Orlando Massacre 911 Tapes Are Revealed, Scrubbed of References to Islam

The Obama administration on Monday released redacted transcripts of Omar Mateen’s 911 calls — sanitizing any and all references to ISIS made by the self-proclaimed radical Islamist terrorist.

Even though authorities have made no secret that Mateen invoked ISIS as his motive for slaughtering 49 people inside a gay nightclub in Orlando last week, 911 transcripts released by the FBI awkwardly worked around mentioning the terror group.

“In the name of God the merciful, the beneficial (in Arabic),” Mateen said during his call at about 2:35 a.m. on June 12.

“Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of (Arabic). I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.” (Read more from “Orlando Massacre 911 Tapes Are Revealed, Scrubbed of References to Islam” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Islamic_Protest_in_Hyde_Park,_Sydney_01 (1)

‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say

Using the phrase “radical Islam” to describe the Islamic State or other jihadist groups will not win the war, but is nonetheless relevant in identifying the ideology—not the religion—that America is fighting, experts said.

“I don’t believe the phrase “Islamist extremism” or “Islamist terrorism” is some sort of incantation that’s going to fix everything,” Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“In fact, I don’t even think it’s the most important thing in this whole issue set. What’s most important are the policies that we pursue and the action that we take to defeat it, whatever you want to call it. But it does matter because we—Muslims, as much as other Americans—are engaged in a war of ideas as well as a war on terrorism.”

In a speech Tuesday, President Barack Obama roundly criticized Republicans who have insisted he use the words “radical Islam,” or “Islamist,” to describe the Islamic State.

“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?” Obama said after meeting with his national security team. “The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

Lohman, who last December hosted a forum, “Muslim Voices Against the Islamic State and Islamist Extremism,” said the point is to understand the ideology.

“Islamism is a political ideology and it has to be taken on,” Lohman continued in the email. “If we physically dissuade terrorists from hurting people, we still have to stop Islamists from coercing people into their way of thinking by other means. Actually identifying the ideology is key to that, and unfortunately, that ideology is cast in religious terms. It’s like a Muslim civil society leader in Indonesia told me one time talking about the much more serious threat in her own country, ‘What difference does it make whether they are terrorists or not. They (Islamists) all want the same thing.’”

White House press secretary Josh Earnest later added that, “It is not uncommon on cable TV to see some GOP congressman I’ve never heard of demand to know why the president doesn’t say ‘radical Islam.’”

During his remarks, Obama said, “Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around.’” The president added that the United States doesn’t want to feed the Islamic State’s narrative that the militant group represents true Islam.

“Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism,” Obama said. “As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.”

But the “radical” in “radical Islam” is an obvious distinction from mainstream Islam, and it’s Obama that doesn’t seem to recognize that, said James Carafano, vice president for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.

“A label may seem superficial. American soldiers in Normandy didn’t care whether they were fighting Germans or Nazis,” Carafano told The Daily Signal. “The real fear is that the president is not prosecuting the war to win. It’s horrible to imply using the word ‘Islam’ is racist. ‘Radical Islam’ refers to an Islamist ideology, and is by definition a distinction from Islam.” (For more from the author of “‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Obama-Clinton Ban on Muslims

For all indignation from the Democrats over the so-called “Muslim ban” proposed by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, one would think they’ve never supported such a thing. Wrong.

According to a investigative report from ABC News published in 2013, the Obama-Clinton State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months in 2011 after it was discovered that two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists, who had previously attacked US soldiers in Iraq and were trained in bomb making, entered the country as refugees and were living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Given the majority of the population in Iraq is Muslim, this should be considered the Obama-Clinton Muslim ban–much those bans proposed towards Syria and other countries in the aftermath of the Paris massacre.

The State Department, which Clinton led at that time, was directly in charge of refugee requests when the Iraq ban was imposed. The Obama Administration took this action after it was discovered two Iraqi men, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohammed Shareef Hammadi, who had claimed persecution, revealed to undercover officials their plans to use “a bomb to assassinate an Army captain they’d known in Bayji, who was now back home – and to possibly attack other homeland targets.”

In fact, Alwan had built bombs in Iraq that were targeted at US soldiers in the past. ABC News reported that the “FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.”

Still, he was permitted to come to Bowling Green and live with Hammadi, where Alwan was living in public housing and receiving public assistance.

Listening to President Obama and now presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton yesterday, however, one would think they’ve never tried to stop such men from entering the United States.

Obama and Clinton gave Trump a one-two punch on Sunday and Monday over Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban.”

“That’s not the America we want,” President Obama said Monday. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.” That followed remarks from Clinton, who said, “Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric and threatening to ban the families and friends of Muslims Americans as well as millions of Muslim business people and tourists from entering our country hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror.“

Their attacks were not only hypocritical, but not entirely fair to Trump either.

Although some of Trump’s language is regrettable, he has recently recalibrated to echo language from his former presidential primary rival Ted Cruz to temporarily block refugees from nations where there are terror-related concerns. (More specifically, Cruz offered legislation to allow governors to decline to accept Syrian refugees until the State Department could provide adequate assurances that the refugees posed no security threat.)

But nuance has been largely cast aside in the name of politics. Meanwhile, un-vetted refugees continue to pose a threat to the United States and its allies.

Earlier this month, Germany arrested three men, one of them a Syrian refugee, on suspicion of an ISIS-plot to bomb and “take out as many bystanders as possible.” In January, US officials arrested two refugees on terror-related charges, too.

The bare fact remains that both Obama and Clinton have supported a ban against refugees from a Muslim country in the name of protecting the homeland.

Surely they must have believed it made America more secure.

The question for both of them today is, with ISIS explicitly infiltrating refugee flows in 2016, why wouldn’t similar action continue keeping us safe? (For more from the author of “The Obama-Clinton Ban on Muslims” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


US Being Destroyed by a Global Conspiracy: The Marriage of Convenience Between the Left and Radical Islam

In order to lessen the likelihood of terrorist attacks like Orlando, San Bernardino and the Boston Marathon and eliminate radical Islam as an existential threat to the United States, we must, first and foremost, defeat the prevailing Islamo-Marxist ideology within our own government and the willing accomplices who sustain it by willful blindness to the danger we face.

If you are still asking the question: how can Orlando happen?

Ask no more.

Stated simply, it is a sad truth that there are people in national leadership positions, who don’t want America to win or who don’t care much if we lose, as long as they can somehow preserve their own personal power and profit.

It is not a question of politics. It is an issue of patriotism.

The United States faces an assault by a global conspiracy, a marriage of convenience between two totalitarian ideologies, radical Islam and the political left. They have been brought together by the traits they share; their hatred of Western civilization and a commitment to the destruction of capitalistic, Judeo-Christian-based democracy.

In part, Orlando happens because the federal government practices Sharia, deliberately downplaying the menace of radical Islam and intentionally stripping law enforcement of its ability to directly counter the threat.

Kerry Picket of the Daily Caller asks: could the FBI’s purge of training material relating to Islamic terrorism have led to the agency dropping the ball on Florida nightclub shooter Omar Mateen?

The FBI’s training on handling possible Islamic terror suspects was turned upside down five years ago, when the Obama administration began a purge of training material that would remove references to Islam that Muslim subject matter experts, hired by the Justice Department, found offensive.

It is also fair question to ask, whether the conditions for and the handling of the Orlando attack were affected by the Obama Administration’s relentless attacks on the nation’s police officers and criminal-justice system, routinely and repeatedly charging that cops and the courts are awash in racial bias and Islamophobia?

The Islamic terrorist and registered Democrat Mateen was a US citizen of Afghan decent, who pledged his allegiance to ISIS and between 2011 and 2012 traveled to Saudi Arabia for Umrah, a Muslim religious pilgrimage. He was investigated by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 for inflammatory statements and his link to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American radical who traveled to Syria and committed a suicide bombing.

Yet, according to recent reports, Mateen was a repeat visitor at Orlando gay nightclub before his killing spree, occasionally got drunk, may have been gay and used the gay dating and chat application Jack’d.

In the apple not falling far from the tree department, Seddique Mir Mateen, the father of the mass murderer, is a supporter of the Afghan Taliban with his own internet program, where he made radical anti-LGBT statements.

Was the murderer Mateen’s motive religious or political or both? Does it matter? I don’t think so.

In part, Orlando happens because radical Islam thinks it is winning. How many ISIS recruits would there be if they were doing the dying instead of us?

Practically speaking, the religious extremism and brutality of ISIS is not unlike that of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

At the onset of World War II, the ordinary American Marine and soldier were unprepared for the fanaticism and cruelty of the Japanese Army.

Eugene B. Sledge, in his celebrated memoir “With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa,” describes one instance in which he and a comrade came across the mutilated bodies of three Marines, butchered with severed genitals stuffed into their mouths.

An ideology is a system of ideas, but ideas don’t kill people, Islamists kill people.

You may not be able to eradicate an ideology, but you can certainly exterminate those who violently wield that ideology against you.

Like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the ideology of radical Islam has little chance to thrive, if there are few left eager to practice it.

It also obviates the need for winning any hearts and minds. (For more from the author of “US Being Destroyed by a Global Conspiracy: The Marriage of Convenience Between the Left and Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Here’s the Left’s ‘Official Lie’ About the Orlando Terrorist Attack

Reacting Monday to the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in Orlando, Mark Steyn—filling in for Rush Limbaugh—said that the “official lie” of the Left is that gun-toting “right” wing extremists are responsible for the shooting and radical Islamic terrorism is not.

The fact, Steyn said, is a radical Muslim killed 49 in a terror attack and the Left doesn’t know how to cope with the “internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition.”


Steyn read the American headlines reporting the event which showed a stark contrast with international headlines by reporting a deadly “mass shooting” instead of an ISIS-inspired “terror attack.”

While the Left is clamoring for more gun control and screaming at the NRA, it is ignoring that radical Islam is responsible for the attack and only wants to destroy what the Left believes in. “The arithmetic isn’t complicated,” Steyn explained, “the more Islam, the fewer gays.” (For more from the author of “Here’s the Left’s ‘Official Lie’ About the Orlando Terrorist Attack” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


4 Reasons Why We Need Another 9/11 Commission After Orlando

How many red flags does it take to see that Islamist-related terror is increasing?

In the past seven months there have been high-profile terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, and in Orlando.

In the U.S. the number and frequency of Islamist plots has been growing. Before Orlando, the U.S. alone has been the target of at least 85 Islamist-related terrorist plots since Sept. 11, 2001.

The attack in Orlando is the 22nd plot since 2015. To put this increase in perspective, more than a quarter of domestic terror plots in the U.S. since 2001 have occurred in the last 18 months.

With this serious threat not diminishing, it is time for a nonpartisan sober assessment of the threat of terrorism to the United States.

Fourteen years ago, President George W. Bush and Congress set up the 9/11 Commission to look at the attacks of 2001. Now it is time for Congress to convene another report. The horrific terrorist attack in Orlando only reinforces that it is past time for this.

Here are four main reasons why:

1. The threat has changed. When the 9/11 Commission looked at the threat of terrorism in 2010, the face of terrorism looked very different then it does today. Back then the U.S. was principally focused on al-Qaeda, rather than the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Today, the transnational terrorist threat has rebounded, and the clear breakpoint for this was in 2010. One of the indicators is the flood of foreign fighters moving around the world.

2. What we are doing now isn’t working. In 2010, the Obama administration embarked on a counterterrorism strategy ill-suited to deal with present threats. It is obviously not working.

It is therefore time for a fresh, nonpartisan appraisal of what works and what doesn’t.

3. The Obama administration has lost credibility on this issue. In January my colleague Jim Phillips noted that:

The Obama administration’s lack of a sense of urgency in the face of the ISIS onslaught has been breathtaking. The president even proclaimed the day before the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks that ISIS was contained.

The immediate angry reaction many American’s expressed to President Barack Obama’s statement on the Orlando attack points to the growing distrust many have with how his administration has responded to the threat of global terrorism.

4. The 9/11 Commission worked. The commission’s hearings and findings helped Americans understand the nature of the global terrorist threat. The final report became a national bestseller—and with good reason.

The commission delivered a frank, credible, nonpartisan assessment.

Arguably, there is an even great need for such clarity now. Americans are more confused, divided, frustrated, and uncertain about how to deal with transnational terrorism than they were a decade ago. (For more from the author of “4 Reasons Why We Need Another 9/11 Commission After Orlando” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Reality: Trump on Islam

Former NSA head Michael Hayden recently joined a chorus of Trump’s critics blasting him for offending Muslims. “The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world, so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative,” he said.

That’s true. It’s also meaningless because in this case the narrative is reality.

Jihadists do hate us. Islam has viewed the rest of the world with undying enmity for over a thousand years. Some might quibble over whether a 7th century obsession really counts as “undying”, but it’s a whole lot older than Hayden, the United States of America, our entire language and much of our civilization.

Islam divides the world into the Dar Al-Islam and the Dar Al-Harb, the House of Islam and the House of War. This is not just the jihadist narrative, it is the Islamic narrative and we would be fools to ignore it.

The White House is extremely fond of narratives. The past month featured Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, taking a victory lap for successfully pushing his “narrative” on the Iran deal. Rhodes takes pride in his narratives. His media allies love narratives. But none of the narratives change the fact that Iran is moving closer to getting a nuclear bomb. Narratives don’t change reality. They’re a delusion.

Narratives only work on the people you fool. They don’t remove the underlying danger. All they do is postpone the ultimate recognition of the problem with catastrophic results.

Islamic terrorism is a reality. Erase all the narratives and the fact of its existence remains.

Instead of fighting a war against the reality of Islamic terrorism, our leaders have chosen to fight a war against reality. They don’t have a plan for defeating Islamic terrorism, but for defeating reality.
So far they have fought reality to a draw. Ten thousand Americans are dead at the hands of Islamic terrorists and Muslim migration to America has doubled. Islamic terrorists are carving out their own countries and our leaders are focused on defeating their “narratives” on social media.

Hayden repeats the familiar nonsense that recognizing reality plays into the enemy narrative. And then the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by refusing to recognize its existence out of fear that we might play into its narrative. But Islamic terrorism doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.

You don’t have to believe in a bomb or a bullet for it to kill you. A plane headed for your office building or a machete at your neck is not a narrative, it is reality. If we can’t tell the difference between reality and what we believe, then reality will kill us. And nothing we believe will change that.

We are not fighting a war of narratives with Islam. This is a war of bombs and bullets, planes crashing into buildings and blades digging into necks. And yet the men in charge of fighting this war remain obsessed with winning a battle of narratives inside the Muslim world. They have no plans for winning the war. Instead they are occupied with managing the intensity of the conflict, taking out the occasional terrorist leader, bombing only when a jihadist group like ISIS has become too powerful, while waiting for their moderate Muslim allies to win the war of narratives for them by discrediting the jihadists.

The narrative mistake is understandable. The left remains convinced that it can get its way through propaganda. Its record is certainly impressive. But it’s strictly a domestic record. Getting Americans to believe seven strictly irrational social justice things before breakfast is very different than convincing the members of a devout tribal society with a deep sense of history that they really don’t want to kill Americans. All that the narrative war accomplished was to show that the propagandists who convinced Americans to vote for their own exploitation have no idea how to even begin convincing Muslims to do anything. Think Again Turn Away was an embarrassment. Various outreach efforts failed miserably. American politicians devoutly apologize for any disrespect to Islam, but Muslims don’t care.

Hayden isn’t wrong that there is a narrative. But Nazism also had a narrative. Once the Nazis had power, they began acting on it and their narrative became a reality that had to be stopped by armed force. But at a deeper level he is wrong because he isn’t reciting the Islamic or even the jihadist narrative, but a deceptive narrative aimed at us in order to block recognition of the problem of Islamic terrorism.

The Islamic narrative isn’t just that we hate them. More importantly, it’s that they hate us. Muslim terrorists are not passively reacting to us. They carry a hatred that is far older than our country. That hatred is encoded in the holy books of Islam. But that hatred is only a means to an end.

Hatred is the means. Conquest is the end.

Assuming that Muslims are oppressed minorities is a profound intellectual error crippling our ability to defend ourselves. Islamic terrorism is not an anti-colonial movement, but a colonial one. ISIS and its Islamic ilk are not oppressed minorities, but oppressive majorities. Islamic terror does not react to us, as men like Hayden insist. Instead we react to Islam. And our obsession with playing into enemy narratives is a typically reactive response. Rising forces generate their own narratives. Politically defeated movements typically obsess about not making things worse by playing into the narratives that their enemies have spread about them. That is why Republicans panic over any accusation of racism. Or why the vanilla center of the pro-Israel movement winces every time Israel shoots a terrorist.

Western leaders claim to be fighting narratives, but they have no interest in actually challenging the Islamic narrative of superiority that is the root cause of this conflict. Instead they take great pains not to offend Muslims. This does not challenge the Islamic supremacist narrative, instead it affirms it.

Rather than challenging Islamic narratives, they are stuck in an Islamic narrative. They are trapped by the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative of “Good Islamist” and “Bad Islamist” convinced that the only way to win is to appeal to the “Good Islamist” and team up with him to fight the “Bad Islamist”.

The “moderate” Muslim majority who are our only hope for stopping Islamic terrorism is an enemy narrative manufactured and distributed by an Islamic supremacist organization. When we repeat it, we distort our strategy and our thinking in ways that allow us to be manipulated and controlled.

It isn’t Trump who is playing into jihadist narratives, but Hayden and everyone who claims that recognizing Islamic terrorism plays into enemy narratives while failing to recognize that what they are saying is an enemy narrative.

The very notion that the good opinion of the enemy should constrain our military operations, our thinking and even our ability to recognize reality is an enemy narrative of unprecedented effect.

And this is the narrative that our leaders and the leaders of the world have knelt in submission to.

Narratives only have the power that we assign to them. No narrative is stronger than reality unless we believe in it. Not only have our leaders chosen to play into the enemy narrative, but they have accepted its premise as the only way to win. And so they are bound to lose until they break out of the narrative. (For more from the author of “Reality: Trump on Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Islamic Immigration Skyrocketing in Last Years of Treasonous Obama Administration, Arabic Now Fastest Growing Language in US

Imagine if a bill had come before Congress after the 9/11 attacks debating the future of immigration from the Middle East. How many members of Congress would have voted to double migration from that volatile region and make it the fastest growing subset of our immigrants? 15 years after that tragic day, that is exactly what has happened, and with no input from the American people.

Last year, I counted the number of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries and found that since 2001, the average annual intake has been roughly 100,000 per year, twice the rate in the ‘90s. But that trajectory has been increasing in recent years. During the five years from FY 2009 through FY 2013 alone, we’ve brought in 680,000 from those same countries. Now, there is evidence that this trajectory is growing sharper.

A few days ago, I posted a new immigration analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies detailing the sharp increase in overall immigration during the most recent two-year period: 2014-2015. Using the same Census data, a glance at the predominantly Muslim countries indicates that 308,000 new individuals emigrated here during those two years. The data is based on the Current Population Survey, which asks immigrants when they came to America. This is the first two-year period where the total number from Middle Eastern and predominantly Muslim countries has exceeded 300k. Which means that the annual rate of Muslim immigration has likely exceeded 150,000. Remember, these are individuals coming straight from the Middle East during the most volatile period of Islamic upheaval fomented by ISIS and other strains strictly adherent to Sharia Law.

According to Pew Research, Arabic is now the fastest growing language in the U.S. and the Census Department will offer Arabic translations of the decennial questionnaire for the first time in 2020. The number of people speaking Arabic has grown by 29 percent from 2010-2014, whereas the number of Spanish speakers has only grown by six percent over the same period. The most up-to-date monthly data from the Current Population Survey clearly indicates that this trend has grown in 2015 and for the first quarter of 2016.

As I lamented last Friday, we have sent our soldiers, particularly the special operators, to all sorts of hell holes over the past 15 years, often helping one side of the Islamic civil war over the other. We’ve dispatched them to endless wars with no good outcome. Yet, at the same time we are expending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives refereeing civil wars and playing interference for Iran and a corrupt Afghani government, we’ve imported the problem to our very shores free of charge.

According to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland, there are over 1,000 active homegrown terror cases being investigated by the FBI in all 50 states. This is not the result of ISIS or the Taliban coming here with an Air Force or Navy and invading America; this is the result of suicidal immigration policies.

There has been much discussion over a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, which was extremely popular in the GOP primaries, according to exit polls from every state. But why can’t we start with a more relevant policy of not making immigration from the Middle East the fastest growing category? Unfortunately, instead of using the annual defense bill to right the ship on our backwards immigration and defense policies, Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and John McCain (R-AZ) are looking to add 4,000 more visas to the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, granting green cards to those who work for the U.S. military as translators in Afghanistan. This is on top of the 3,000-visa expansions slipped into last year’s bill. As I noted last year, generally speaking, it is a good idea to provide this status to those natives who help the U.S. in foreign wars because they often need protection as a result of their work with the U.S. military. But as American citizens have witnessed over the past decade, the rampant spread of radical jihad throughout the Middle East has made it arduous to distinguish friend from foe.

While a number of Afghani translators have served faithfully, there have been numerous tragedies of our brave soldiers killed in Afghanistan at the prime of their lives because they were double crossed by an Afghani contractor or interpreter. One such “green-on-blue” attack killed U.S. Major General Harold Green in 2014, the highest-ranking casualty in a theater of war since Vietnam. Attacks from supposedly friendly Afghanis accounted for 15 percent of coalition soldier deaths in 2012.

Moreover, this is not a one-time deal; it has become our modus operandi to get involved in Islamic civil wars and then bring entire families in the tens of thousands from both sides to our shores. This is on top of the record high immigration from Pakistan and other Islamic countries and the almost 150,000 refugees we have taken from Iraq since 2007. If we are going to bring in more Afghanis under the guise of rewarding those who serve the U.S. military, can we at least reduce other categories of immigration from the Middle East? And if the only thing we can show for 15 years of involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is hundreds of thousands of new Sharia-adherent immigrants, there is something wrong with our entire approach to war-fighting and homeland security.

Today, we mark the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day invasion. In 1944, we were a nation united under a morally and intellectually clear mission. We uncompromisingly defended our homeland and sent our soldiers across the world to fight with a defined mission, definitive outcome and no restrictive rules of engagement. Now, we send our troops into Islamic meat-grinders with appalling rules of engagement — often helping our enemies — and then we bring the problems straight to our shores. The best way to honor the sacrifice of the Greatest Generation at Omaha Beach is to follow in their example of how to fight a war: by putting the security of Americans first. (For more from the author of “Islamic Immigration Skyrocketing in Last Years of Treasonous Obama Administration, Arabic Now Fastest Growing Language in US” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

prayer-1008385_960_720 (1)

World’s Largest Muslim Organization Admits Extremism Problem Springs From Islamic Teachings

There’s been so much debate as to whether violent extremism—which has triggered numerous terrorist attacks that have claimed thousands of innocent lives—should be attributed to Islam as a religion.

The largest Muslim organisation in the world recently admitted that bad elements of Islam are indeed part of the extremism problem.

During an international meeting of moderate Islamic leaders in Jakarta earlier this month, the Indonesia-based Nahdlatul Ulama group came out with a strong condemnation of their fellow Muslims, particularly extremist groups like the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qaeda.

“We are like traditional opposition to supremacist Islamism,” Yahya Staquf, an Indonesia cleric affiliated with the Nahdlatul Ulama, told CNN, as quoted by CBN News.

Staquf openly admitted that to be able to combat the global jihadi movement, world leaders and the general public must recognize the fact that extremism originates from Islamic teachings, which are being used by terrorist groups to justify the use of violence. (Read more from “World’s Largest Muslim Organization Admits Extremism Problem Springs From Islamic Teachings” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Coming European Islamic Super-State

The following essay by Matthew Bracken was prompted by a cell-phone video from Germany of a culture-enricher assaulting a German teenaged boy. I won’t embed the video; I find it almost too unbearable to watch. To see a young man so unable to defend himself, so unwilling to stand up and be a man, is disheartening and dismaying.

This is heartbreaking to see, but very important.

This is how a dhimmi is created in a gun-free country, where armed self-defense is an alien concept. This is prison yard rules, and the young German is just fresh meat. This German kid will probably convert to Islam just to stop the pain and “gain the respect” of his new masters.

Note how the bully threatens to beat him every day just to harden him up and make him a man. A similar psychological process occurs in military boot camp with new recruits. He doesn’t know it yet, but his mother and sisters are now Moslem chattel property. He won’t lift a finger to defend German women; he is a dhimmi at best. Most likely he will just convert as a matter of bare survival, but he will always be a “second-class Muslim”, even if he submits. These IslamoNazi bullies will have him reciting the Shahada in less than a month, and after that, his sister is toast. Just fresh meat for the hijra jihadis.

This is how Islam has spread for 1,400 years: brute force, threats, intimidation, and using terror as an example of how far they are willing to go to force the spread.

Smug Americans who own firearms might laugh at the current plight of the Europeans, but they should not. The Europeans have been brainwashed by the “multi-kulti-uber-alles” Left to simply submit when the planned hijra invasion happened, which is happening now. The ordinary Euros were betrayed by Quisling traitors in high offices. From the Muslim point of view, the hijra invasion is moving from the dawah (preaching) phase to the jihad phase, using violence and threats of even greater violence to force a complete Muslim takeover. That German boy now understands who are the alpha males, and who are not: The Moslems are, and he isn’t.

But there is the long-term danger in this process even to America. If Islam wins in Europe, a well-known social/genetic dynamic will kick in. All of the German girls and women (even the man-hating radical feminists and lesbians) will be raped, enslaved, or “married” by force, but one way or the other, there will be a rising generation of Muslims in Europe who are half-German.

People should understand a genetic process called “hybrid vigor.” There is a reason the Ottoman Turks collected European boys to be raised as Janissaries. The Arab desert Muslims have terrible DNA after 1,400 years of first-cousin inbreeding, but when they impregnate their German conquest victims they will create generations of 100% full Muslims who are half German. Of course, this will happen in every European country, not only Germany.

Americans should not be smug about the collapse and Muslim conquest of Europe. Half-German “Super Muslims” will be a tough adversary. Remember the Ottoman Janissaries from history. They were fearsome fanatics, but also big, strong and smart.

Another crop of “Super Muslims” were the Berbers of Morocco, who provided most of the brains and muscle used for the invasion of Spain in 711 AD. The “desert Arabs” were a scrawny and pitiful bunch. Man for man, they were weaklings compared to the hearty Berber mountain folk. But the Berbers were divided, tribe against tribe, from one Atlas Mountains valley to another. The invading Arab armies picked off one tribe at a time, and forced them all to convert. These newly united Berber Super Muslims were imbued with ”convert zeal,” and ready to invade new worlds to spread the banner of Islam.

United for the first time in history, the Muslim Berbers of Morocco (under mostly Arab leadership) turned their natural war-lust against the Christians of Spain. Like the pre-Muslim Berber tribes had been before them, each Spanish Christian principality was divided from the others across the mountains of Spain. The united and newly converted Muslim Berber armies swept over the separate Spanish fiefdoms one after the other.

The point is that Muslim invasions have often succeeded against divided foes who were, man for man, much stronger and even smarter. A generation later, this invigorated hybrid population can be very dangerous, because after the consolidation phase where the invaded region is brought under united Islamic control, they will be straining to burst their borders and conquer new worlds, like the Super Muslim Berbers did in Spain. Think also of Iran in this context. United Arab Muslim armies conquered Persia, creating another brand of hybridized “Super Muslims.”

I shudder to think of what German Super Muslims will be capable of in thirty years, if Islam is triumphant in Europe. They would make the Earth shake.


Matthew Bracken was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1957, and attended the University of Virginia, where he received a BA in Russian Studies and was commissioned as a naval officer in 1979. Later in that year he graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, and in 1983 he led a Naval Special Warfare detachment to Beirut, Lebanon. Since then he’s been a welder, boat builder, charter captain, ocean sailor, essayist and novelist. He lives in Florida. Links to his short stories and essays may be found at For his previous essays, see the Matthew Bracken Archives. (For more from the author of “The Coming European Islamic Super-State” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.