ali Karti. Karti washed the blood of black Africans off his hands, put on a tailored suit and attended the National Prayer Breakfast. He charmed members of Congress with his sincerity and some invited him to their districts to spread his message of desiring peace and unity for Sudan, not having a clue what it actually means. (In these cases “peace” means Islam, which literally means submission. “Unity” means Arabization — all of Sudan’s hundreds of indigenous black African people groups to deny their own cultural heritage, language and customs, and embrace Arabization.)

Part of the Strategy

Change the Face and the related “Charm Offensive” are part of the overall strategy that has kept the Islamist Republic going in spite of unspeakable atrocities, persecuting Christians and other religious minorities, and perpetrating five genocidal jihads.

The genocide waged on southern Sudan (now Republic of South Sudan) and the Nuba Mountains/Blue Nile region resulted in the death of over 2.5 million people, with some 5 million displaced. The 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement brought the South’s misery to a standstill and the Nuba Mountains/Blue Nile region achieved a ceasefire arranged by the first U.S. Sudan Special Envoy, former Senator Reverend John Danforth.

But in 2011, the Sudan government began another genocidal attack on Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State that is still going on. Nuba Christians have been particularly targeted, the Bishop of the region revealed in his 2011 testimony to the House of Representatives. And Khartoum has supported insurrectionists in the South, trying to destroy the new nation.

The Case for Sanctions

Most people have lost track of “saving Darfur.” They may be surprised to know that Darfur still needs saving. Sudan scholar Eric Reeves says 600,000 have died and some 2.8 million displaced in that genocide.

Untold numbers of women have been raped, including those violated in the Sudan Army’s mass rape of hundreds of girls and women. In addition, a recent report from Amnesty International documents the Sudan government’s use of chemical weapons more than 30 times in the past year against one town.

Shouldn’t this be enough for the Sudan Islamist regime to merit sanctioning? But there’s more. Sudan is the global jihad incubator. It plays host to numerous jihadi groups throughout the country. And it’s more than just a “host.”

Darfur is occupied by terrorist groups spreading from Sudan to Mali. The Darfur Sudan United Movement’s General Abakar Abdallah and activist Jerry Gordon write in FrontPage Magazine:

New terrorist groups continually arrive in Darfur from Libya through Dongola, in North Sudan … These terrorist groups … are believed to include Boko Haram and ISIS jihadis. Villagers who have encountered them reported they are a mixture of Arabs and Africans. The latter look like Nigerians … They possess ISIS flags and wear the Kodomul (black turban). They are moving on Toyota pickup trucks similar to those used by ‘Peace Forces’. The Sudan regime pretends that these ‘Peace Forces’ are combating illegal immigrants. In reality they are helping bring in terrorists and Chadian rebels from Libya to Darfur.

But additionally, the Khartoum regime continues training jihadists in its own terror camps that the United States has been warned about since the 1990s. And Khartoum is sending trained jihadists all over the world, disguised as refugees or as wealthy Sudanese citizens.

This Darwinian survivor-regime stores up treasure for itself, making one deal after another while its people suffer. In addition to contracts with France for 16 million tons of gold in eastern Sudan, the regime recently announced a deal for 97 million tons of gold and silver in the Red Sea Minerals Project, to begin in the year 2020.

Global jihad will be well financed!

Khartoum also has agreements with Arab nations to provide farm land in Nubia, Beja land (Eastern Sudan), Darfur and elsewhere, displacing the indigenous people and stealing their land. The regime intends to change the demography of the country to erase its African identity.

Survival of the Evilest

What can defeat the survival of the evilest? The unified opposition of Sudan’s marginalized people from Nubia, Darfur, Beja Land, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State — the anti-jihad, anti-Caliphate, pro-secular democracy, pro-freedom and equality Sudanese — could put together a New Sudan. But they can only do this if the United States and others do not stand in their way under the illusion that the Khartoum regime are Islamists they can “work with.”

Then Sudan could change its face one last time. But this time, to the face of a secular democracy that would ensure religious freedom and equality for all Sudanese. Sudan would then face the United States as a real intelligence partner and a genuine ally in the war against global jihad. (For more from the author of “Survival of the Evilest: We Must Reimpose Sanctions on the Islamist Sudanese Government” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.