Posts

16047251189_606aec0bec_b

Muslim Expert Torches Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Agenda

The United States should ditch its current efforts at “countering violent extremism” and focus instead on “countering violent Islamism” (CVE), a prominent Muslim reformist told Congress on Thursday.

“Our current direction and lack of deeply flawed and profoundly dangerous for the security of our nation,” Dr. Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic forum for Democracy, said at a House Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing Thursday. “As a devout Muslim who loves my faith, and loves my nation, the de-emphasis of “radical Islam” and the “Islamist” root cause of global Islamist terrorism is the greatest obstacle to both national harmony and national security.”

Jasser went on to say that until America can “name this, and once we can name it, treat it and then counter it,” its national security efforts will remain channeled through a “Whac-a-Mole program” that focuses on tactics, rather than ideology.

A report issued earlier this year from a DC-based counterterrorism consulting firm found the Obama administration’s CVE programs to be a “catastrophic failure” due to its inefficacy, poor management, and, most of all, because of the administration’s engagementwith organizations that have known extremist affiliations, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America.

Both organizations were unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case; trusting such organizations to counter jihadism is akin to “treating arsonists like firefighters,” Jasser said.

While these groups may not be intrinsically extremist in their messaging, Dr. Jasser said, they “are distributing literature that glorifies political Islam, that glorifies sharia state ideology […] that ultimately ends up causing the harms that radicalize our community.”

Not only does government engagement with these organizations further empower the global jihad movement and “leaves us bare against the threat of radical Islamism,” Jasser added, it also “renders our greatest allies within the Muslim community — genuine reformers — entirely impotent and marginalized.”

Throughout the rest of his prepared testimony, Jasser also suggested that Congress reopen investigations into CAIR’s extremist ties, calling the group “one of the most obvious beneficiaries of this embrace of Islamist groups.” He also recommended that the administration stop all engagement with groups that have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and “recognize their misogynist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and anti-American ideological underpinnings.”

Also on the panel was Shireen Qudosi, a senior contributor at CounterJihad.com, who pointed out to members the difference between Islam and Islamism, and that the latter “is a political ideology that must be studied, understood, and defeated.”

Qudosi went on to attack the “Islamophobe” labelling of anyone who criticizes Muslims, saying that the accusation “moves Islam from a religion into a racial or biological context,” rather than approaching it as a belief system.

“Islam is a religion,” she added, one that should be challenged intellectually without fear of automatically being labeled an Islamophobe or racist for doing so. “It is an idea, a set of concepts and beliefs. As such, ideas, concepts, and beliefs do not have human rights; individuals do.”

“The best way to tackle ISIS, beyond Whac-a-Mole CVE systems, is to tackle their political ideology,” said Qudosi.

During an earlier panel in the hearing, George Selim, Department of Homeland Security Office of Community Partnerships director, told the subcommittee that the current CVE program under his direction isn’t even being guided by a complete, strategic plan, according to a report at the Washington Examiner. After being repeatedly hounded by committee members, Selim admitted that a strategic plan for a $10 million endeavor was “nearly ready,” and that he could only point to “anecdotal” evidence that the program had actually countered some violent extremism.

“I can’t sit here before you today and definitively say that person was going to commit an act of terrorism … but we’re developing that prevention framework in a range of cities across the country,” Selim confessed under oath. (For more from the author of “Muslim Expert Torches Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2227111521_c752005a2a_b-5

Islamic Terrorism Is Not a Narrative

In the aftermath of this past weekend’s Islamic terrorist attacks, White House press secretary Josh Earnest commented, “We are in a narrative battle. ISIL want to project the West as being at war with Islam. It’s a mythology. And we’re debunking that myth … We can’t play into this narrative that somehow the United States is fighting Islam.”

In response, conservative journalist Ben Shapiro wrote, “The people in New York weren’t hit by flying pieces of narrative.”

Indeed, Islamic terrorism is not a narrative, and the victims of Islamic terrorism worldwide, now numbering in the millions, have not been beheaded or tortured or raped or blown to pieces or burned alive or imprisoned or exiled by “flying pieces of narrative.”

No, these men, women, and children are the victims of violent people acting on a violent ideology that is a central part of their violent faith, namely, radical Islam. And so, while heads are literally rolling in the Middle East and other parts of the world, Washington elites are sticking their heads in the sand, saying that, “We are in a narrative battle.”

And what, exactly, is that “narrative”?

It is that we are not in a war with Islam, and therefore, if we acknowledge that these terrorists are Muslims or connect them in any way with the word “Islam,” we “play into this narrative that somehow the United States is fighting Islam.”

As Hillary Clinton tweeted out last November, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Consequently, rather than seeking to understand the mindset of radical Islam and most effectively combat Islamic terrorists, our president and his colleagues categorically deny any connection between Islam and terror to the point that, in 2011, “the White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.”

So, not only is Islamic terrorism not a narrative, but when it comes to the narrative spoken of by Josh Earnest, namely, that radical Islam is not related to Islam, the terrorists have won here too, with the White House scrubbing the all-important references to Islam from our law enforcement books.

In other words, when it comes to the battle the White House does want to fight, it is on the wrong side of the issue, falsely claiming that Muslim terrorists want America to be at war with Islam in general. Hardly. The fact is, these radical Muslims themselves are at war with other expressions of Islam worldwide.

Instead, these terrorists win the battle when we are convinced that they are not Muslims at all, thereby causing us to fight with one hand tied behind our back and one eye closed (at the least).

Note also that there is a false narrative put forth by the White House and Hillary Clinton, namely, that no Muslims are terrorists, as if the moment a lifelong, devoted Muslim commits an act of terror for the cause of Allah, he or she is now disqualified from being a Muslim.

Based on what Islamic tenet or text?

To the contrary, while a Christian could never behead an unbeliever and say, “Hey, I’m just following Jesus’ example,” a Muslim could commit this same act and say, “Hey, I’m just following Muhammad’s example.”

As for Hillary’s statement that, “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” does she mean the Muslims in Iran who hang gays, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia who behead adulterers, or the Muslims in Pakistan who go on a bloody rampage over charges that a Koran has been defiled, or the Muslims in Afghanistan who prevent women from going to school, or the Muslims in those countries that enforce the death penalty for conversion?

Had she said, “Many Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people,” most of us would have agreed without hesitation. Had she even said, “The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists,” most of us would have agreed with that too.

But her blanket statement, like those of the president and others in the past, is demonstrably false, both ideologically and historically, and it thereby emboldens the terrorists to be more brazen still, since they can more easily fly right under our all too patchy radar.

This brings us back to the reality that the battle with Islamic terrorism is not a battle of narratives, and I can assure you that a Yazidi family in Iraq mourning over the gang rape of their young daughter or a Christian family in Syria mourning over the decapitation of all their males is not wondering about the “narrative,” and thinking, “I sure hope America doesn’t blame all Muslims for this.”

Instead, they are wondering why the West is so slow to recognize the very real threat of radical Islam, and they would be shocked to know that, rather than declare war on Islamic terrorists, the president of the most powerful nation in the world is doing damage control for Islam.

What a narrative. (For more from the author of “Islamic Terrorism Is Not a Narrative” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

islam-1

Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam

Imagine that some splinter Christian sect existed that preached a sneering contempt for women, sex slavery, hatred for Jews, death to non-believers (and homosexuals), child-marriage, religious conquest, segregation and gross religious discrimination, and the legitimacy of lying whenever it suited the church’s purposes. Imagine that it had been practicing all these evils since shortly after its founding, and had left mountains of corpses on three continents — complete with burned libraries, looted cities and ruined civilizations.

Do you think that secular leftists would spend their time and energy making excuses for such a church? Would they fight like wildcats to admit millions of its followers into Western lands? Or would they boycott any country where it predominated as they did racist South Africa? Would they subject its American followers to ruthless surveillance and government harassment, as the Clinton administration did the Branch Davidians? Would they send the FBI to fill its ranks with helpful informers, as the government did to the white-nationalist Christian Identity “churches”?

The question answers itself.

People whose minds work in linear fashion draw from all this the conclusion that leftists concerned with equality, social justice, and personal freedom would strongly oppose orthodox Islam and rethink their attitude toward Islamic immigration if only they knew the facts. Clearly these well-meaning people just haven’t been informed about the teachings of orthodox Islam and the track record of its faithful followers. So it’s our job to share those facts.

So far so good. We have the duty to do just that. Marshal those Quranic suras, those authoritative haditha, and cite abundant examples of atrocities which those canonical texts have directly inspired. Recount the recent sermons of highly placed widely respected Muslim religious authorities who approve recent attacks of terrorism or gross religious violence.

But don’t get your hopes up.

Far too many leftists have built insuperable barriers to that information, and nothing — literally nothing — you say or do could convince them. While knowledge may be power, the human will is stronger. We are richly capable of denying the facts in front of our faces if they go against where our guts want to lead us.

That raises another, more interesting question: Why would leftists who are outraged, say, that the Catholic church won’t ordain women or that Southern Baptists won’t celebrate same-sex weddings, give a pass to a faith that endorses child polygamy and executes homosexuals? What’s in it for them?

As the author of a book on the Seven Deadly Sins, let me step in here and tell you. I’ll taxonomize the motives of pro-Muslim progressives according to each of those classic human motives. Perhaps not every progressive who’s in denial about Islam is in the grip of Deadly Sins. But I’ll wager that most of them are driven by one or more of the following:

Lust

Plenty of progressive men first adopted their views as a mating strategy. And indeed, spouting feminist rhetoric probably did help them in the bedroom. But this easy intimacy filled their lives with a series of thin-skinned, self-righteous women with an unsleeping vigilance for the slightest trace of “patriarchy.” Perhaps, on a deep, subconscious level, such men can’t help admiring bearded foreigners with harems who don’t have to pay this price for pleasure.

Gluttony

This might seem too trivial to make much of a difference, but you’d be shocked at how many progressives form their immigration policies around the crucial issue of access to ethnic restaurants. It’s not just food, of course. People who hunger to see themselves and be seen as sophisticated and cosmopolitan also want access to hookah-pipe cafes, funky foreign clothes and “exotic” neighborhoods where they can dip into alien cultures — but of course, would never live. Other progressives hunger for approval, and look for a cost-free way to gain it, by siding with supposedly “oppressed” groups like Palestinians, or radical Muslims forced out of countries by secular governments.

Wrath

Too many progressives nurse a deep, insatiable hatred for the Christian and Western past, and also for those of us in the present who are loyal to such things as church, nation or Western civilization. These people don’t so much think as feel that if a roadside Pentecostalist church in Oregon is allowed to abstain from gay weddings without swift and certain punishment, within five years the Spanish Inquisition will be burning witches on Wall Street. Or something. As I said, they don’t sweat the details.

Greed

For the past 30 years, no one has been kept off a TV network or failed to get tenure because he was too friendly to exotic, foreign cultures, or too hostile to Western ones. Even Fox News won’t air the most candid critics of Islam. Those critics have to resort to online TV shows (some of which are excellent, by the way, like The Glazov Gang).

Sloth

It’s so much easier to follow the narrative that makes you comfortable, pumped out by elites whom you have decided to trust, than to ferret out facts that are only likely to ruin your day. And anyway, what can you do? What will happen will happen, and trying to push back against overpowering forces of history is exhausting. What’s the point?

Vainglory

Nothing is lower prestige in our culture today than being a narrow-minded bigot — which is how everyone who matters sees people who criticize other cultures. It suggests that you haven’t traveled to foreign countries, attended elite academies, or mixed with the best kind of people. You might as well just put on a Trump hat, drive a red pickup truck to a NASCAR rally, and stand there listening to Nash-Trash while drinking Budweiser (non-ironically). Please.

Envy

If there’s one worldview that’s predicated on frustrating natural human drives and diverting them into strange, unnatural byways, it’s progressivism. You’re expected to prosper while loathing capitalism, raise boys to play with dolls and girls to play with guns, and compete for social status while battling for equality. Muslims don’t have to fake any of that. Their faith is nothing if not candid: It’s about joining the winning team, with God on its side, which will gladly use force and fraud to make sure it comes out on top — in this life and the next one. Its ethics could have been crafted by bands of Vikings or a cabal of adolescent boys. What fun we would have, some progressives may imagine, if they could only swallow Islam. Most can’t. But they can take vicarious pleasure in seeing it in action, and in watching the Christians squirm. Delicious. (For more from the author of “Seven Deadly Reasons Why the Left Loves Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

7470255950_c22b6d69d5_b

JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FAITH… Where the Rivers Run Red With Blood

There’s no violence here against anyone except animals. It’s a surreal sight. Shocking in some ways. And another reminder of just how different Islamic culture is from our civilization.

Huge swathes of animal sacrifices marking the Islamic festival Eid al-Adha turned the streets of Bangladesh’s capital into rivers of blood.

Authorities in Dhaka had designated areas in the city where residents could slaughter animals, but heavy downpours Tuesday rendered them out of action.

Instead, Muslims took to car parks, garages and alleyways to traditionally mark Eid al-Adha – or the Feast of Sacrifice – by slaughtering livestock and when the blood flowed into the streets, it turned them red.

It’s a scene out of a horror movie. And yet it’s life in the Muslim world. (For more from the author of “JUST LIKE ANY OTHER FAITH… Where the Rivers Run Red With Blood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Star_and_Crescent.svg

AS THE TERROR THREAT RISES: Europe Changes Course

Sixteen years ago, when Dutch commentator Paul Scheffer published his “Multicultural Drama” declaring that multiculturalism in the Netherlands had failed, the response was swift and angry. Critics across Europe called him racist, bigoted, nationalistic. Others dismissed his views as mere rants and ramblings of a Leftist in search of a cause.

Not anymore.

With over 275 people killed in 10 Islamic terrorist attacks since January 2015, Europeans harbor no more illusions about the multiculturalist vision: where immigrants from Muslim countries are concerned, that idealist vision has more than just failed. It has produced a culture of hatred, fear, and unrelenting danger. Now, with European Muslim youth radicalizing at an unprecedented rate and the threat of new terrorist attacks, Europe is reassessing its handling of Muslim communities and its counterterrorism strategies and laws.

Among the changes being considered are a reversal of laws that allow radical Muslims to receive handouts from the very governments they seek to destroy; restricting foreign funding of mosques; and stronger surveillance on private citizens.

Chief among the new counterterrorism approaches is a program to coordinate intelligence data among European Union countries – a tactic that has not been pursued with any regularity or such depth before now. But following the November attacks in Paris, the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD initiated weekly meetings among intel agencies from all EU countries, Switzerland, and Norway, with the objective of sharing information, exchanging new clues, insights, and suspect alerts, and discussing improvements to a Europe-wide system of counterterrorism and intelligence.

Through these meetings and the improved shared database, it is now possible for each country to contextualize its intelligence and understand links between individuals and various groups from one city to another – and so, between radicals and radical groups as they pass through a borderless EU.

Concurrently, EU members are now beginning to share information about web sites and even details about private citizens where needed. Most countries had been reluctant to make such exchanges, citing both privacy concerns and the need to protect their sources. Other cooperative efforts include an EU initiative begun in February 2015 to counteract Islamic extremist propaganda. The project received a major €400 million boost in June, indicating the high priority Europe now places on fighting recruitment.

Earlier this month, Europol began a new effort to screen refugees still awaiting placement in Greek asylum centers. According to a report from Europa Nu, an initiative between the European parliament and the University of Leiden, Europol agents “specifically trained to unmask and dismantle terrorists and terror networks” will be dispatched to the camps to try to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the flood of refugees to Europe.

Some EU measures, however, have been based more in politics than counterterrorism, including efforts to crack down on the ability of radical Muslims to benefit from welfare programs. British citizens, for instance, reacted with outrage when it was discovered that the family of “Jihadi John” had received over £400,000 in taxpayer support over the course of 20 years. In Belgium, Salah Abdeslam, the terrorist accused of participating in the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, pulled in nearly €19,000 in welfare benefits from January 2014 and October 2015, according to Elsevier. And Gatestone reports that more than 30 Danish jihadists received a total of €51,000 in unemployment benefits all while battling alongside the Islamic State in Syria.

Such concerns have also spread to the United States. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, introduced the “No Welfare For Terrorists Act.”

“Terrorist victims and their families should never be forced to fund those who harmed them,” he said in a statement. “This bill guarantees this will never happen.”

But not all of Europe’s new approaches to the terror threat are being coordinated out of Brussels. Many more, in fact, are country-specific, such as England’s decision to follow an example set earlier by the Netherlands and Spain, separating jailed terrorists and terror suspects from other prisoners. The measures follow others the country adopted after the July 7, 2005 bombings of a London underground and buses, to criminalize “those who glorify terrorism, those involved in acts preparatory to terrorism, and those who advocate it without being directly involved,” the New York Times reported.

In fact, prisons worldwide, including in the U.S., have long been viewed as warm breeding grounds for radicals and potential terrorists. Ahmed Coulibaly, the gunman at the Porte de Vincennes siege in January 2015, was serving time for a bank robbery, for instance, when he met Cherif Koauachi, one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both converted to Islam there. It was in that same prison that the two encountered Djamel Beghal, an al-Qaida operative who attempted to blow up the American Embassy in Paris in 2001.

Hence many experts now argue in favor of isolating those held on terrorism-related charges as a way to stop them from radicalizing their fellow inmates.

Yet British officials have until now resisted creating separate wings for terror suspects, arguing that doing so gives them “credibility” and makes it harder to rehabilitate them. But a recent government report on Islamist extremism in British prisons forced a change in thinking, in part by noting that “other prisoners – both Muslim and non-Muslim – serving sentences for crimes unrelated to terrorism are nonetheless vulnerable to radicalization by Islamist Extremists [sic].”

Similarly, France, the site of the worst attacks of the past two years, also balked at first at the idea of separating terrorists from other prisoners, arguing that doing so “forms a terrorist cell within a prison.” But the Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 2015 changed all that. Now, officials are even going further, looking at other potential sources of radicalization: the mosques.

Shortly after the Bastille Day attack in Nice, Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced plans to ban foreign financing for French mosques as part of an effort to establish a “French Islam,” led by imams trained only in France. France hosts dozens of foreign-financed mosques – many sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Morocco – which preach Salafism, an extreme version of Islam practiced in the Saudi Kingdom and the root of much radical Islamist ideology. And according to a new report on counter-radicalization, about 300 imams come from outside France.

That same report also calls for “regular surveys” of France’s 4-5 million Muslims, according to France 24, in order “to acquire a better understanding of this population in a country where statistics based on religious, ethnic, or racial criteria are banned.”

Both proposed measures have been met with resistance. The “surveys,” as even the report itself notes, are a means of circumventing laws against gathering information on the basis of religious criteria – and so, go against democratic principles. And many French officials also oppose the ban on foreign funding for mosques, arguing that French government intervention in places of worship contradicts separation between church and state. Besides, they claim, radicalization doesn’t take place there anyway.

But Dutch authorities and counter-extremism experts are not so sure. The announcement earlier this month that Qatar would finance an Islamic center in Rotterdam, for instance, set off alarms even among Muslim moderates, including Rotterdam’s Moroccan-born mayor Ahmed Marcouch. There are good reasons for this. The Salafist Eid Charity, which sponsors the project, has been on Israel’s terror list since 2008, according to Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad. Moreover, in 2013 the U.S. Treasury Department accused the charity’s founder, Abd al-Rahman al-Nu’aymi, of providing funding for al-Qaida and its affiliates, and named him a “specially designated global terrorist.”

Plans for the center sound much like those of the now-abandoned plans for New York’s “Ground Zero mosque,” with sports facilities, prayer space, tutoring for students, Islamic child care, and, reports Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, imam training.

Yet the center’s prospective director, Arnoud van Doorn, a convert to Islam and former member of the far-right, anti-Islam political party PVV, insists that any fears about the project are unfounded. “Our organization has nothing to do with extremism,” he told the NRC. “We want only to provide a positive contribution to Dutch society.”

Notably, though, France’s proposal to ban foreign mosque funding and the Qatari backing of the Rotterdam center point to some of the deepest roots of Europe’s radical Islam problem, and, despite all the new initiatives now underway, the greatest challenges to ending it. When Muslim immigrants came to Europe in the 1970s, they carved prayer spaces wherever they could: the backs of community grocery stores, in restaurants and tea rooms. But these soon became too small to handle the growing Muslim population. Mosques – real mosques – would have to be built.

But by whom? The Muslim communities themselves were too poor. Western governments, wedded to the separation of church and state, could not subsidize them with taxpayer funds. And so the door was opened to foreign – mostly Saudi – investment, and the placement of Saudi-trained and Saudi-backed imams in European mosques. Europe had, in essence, rolled out the welcome mat for Salafism.

Now they want to roll it in again. But is it too late? Even as Western intelligence is now uniting to fight radical Islam, Islamic countries are pooling together in Europe to expand it. The result, as Manuel Valls told French daily Le Monde, is that, “What’s at stake is the republic. And our shield is democracy.”

Hence as the number attacks against Western targets increase, many Europeans are coming to understand that preserving the core of that democracy may mean disrupting some of the tenets on which it’s built, like certain elements of privacy, for instance, and religious principles that violate the freedom that we stand for . It is, as it were, a matter of destroying even healthy trees to save the forest. But in this tug-of-war between the Islamic world’s efforts to shape the West, and Western efforts to save itself, only our commitment to the very heart of our ideals will define who wins this fight. (For more from the author of “AS THE TERROR THREAT RISES: Europe Changes Course” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islamic_Protest_in_Hyde_Park,_Sydney_01 (2)

England’s Commonsense Solution to Muslim Extremist Prisoners

This author has argued that Europe’s Islamization — aided, abetted and enabled by the continent’s multiculturalist ideology — should serve as a warning and a lesson for America.

But when a European state does the right thing, we should take notice of that, too.

In the wake of the conviction of Britain-based Islamic supremacist preacher Anjem Choudary, an advocate for imposing Sharia law on Great Britain and supporter of global jihadism, British authorities are doing something that every Western nation ought to replicate.

Recognizing the problem of the spread of Islamic supremacism among prison populations, Secretary of State for Justice Liz Truss announced that the government would be establishing separate prison units for holding “a small number of very subversive individuals.”

Truss said prisons cannot continue to allow extremists to “peddle poisonous ideology across the mainstream prison population.” As the BBC notes, UK officials visited prisons in Netherlands for a close look at the program, as a similar “jail within a jail” program has been implemented by the Dutch.

This policy of, in effect, quarantining jihadism (which should be the aim not just in our prisons, but in every element of Western civilization), stems from a must-read review conducted by the UK’s Ministry of Justice on the threat of Islamic supremacism in prisons. The review, conducted by former prison governor Ian Acheson, finds:

A Muslim gang culture inspiring or directing violence, drug trafficking and criminality.

Extremist prisoners advocating support for ISIS, and threats against staff, inmates and prison chaplains.

“Charismatic” prisoners acting as self-styled “emirs” — a title sometimes used for Muslim leaders or military commanders — exerting a radicalizing influence

Aggressive encouragement of conversions to Islam, and attempts to engineer segregation.

Islamist radicals trying to get prison staff to leave during Friday prayers, attempts to prevent staff searches by claiming dress is religious, and an exploitation of staff concerns that they may be labelled racist.

Does anyone believe this is not happening across prisons throughout the West? Beyond separating Islamic supremacist criminals from others, two of the report’s noteworthy recommendations include stronger vetting of prison chaplains and removing “extremist literature” from prisons.

Britain is right to acknowledge the spread of Islamist ideology in its criminal justice system and undertake a plan to remove the cancer. As always, the devil will be in the details of how the plan is actually implemented and properly executed.

Regardless, America could learn something from its close ally across the pond. We, too, have a problem in our prisons.

As Patrick T. Dunleavy, former deputy inspector general of the Criminal Intelligence Unit of New York’s correctional department, details in his 2011 book “The Fertile Soil of Jihad: Terrorism’s Prison Connection,” America’s prisons serve as a breeding ground for jihadist ideology. Dunleavy should know, as he led the investigation into Islamic supremacist recruiting activities in New York prisons and beyond, known as Operation Hades.

Dunleavy’s research documents “the deep historical roots of radical Islam in the U.S. prison environment going back almost 30 years, and how a network of radical preachers and recruiters spread through the system.”

Europe’s present reflects the American past. As a European ISIS recruit now serving time in German prison recounts in a telling New York Times expose, “a criminal past can be a valued asset…especially if they [ISIS] know you have ties to organized crime and they know you can get fake IDs, or they know you have contact men in Europe who can smuggle you into the European Union.”

A recent Buzzfeed article examining the challenges European authorities face targeting jihadist networks notes: “It’s not simply that ISIS offers redemption to a criminal looking to change his ways [in the form of jihad]; it’s that ISIS knows how to target criminals and turn them into jihadists.”

There is little indication that America’s politically correct “countering violent extremism” paradigm does anything to address the problems in Europe that surely continue to plague our own prisons.

For once, we should be stealing a page from the European playbook when it comes to defeating the global jihad by rooting Islamic supremacism out of our own prisons too. (For more from the author of “England’s Commonsense Solution to Muslim Extremist Prisoners” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

islam-1299211_960_720

7 Questions for Those Who Say That Islam Is Just Like Any Other Religion

In defense of Donald Trump’s suggestion that Muslim immigration be restricted until we better understand the nature of the Jihadist terror threat, the following is offered up by our long-suffering Summer Intern @BiffSpackle:

151230-islam-7-reasons-010 (1)

151230-islam-7-reasons-020 (1)

Democrats, progressives, and other miscreants: please feel free to answer any or all of these questions in the comments section.

P.S., Keep up-to-date with anti-Jihad news by visiting some of the Fabulous 50 Award Winners for Anti-Jihad Blogging. (For more from the author of “7 Questions for Those Who Say That Islam Is Just Like Any Other Religion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

murderer-150447_960_720

Another ‘Mentally Ill’ Muslim Excused for Stabbing Spree

…The rising number of attacks on Jews and synagogues in recent years has been well documented, but it has nothing to do with terrorism and certainly not Islamic terrorism, French authorities say.

The latest attack came in Strasbourg, France, where an Orthodox Jewish rabbi was attacked in broad daylight Friday and left hospitalized by a knife-wielding Muslim yelling “Allahu Akbar!”

The incident was immediately scrubbed by French police as “not terrorism related” in what has become a pattern across Europe, Canada and the United States.

Instead of calling it terrorism, the authorities initially refer to the assailant as mentally ill or “suffering from psychiatric issues,” as the Daily Mirror reported on the latest incident, which took place just outside the rabbi’s home about 500 yards from the main synagogue in the city’s Jewish quarter.

As recently as Aug. 11, a woman ran over two police officers in Montreal with her car while yelling “Allah!” and she was also deemed mentally ill by Canadian authorities, CIJ News reported. (Read more from “Another ‘Mentally Ill’ Muslim Excused for Stabbing Spree” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Shahi_Mosque_3

Muslims Sue City for Rejecting Mega-Mosque

When the planning commission in Sterling Heights, Michigan, voted unanimously last fall to reject a mega-mosque in a residential area, an overflow crowd of residents could be seen on video shouting and cheering with joy . . .

But the Muslims ominously warned that they were not going away quietly.

On Wednesday they made good on their promise, suing the city for alleged civil rights violations, claims that the Obama administration appears all-to-eager to support.

WND reported that the Obama Department of Justice was secretly trying to intimidate the city earlier this year and now that appears to have been the case all along. The DOJ weighed in publicly Wednesday after the suit was filed with its own threatening language.

U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade told the Free Press, “The Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney’s Office have been conducting an independent investigation, and that investigation is ongoing.” (Read more from “Muslims Sue City for Rejecting Mega-Mosque” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islamic_Protest_in_Hyde_Park,_Sydney_01

What’s the Bigger Threat: Radical Islam or Ourselves?

When will the “religion of peace” stop being so misunderstood and recognized as the noble social justice warriors that they are?

Maybe when stuff like this stops happening. Just last week, a police officer with Washington, D.C.’s Metro Transit was arrested on charges of assisting the (not according to Obama) Islamic State. Federal prosecutors say he had been under government’s surveillance since 2010 and travelled twice to Libya – a land known for its peace and tranquility – twice in 2011.

Hard to know how many American lives were just saved by such an arrest. What is clear, though, according to a recent story in the New York Times, is that there is little time to celebrate in America or elsewhere. One cockroach may have been crushed under the heel of our still feisty-at-times, but seriously limping, remnant of Western Civilization. Yet the broader infestation is relentless, vast, and coordinated to a degree that many remain in denial about.

European intelligence, which has had the unfortunate duty of connecting dots in the aftermath of wave after wave of deadly terrorist attacks in the last few years, has uncovered the existence of an elite intelligence and operations unit within Islamic State called the Emni. It has been recruiting and sending fighters abroad for at least two years under the command of the Islamic State’s most senior Syrian operative, with the assistance of a team of lieutenants spread out across the globe. Charged with sparking a reign of terror whenever and however they can.

So instead of crazy lone wolves inflicting happenstance workplace violence, we likely have a swarm full of jihadis who are holding hands in a human chain of malice extending across the globe. Looking to do the blood-curdling will of Allah.

Oh, and on top of all that, the good little hackers over at Islamic State – what difference do Hillary’s e-mail shenanigans make anyway, right? – has released a list of 700 U.S. Army soldiers it wants its followers to kill. Too bad we don’t have a better jobs program to keep them otherwise occupied.

So these guys are clearly focused and serious as a heart attack. Got it. Now let’s look at our side of the ledger. What kind of culture and leadership stands in the way of this death wish?

Um…Bueller? Bueller?

Let’s just say we aren’t, collectively speaking, led by a bunch of very righteous dudes at the moment.

For starters, an economist from the University of Chicago says his research indicates too many of America’s young men are content to spend their days unemployed, unmarried, living with their parents, and spending as much as 75 percent of their leisure time playing video games. Hence, there’s probably not a lot of guys ready and willing to jump on top of a grenade in that flaccid clan.

But that’s why we’ve got great leaders at the top. The kind of leaders who do the worrying for us so we never have to put the joystick down, and wipe the drool from our chin. Leaders like President Obama, who just this week showed us once again what a ninja he is when it comes to keeping his eye on the ball. Right?

No, he still can’t utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorist,” but he can say “global warming” so fast that it makes time stand still. Not to mention American infrastructure comes to a screeching halt.

The Obama regime issued standards last week that will make it easier to block a wide range of projects in the name of fake science, including building bridges and expanding highways. So Unicorns 1, Just Trying to Get to a Freaking Job 0.

I guess we are going to have to leave it to the church, then, to clarify the difference between the darkness and the light. No flights of fancy there. Just truth. Pure truth.

Oh no. Pope Francis said what?

The leader of the Catholic Church pulled a full Obama last weekend by rejecting the phrase “Islamic violence.” Timed in the wake of one of his own priests having his throat slit wide open by an Islamic terrorist as he was celebrating Mass in France.

If he has to speak of “Islamic violence,” then Pope Francis said it is also his duty to speak of “Catholic violence.” Sadly, though, Francis had not yet reached peak SJW. He had to throw this politically-correct psychobabble in for good measure: “As long as the god of money is at the center of the global economy and not the human person, man and woman, this is the first terrorism.”

Right, because the son of a wealthy Arab family like Osama bin Laden plotted 9/11 in order to strike a blow for the global proletariat. Come on, man. Pope Francis might as well trade out those Hail Mary’s for a hearty Allahu Akbar and call it a day.

I’m sorry, but I don’t even know why the terrorists bother blowing themselves up anymore. They have clearly already won. The leaders of Western Civilization believe in imaginary creatures more than they do the very real threat at their doorstep, and they do so with a smug smile on their face.

So while that martyred French priest may have died with the words, “Begone, Satan!” on his lips and on his heart, it is clear he has very few wingmen. Islamic State, on the other hand, continues to draw both a crowd and plenty of blood, with nary an end to the carnage in sight.

Which ultimately and sadly begs this final question: whose lies will be more responsible for getting us killed in the end? Islam’s or our own? (For more from the author of “What’s the Bigger Threat: Radical Islam or Ourselves?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.