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.


Hysterical Responses to Executive Order Main Issue: The Nature of Islam

President Trump’s executive order on immigration has caused enormous furor, yet its impetus seems largely to have gone unnoticed: Chaos in the Near East.

Much of the Islamic world in Saharan Africa and the Middle East has gone beyond turmoil into a nether world of political oppression, military violence, and social disarray. The “Arab spring” of 2011 has turned into a region where, to paraphrase a metaphor from C.S. Lewis, there is always searing heat but never an oasis.

Searing Heat

In Libya, since dictator Moammar Ghaddafi was excised from political power in 2011 (and brutally murdered), ISIS has gained a stronghold and the nation itself is currently torn between three competing ruling factions. Fraught with tribal and thus regional tension, Libya’s oil production has dropped from about 1.56 million barrels daily to about 400,000 today. And hundreds of thousands of people are internally displaced.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed presidency of Mohammed Morsi was ended after Islamist political repression and violence wracked the country. Former military chief Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has restored a measure of stability, but violent Islamists now have control of part of the Sinai Peninsula.

As to Syria, where to begin? Russian planes bombing civilian targets. American-hating Iran fighting American-hating ISIS. An estimated 13.5 million people needing humanitarian aid, 6.3 million people internally displaced, minimally 4.7 million Syrian refugees, and roughly 400,000 killed and hundreds of thousands more injured.

Then there are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, and Turkey. In these countries, there is repression if not outright oppression and Islamic terrorism and/or Islamism in governance. These stifle religious and political liberty and create anxiety in populations already cast down by centuries of tribal hostilities, Muslim sectarianism, misogynistic culture, and political severity.

It is from this cauldron of pain and suffering that the new President’s policy toward seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries has emerged.

Islamic Domination was the Aim of Muhammed

The details of Mr. Trump’s immigration plan are worth debating, but what should be inarguable is that the North African-Middle Eastern Islamic world is fragmenting under the weight of its own self-destructive politics and social structures.

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the post-World War I political reapportionments of the greater region were a colossal mistake. Let us also stipulate that the West has made grave errors in everything from supporting Saddam Hussein to the way we deposed him. The list of externally-inflicted problems is a long one.

Throughout the Arab world, tribal and sectarian loyalties have transcended national allegiances. Force (ala Saddam Hussein, Ghaddafi, the Assads, et al.) has been the glue holding together disparate groups within countries whose contours, whether ethnic, geographic, or sectarian, are grounded in neither history or logic.

But the one thing that experts, commentators, diplomats, and on-the-ground analysts hate to discuss is the nature of Islam itself.

To be clear: Only a minority of Muslims want violence-based adherence to Sharia law to dominate their own countries, let alone the world. Yet a responsible reading of the Quran implies that Islamic domination — attained at the tip of a sword — was the aim of Muhammed from his religion’s beginning.

This is why the radical Islamic government of Iran cannot be dismissed as a aberration from the true Muslim faith. It is why fanatical followers of that faith have caused insidious political disruption throughout their vast region, culminating in strong-man rule (some of it more enlightened than others) by Sadat to al-Sisi and Sharia-based governments from Saudi Arabia to Iraq.

Then there are the terrorists themselves.

A Long War With ISIS

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic,” wrote Graeme Wood in a landmark Atlantic article in 2015. “Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This declaration created tremendous push-back against Wood from a host of quarters. However, seeing ISIS’s continuing durability, it is difficult to disagree with Wood’s essential conclusion:

Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group’s message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one.

In addition, we have to ask: Where in the Quran are the principles of the equality of all people, representative self-governance, religious liberty, and other First Amendment-type rights ever articulated, let alone implied? I am hard-pressed to find these ideas anywhere in Islam’s essential text or in its leading theologians’ commentaries thereof.

A Revolution of the Islamic Faith?

Over the past two years, Egyptian President al-Sisi has called for a “revolution” within Islam, decrying the notion of the Islamists that the entire global population must convert to Islam, submit to it, or be killed. He draws a distinction between the teachings of his faith and the political ideology the extremists draw from it, and argues that the latter must be expunged.

Whether this is possible is the subject of another essay. As former Muslim Dr. Nabeel Qureshi wrote last year in USA Today, “The Quran itself reveals a trajectory of jihad reflected in the almost 23 years of Muhammad’s prophetic career.” He goes on to note that ISIS

may lure youth through a variety of methods, it radicalizes them primarily by urging them to follow the literal teachings of the Quran and the hadith, interpreted consistently and in light of the violent trajectory of early Islam. As long as the Islamic world focuses on its foundational texts, we will continue to see violent jihadi movements.

How can any religion retain its identity if it rejects its “foundational texts?” And if it does so, what is left to it? This is the question the Islamic world must answer if it is to deal honestly and wisely with its own house. It is the question that Christians, and the west, ignore at our own peril. (For more from the author of “Hysterical Responses to Executive Order Main Issue: The Nature of Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Inside the Radical Islamic Law Firm Representing the Orlando Terrorist’s Widow

Noor Salman will utilize a fringe Islamic law firm in her attempt to prove innocence against charges she assisted her deceased husband, Omar Mateen, in conducting the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

In June, Mateen — who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terror group — killed 49 innocents at the Pulse nightclub, wounding an additional 53.

Salman faces charges of aiding and abetting and providing material support to ISIS. She has also been accused of obstructing the investigation and deliberately misleading local and federal law enforcement officials. She claims to be innocent of any wrongdoing, but there is a stack of evidence showing Salman was fully aware of her husband’s plans and radicalization.

She will be represented by the Texas-based Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America, which is part of the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA).

The MLFA has been involved in several high-profile Islamic terror cases. They represented clients in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, which was the largest terror-financing trial in U.S. history. Five officers of the Holy Land Foundation were charged with providing material support to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

MLFA has also represented Sami Al-Arian, a fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group, who was deported to Turkey in 2015.

In 2003, the legal fund held a fundraiser for five brothers accused of setting up a financial front for Hamas.

Along with their controversial work defending terrorists, the MLFA board of directors is stacked with individuals who are closely connected with the international Muslim Brotherhood.

One board member, Mouffa Nahhas, is the past president of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — Dallas Fort-Worth chapter. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI has showcased in federal court how CAIR was created to support Hamas.

Another board member, Hatem Bazian, is a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, and the president of American Muslims for Palestine. Bazian has called for an intifada (armed Islamic uprising) in America. He also co-founded the Students for Justice in Palestine, an anti-Israel hate group that has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Prosecutors insist Noor Salman was intimately involved in the planning stages of her husband’s jihadi massacre. Her counsel claims Salman was actually a victim in the entire situation, suffering abuse at the hands of Mateen. Nonetheless, her reported choice of the MLFA-affiliated Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America as her counsel is sure to raise some eyebrows. (For more from the author of “Inside the Radical Islamic Law Firm Representing the Orlando Terrorist’s Widow” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Watch List: Islamic Extremism the Cause of Persecution for Christians in 35 out of 50 Most Persecuted Countries

Open Doors USA released its 25th annual World Watch List (WWL), a ranking of the top 50 countries “where Christians face the most severe persecution for their faith”, noting that “Islamic extremism is the lead generator of persecution for 35 out of 50 countries on the list.”

Communist North Korea topped the list for the 16th consecutive year because of the regime’s extreme oppression of Christians. The other nine countries in the top 10 are listed as having either Islamic extremism or Islamic oppression as a main cause of persecution.

The watch list’s top 10 countries for the most Christian persecution are, in order: North Korea, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea.

Pakistan, which placed fourth on the list, had “the most all-pervasive violence recorded” in the WWL 2017 recording period from November 2015 to October 2016. The 2016 Easter Sunday bombing in Lahore, which killed 74 and injured 320, is one example of the violence Christians have seen in Pakistan over the past year.

World Watch Research also noted in its summary of the Watch List’s major trends that “Islamic militancy is gaining ground in many more sectors of society” in Somalia since, “especially with generous Saudi funding – they are building new networks of extremist schools in Somalia, Kenya, Niger and Burkina Faso, and then targeting local government cadres, asking for concessions to build mosques and sponsoring those who are running for office.” (Read more from “Watch List: Islamic Extremism the Cause of Persecution for Christians in 35 out of 50 Most Persecuted Countries” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Airport Shooter Converted to Islam, Identified as Aashiq Hammad Years Before Joining Army

The Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooter is a Muslim convert who years before joining the U.S. Army took on an Islamic name (Aashiq Hammad), downloaded terrorist propaganda and recorded Islamic religious music online, according to public records dug up by the investigative news site of an award-winning, California journalist. This is pertinent information that the Obama administration apparently wants to keep quiet, bringing up memories of the Benghazi cover up, in which the president and his cohorts knowingly lied to conceal that Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. Special Mission in Libya.

Information is slowly trickling out that links the Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooter to radical Islam while the official story from authorities is that the gunman is a mentally ill, Hispanic Army veteran named Esteban Santiago that became unhinged after a tour in Iraq. Only one mainstream media outlet mentions the possibility of Santiago’s “jihadist identity,” burying it in a piece about New York possibly being his initial target. A paragraph deep in the story mentions that investigators recovered Santiago’s computer from a pawn shop and the FBI is examining it to determine whether he created a “jihadist identity for himself using the name Aashiq Hammad…” The reset of the traditional mainstream media coverage promotes the government rhetoric that omits any ties to terrorism even though early on a photo surfaced of Santiago making an ISIS salute while wearing a keffiyeh, a Palestinian Arab scarf.

The public records uncovered in the days after the massacre suggest Santiago (Hammad) is a radical Islamic terrorist that’s seriously committed to Islam. Besides taking on a Muslim name, he recorded three Islamic religious songs, including the Muslim declaration faith (“there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”) known as the Shahada. He also posted a thread about downloading propaganda videos from Islamic terrorists on a weapons and explosives forum. The investigative news site that unearthed this disturbing information connected the dots between Santiago, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and Hammad, an identity he created in 2007.

This week a prominent Ft. Lauderdale businessman and longtime resident addressed a letter to the city’s mayor and commissioners blasting county and federal officials for covering up that “Aashiq Hammad, not Esteban Santiago, attacked our city and county.” The businessman, respected Ft. Lauderdale real estate entrepreneur Jim Morlock, specifically names Broward County’s elected sheriff Scott Israel, Florida senator Bill Nelson, the first to identify Santiago as the shooter on national television, and congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, ousted last summer as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair over a scandalous plot to damage Bernie Sanders during the primary. (Read more from “Airport Shooter Converted to Islam, Identified as Aashiq Hammad Years Before Joining Army” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Clock Boy Hoaxster’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed, Punitive Sanctions Sought Against Islamists for Frivolous Suit

Following a nearly three-hour hearing held yesterday, newly appointed District Court Judge Maricela Moore dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Mohamed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year old son, Ahmed Mohamed.

Ahmed is better known as “Clock Boy” for bringing a hoax clock bomb to his Irving, Texas middle school in September 2015 and causing a bomb scare that led to his arrest and suspension from school.

The motion to dismiss was filed by lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) and local counsel Pete Rowe on behalf of the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson, two of the defendants in the defamation case, which also named as defendants the local Fox affiliate, Glenn Beck, and Beck’s production company.

Mohamed had sued Hanson and CSP for statements Hanson had made on Beck’s program about the connection between the Clock Boy hoax bomb affair, the attendant media frenzy created in large part by his father Mohamed, civilization jihad, and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in the United States that promotes civilization jihad.

During the hearing, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel David Yerushalmi explained to Judge Moore that the purpose of the lawfare-driven lawsuit was to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam. As such, Yerushalmi argued,

“This case is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or ‘SLAPP’ case and should be dismissed.”

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore took the matter under advisement but informed the parties that she would rule by the end of the day. Today, the Court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.

Upon leaving the courtroom, Yerushalmi explained:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

Yerushalmi added:

“The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as ‘Islamophobic,’ and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions,”

Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, AFLC will petition the court for its legal fees and will seek sanctions against both the plaintiff and his attorney.

Robert Muise, AFLC’s other co-founder and senior counsel, made clear:

“AFLC was formed in large measure to take on Islamists like CAIR who use and abuse the legal system with their cynical form of lawfare to undermine our constitutional liberties—notably free speech. We have confronted these lawsuits across the country in federal and state courts and have defeated CAIR and its minions at every turn. When appropriate, we have won sanctions. This lawsuit will be no different.”

(For more from the author of “Clock Boy Hoaxster’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed, Punitive Sanctions Sought Against Islamists for Frivolous Suit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.