A Questionable Visit

President Obama will visit a mosque next month. It will be the first U.S.-based mosque he has visited during his presidency. However, the President’s choice of which mosque to visit is rather odd.

The Daily Caller posted the following yesterday:

The White House announced on Saturday that Obama will visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) on Wednesday. He has visited several mosques overseas as president but has resisted visiting one in the homeland. The purpose of the trip, according to the White House, is to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”

But ISB is a curious choice for Obama’s first domestic visit.

The mosque is a member of a network of mosques controlled by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim civil rights group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror case. Several executives with that organization were convicted of sending money to aid the terrorist group Hamas.

The article goes on to list the various connections of those associated with or leading the mosque in recent years. It is not a list of people who love America or freedom.

Many of the mosques in America are built by ISNA. The money funding these mosques comes from overseas, as many new congregations do not have the money to build the elaborate mosques that ISNA provides them with. If you read the government exhibits from the Holy Land Foundation Trial, you will learn that these mosques are part of a plan for ‘civilization jihad’ to help convert America into an Islamic nation. It is somewhat disturbing that President Obama would choose a mosque with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to visit (ISNA has strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood). Hopefully, this will be a one-time event.

A Way Of Thinking That Is Incompatible With Civilization

Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday about some recent comments by Imam Sami Abu-Yusuf, the Imam of a Salafist Cologne mosque.

The article reports:

Explaining in the view of Salafist Islam why hundreds of women found themselves groped, sexually assaulted and in some cases raped by gangs of migrant men in cities across Germany the Imam said: “the events of New Year’s Eve were the girls own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume. It is not surprising the men wanted to attack them. [Dressing like that] is like adding fuel to the fire”.

The tone of the report was telling, expressing no surprise that Muslim mass migration would result in violence and gang-rape. The narrator of the report told viewers that after the events of New Year’s Eve it was becoming difficult to tell who’s country Germany was, one belonging to Muslims or to Germans. Also expressed was the opinion that the sex attacks were no more than a dress rehearsal for something much bigger to come.

Again, according to the teaching in this sector of Islam, the groping and rapes were justified by the way the women were dressed. I would be the first to state that I don’t always agree with the way some women dress, but last time I checked, western civilization did not have a dress code.

Remember, rape of non-Muslim women is an acceptable practice in the eyes of some sects of Islam. We need to consider that when accepting refugees into America. The compromise might be to allow refugees in small numbers on the condition that they are willing to assimilate and adopt western culture. If they are not willing to do that, they need to find a country where their views on women and other matters are accepted.

The horrid conditions in the countries Middle Eastern refugees are fleeing are not due entirely to wars–they have a lot to do with the prevailing culture in these countries. We need to consider how much of that culture we are willing to tolerate in America.

If You Give A Mouse A Cookie…

If You Give A Mouse A Cookie is a children’s book published in 2013. The basic story is that if you give a mouse a cookie he will expect milk and other things to go with it. Well, a company in Wisconsin recently saw this scenario acted out in real life.

The Independent Journal Review posted an article about Ariens Manufacturing.

The article reports:

Dozens of Muslim employees at a Wisconsin manufacturing company claim that they were forced to quit this week, after the company changed its prayer-on-the-job policy to one that prevents them from participating in their daily prayers to Mecca.

WBAY-TV reported that before Thursday, Somali Muslims employed by Ariens Manufacturing were allowed to leave the producing line twice a shift in order to participate in two of the five daily prayers required by the Islamic faith.

The company offered the employees the opportunity to pray during their break time in designated prayer rooms. Note that they were willing to establish designated prayer rooms. The employees stated that praying only during their breaks goes against their religion.

The accommodation these employees were asking for would not have been granted to any other religious group–they were not singled out.

The article concludes:

Per law established by the the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission on religious tolerance in the workplace, “an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.”

The Council for Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) is also calling on Ariens to reverse its policy, per a Tweet sent on Saturday.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Islamic people who decide to come to America need to understand that the U.S. Constitution is the basis for American law. It is not subject to Sharia Law, which would demand that the company accommodate people leaving the manufacturing assembly line several times a day. Unfortunately, those who truly practice Islam believe that Sharia Law supersedes all other law. A Democracy or Representative Republic is not a valid form of government in Islam. CAIR has gotten involved to see if they can for Americans to accept Sharia Law in this instance rather than uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Everything You Need To Know About Islamic Laws

The Daily Caller posted an article today about a law rejected in Pakistan.

The article reports:

A bid to ban child marriage in Pakistan utterly failed, after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the legislation “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.”

The bill didn’t even move past the first stage in the legislative process, The Express Tribune reports. It was almost immediately pulled Thursday by Pakistan Muslim League party’s Marvi Menon following condemnation from CII, whose job it is to advise the legislature on whether bills are compliant with Sharia law. In this case, the bill clearly violated Islamic law as tradition holds marriage as acceptable when a girl hits puberty.

The law attempted to move the age of marriage from 16 to 18 and to impose penalties for breaking the law.

The article further reports:

According to the organization Girls Not Brides, over 21 percent of the girls in Pakistan enter into marriage before the age of 18.

CII Chairman Mohammad Khan Sheerani reiterated in 2014 that girls can be married at age nine, so long as puberty is apparent, adding that attempts to revisit the issue are pointless and unnecessary.

“Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah,” Sheerani said in 2014, according to The Express Tribune.

The idea of child brides is quite compatible with Sharia Law. Most western countries would be appalled at the idea of a nine-year-old child marrying a 40 (or more) year-old man, but that is an acceptable practice under Sharia Law.

The article further reports:

With increasing immigration, the practice of child marriage has also spread to the West, raising alarm especially in the United Kingdom. According to data from the Home Office’s Forced Marriage Unit, there were 1,485 cases of child marriage in 2012. Another government report also foundchild marriage is increasing around the world, with the rate expected to climb to 14 million child marriages a year before 2020 hits.

It’s time to ban Sharia Law in America.

Sometimes You Just Wonder

Jihad Watch posted a story today about the shooting of a policeman in Philadelphia.

I quote:

Edward Archer said he shot Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett because “police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.” But Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney wants you to know that the shooting had “nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.” I called this earlier today, writing here at Jihad Watch: “Not to worry. Obama and the Mayor of Philadelphia will find some way to explain that this has nothing to do with Islam.” And here we are.

CBS News reports the following:

During a police press conference Friday afternoon, Mayor Jim Kenney stated that he believes the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer has “nothing to do with being a Muslim,” despite the suspect claiming he did it in the name of Islam.

Mayor Kenney said, “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen.”

Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett was shot several times late Thursday.

Authorities say the suspect gave a full confession to the shooting.

Commissioner Richard Ross said, “According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.”

Mayor Kenney said of the shooting, “It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings.”

We have reached the level of political correctness where we do not accept the confession of a killer because his confession does not fit the political narrative. This is insane.

Just for the record, Islamic law is incompatible with American Law. Islamic Law is Sharia Law, and democracy is not part of that law. The shooter was correct when he commented that police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran. They don’t remove the hands of thieves, they don’t stone women adulterers, and they don’t arrest people for not being modestly dressed. In the shooter’s mind, the police are consistently breaking what he considers the ultimate law–Sharia Law. The shooting had everything to do with Islam. It is unfortunate that the people charged with protecting us do not see the danger.

 

Ignoring The Enemy Within

On Monday, Daniel Horowicz posted an article at the Conservative Review about the Islamic threat to America. The threat comes in two forms–the possibility of terrorists infiltrating the vast number of Middle Eastern migrants coming to America and the more subtle influencing of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is increasingly influencing American foreign and domestic policies.

The article reports:

Three questions should automatically come to mind in light of the San Bernardino attack and the nearly daily incidents of Muslims being arrested for plotting terror attacks or attempting to join ISIS.

  1. Why is our government expunging any mention of Islamic terror from their official documents and hampering investigations into connections to local radical Muslim Brotherhood groups?
  2. Why are so few moderate Muslims speaking out against the growing trend of radicalization?
  3. Why are so many Muslims in America, even those who were born here, being drawn into groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda? 

The answer to all these questions, point to the Muslim Brotherhood and the influence of their three North American affiliates that were implicated in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust.

The goal of ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood is the same–a worldwide caliphate under Sharia Law. The difference between the two organizations is the method by which they plan to achieve this goal. ISIS believes in using direct force, and the Muslim Brotherhood believes in the concept of ‘civilization jihad,’ which refers to gradually increasing political influence to take over a government peacefully.

The article further reports:

Just last week, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron took the unprecedented step to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group after his government launched an exhaustive study into their activities.  They will now ban visas to Muslim Brotherhood officials and increase surveillance of their offices.   If the liberal Europeans are willing to protect themselves and root out their enemy within, cannot our “conservative” leaders muster the same courage?

Not surprisingly, Obama condemned Cameron’s move as a needless de-legitimizing of a non-violent group.  But their use of “non-violent” means of subversion in western countries to marginalize moderates and quietly radicalize the Muslim communities and mosques is exactly what will destroy both America and Europe from the inside. 

The article also lists some of the details of the investigation into terrorist activities in the United States prior to the shooting in San Bernardino. That investigation was shut down by the DHS at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division.

The article explains:

It’s not surprising that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division (CRCL) was responsible for shutting down the investigation.  CRCL is the nexus for the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government.  In 2008, under the Bush administration, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff drafted a memo for CRCL that called on government officials to strip all references of Islamic supremacism from their training.  This memo was drafted, in the words of Chertoff, based on “its discussions with a broad range of Muslim American community leaders and scholars.”  In 2011, based on the same recommendations of these Muslim Brotherhood “scholars,” DHS published its training and guidance manual on the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda.  The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.” 

Please follow the link above and read the entire article. If our next President is not willing to speak out about and deal with the threat within America, there is no way that we can end the threat.

Losing Our Culture And Harming Our Young Girls

As the debate about accepting Muslim refugees into America continues, there is something we need to understand–assimilation of the new Muslim population cannot be assumed. There is one statistic that illustrates that the Muslims that are already here are not interested in assimilation, but instead are carrying out a practice that is illegal in America.

The Population Reference Bureau reported the following in July:

The ABC News piece, “Underground in America: Female Genital Mutilation,” quotes PRB’s figures revealing that 500,000+  women and girls are at risk of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the United States—more than twice the number of women and girls estimated to be at risk in 2000.

Mark Mather, a co-author on the PRB article and associate vice president of U.S. Programs, told ABC News: “There haven’t been new numbers made available for more than a decade. We knew the immigrant population had grown considerably over the past 10 years, so for a population changing so rapidly, it’s important not to wait to get more updated estimates.”

FGM/C is illegal in the United States. PRB looked at immigrant families coming from countries with a high prevalence rate of FGM/C, including places where 80 percent to 90 percent of women undergo the procedure. So the rapid increase in women and girls at risk reflects an increase in immigration from these countries—or daughters with parents from those countries—to the United States, rather than an increase in the share of women and girls at risk of being cut.

Advocates warn that the risk of FGM/C can go up during summer months—”vacation cutting”—when girls often travel back to their home countries, particularly in Africa, to visit family. PBS NewsHour cited the PRB data analysis, underscoring the risk of FGM/C being a particular concern in New York, which has the largest population of African immigrants in the country. In 2013, about 97 percent of U.S. women and girls at risk were from African countries, while just 3 percent were from Asia (Iraq and Yemen).

This is not a practice that is welcome in America. We need to make it clear to immigrants that this is unacceptable. If families want to come to America, they need to refrain from breaking our laws in the name of their customs or religion.

Something We Need To Remember

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today that should cause us all to stop and think for a moment. In America, we hear a lot of things from the media, and as Americans we tend to accept what we have been told. However, some of what we have been told is patently ridiculous.

Mr. McCarthy poses the question, “Supposing that you are a moderate Muslim, is there any insulting thing I could say, no matter how provocative, or any demeaning video I could show you, no matter how lurid, that could convince you to join ISIS?”

He reminds us that he was the prosecutor of the“Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

After asking the question above, Mr. McCarthy points out that when the American media and American presidents refer to Islam as ‘a religion of peace,’ they are overlooking some very obvious points.

The article at National Review concludes with this comment on the trial of the World Trade Center bombers:

At trial, the jihadists tried to tell the jury they were just moderate, peace-loving Muslims who had been provoked by American foreign policy, a perception of anti-Muslim bias, and videos of Muslims being persecuted in Bosnia. The Blind Sheikh insisted his incitements to jihad were simply a case of faithfully applying sharia principles, which, according to his lawyers, the First Amendment gave him the right to do.

So I asked the jury a simple question: Is there any obnoxious, insulting, infuriating thing I could say to you, or show to you, that would convince you to join up with mass-murdering terrorists? To become a terrorist yourself? Of course, a dozen commonsense New Yorkers did not need to be asked such a question. They laughed the defense out of the courtroom.
Alas, in the 20 years since, the defense they laughed out of the courtroom has become the bipartisan government policy of the United States.

We have forgotten the lessons of history.

Sometimes You Wonder About The ‘What If’s’

The U.K. Daily Mail posted a story yesterday (and updated it today) about a Muslim man who was planning to go to Disneyland with his family, but was stopped from boarding his flight and his visa to America revoked. It seems that there was a Facebook page set up by someone who lived as his address claiming links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The article reports:

When asked about the account, Mr Mahmood believed hackers may have been to blame, adding: ‘That could be anything, maybe a mistake.’

He said: ‘It is not my son’s Facebook page. It has a similar name, but not the same as my son’s. 

‘The page is also linked to our home address and that could be coincidence. I don’t know why it is linked there. The name is not even the same. The authorities must have linked it simply because of the name Hamza.’

It was understood that the wives of Mr Mahmood and his brother had stayed at home for the trip because one of them was ill and one of the children did not have a valid passport.

But it is now believed that Mr Mahmood’s wife was in Pakistan at the time.

The family say were given no explanation why their visas, organised six weeks before the flight, were suddenly cancelled at the last minute and have now lost the £11,000 they had saved for the holiday.

It has also been suggested the move by US authorities could be due to Mr Mahmood’s brother having been refused entry to Israel eight years ago, but no official explanation has been given by the US Embassy.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing if the man is actually linked to terrorism or not, but I would rather inconvenience one family than let a terrorist into America. If the Facebook page was a joke done by Mr. Mohmood’s son, it was a joke done in extremely bad taste. It was also a joke that had unintended consequences.

I am sorry for the disappointment that this family experienced, but considering the contents of the Facebook page, I don’t think they should have been allowed to come to America until that was explained.

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about American air strikes on ISIS.

The article reports:

President Obama said for the first time this week that U.S. and allied airstrikes are targeting ISIS training camps in Iraq and Syria, but new figures reveal only 20 camps were hit in recent months.

Since May, U.S. and allied air forces conducted 17 attacks hitting a total of 20 camps in Syria and Iraq, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

Critics in the Obama administration and U.S. military say ISIS has been operating more than 60 training camps since 2014 in areas of Syria and Iraq. The camps are said to be producing an estimated 1,000 fighters a month.

Somehow I don’t think 17 attacks in more than six months is the best we can do. The reason given for the lack of attacks is the proximity or the camps to civilians areas.

The article further reports:

Long War Journal reported in June that the number of terrorist training camps in Syria and Iraq continues to increase, for both ISIS and al Qaeda. The journal reported that more than 100 training camps have been identified in the two Middle East states.

“The proliferation of training camps in Iraq and Syria speaks to the strength of the Islamic State and its ability to continue to gather and instruct recruits despite the U.S. and allies’ air campaign,” said Bill Roggio, editor of the Long War Journal.

“It is unclear if U.S. airstrikes have significantly set back the Islamic State’s training program,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “We may not be hitting the training facilities quick enough to make a difference.”

Obama, under pressure from critics at home and abroad over the limited military strategy against ISIS, on Monday vowed that the U.S. strategy is “moving forward with a great sense of urgency” following ISIS-linked attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

We should have learned from past experience that wars need to be fought by the military–not the politicians. If we do not plan to win, we have no business getting involved in a war. When we go half-way to war, Americans die needlessly.

Haven’t These People Read The U. S. Constitution?

ABC News posted an article yesterday about Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s remarks in response to the killings in San Bernardino this week. The Attorney General is prepared to take decisive action.

The article reports

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.

“Obviously this is a country that is based on free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”

Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group, asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate crimes.

Since 9/11, Lynch says that the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is going to rise,” said Lynch.

I truly believe that these people have their priorities backwards. She is prosecuting Americans for speech. Is she prosecuting those Muslims who are terrorists for their terrorism?

As I have written before, one of the interim goals of that part of the Muslim population that espouses the idea of a world-side caliphate is to bring non-Muslims under Sharia Law. Under Islam “Defamation of Islam” is a crime which can be punished by death. Defamation is defined as any statement the hearer regards as negative. Truth has no role in this decision. Under Sharia Law even the definition of slander is not concerned with truth–it is concerned with how the statement makes the hearer feel. Sharia Law and free speech are incompatible, and any attempt to limit free speech by anyone should be looked on very suspiciously.

The article further reports:

In recent weeks, Donald Trump advocated for a national registry of Muslim Americans — which he later denied — and claimed that Muslims in New Jersey celebrated after the September 11 attacks.

“The demagoguery has to stop,” Muslim American Congressman Andre Carson (D-IN), who introduced Lynch, told ABC News. Carson said that public figures make these remarks because they “get affirmation from being provocative.”

The fist statement is an outright lie, aimed at the low-information voter (see transcript of conversation that charge is taken from), the second statement has been documented to be true by Washington Post stories and videos taken from news reports at the time.

The bottom line here is that you can defame anything you want under the First Amendment. If you slander an individual, you may wind up in court; and if you slander a race, someone may decide you are an idiot, but you do have the First Amendment right to be an idiot if you choose to do so.

The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the U.S. Constitution–not undermine it. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the country–it is his (or her) job to uphold the law and the U.S. Constitution–not make up her own law.

Manipulation At Its Finest

One of the most effective ways to manipulate people is through guilt. A well-written news article about a poor victim of some horrible right-wing activity is a favorite of our left-leaning media. That method is being used now to encourage Americans to let down their guard regarding who enters the country. However, every now and then the efforts of the left to make the right look bad totally backfire. The ericontheradio website posted an amazing example of this phenomenon today. The story also serves as a warning to Americans to be aware of the associations of some supposedly moderate Muslim groups. Whenever you hear CAIR  (Council on American-Islamic Relations) mentioned anywhere, remember that CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial. If you are not familiar with the trial, look it up and read the exhibits. They are guaranteed to curl your hair.

The article at ericontheradio reports:

Nonetheless, MSNBC a few years ago highlighted the terrible plight of Saadiq Long. He became the poster child for opposing the “no fly list.”

…Long’s cause got international attention when Glenn Greenwald published an article at The Guardian saying that Long was “effectively exiled from his own country.” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones branded it the “Kafkaesque World of the No-Fly List.” CAIR has 22 article entries related to Long’s case on its website.

After several months of wrangling between his CAIR attorneys and the Department of Homeland Security, Long was temporarily removed from the no-fly list and allowed to return to Oklahoma.

Once home, however, he was still subject to FBI surveillance according to claims he made during a press conference with his CAIR handlers.

After an incident with local police and the FBI, Long was apparently placed back on the no-fly list, preventing his return to Qatar.

Eventually he was taken off the list and allowed to return to Qatar. If the story ended there, it would be fine. However, Long and several family were arrested earlier this month near the Turkey-Syria border as members of an ISIS cell. But he was such a nice-looking young man…

Smile, You Are Being Manipulated

Right now there is a lot of discussion as to whether of not American should allow Syrian refugees into America. There are a lot of aspects to this problem, but one that may not have been fully explored is the political left’s use of Saul Alinsky‘s Rules for Radicals.

Rule No. 4 states:

The left is using the refugees as a wedge issue. They are following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4, which states: RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.).

America has had problems with Muslim refugees in the past. Here are links to two articles dealing with past problems: one from The Clarion Project and one from World Net Daily. In June of this year, The Center for Security Policy posted the following:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

…Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

Understand that Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible. The Muslim definition of free speech is not compatible with the American First Amendment. Under Sharia Law, the definition of slander includes saying anything negative about Islam whether or not it is true. Slander can be punishable by death.

Many of the Somali refugees in the midwest have left America to join Islamic terrorists. The Boston bombers were refugees. The refugee issue is not as simple as letting anyone into America who is fleeing violence. It is something that needs to be handled cautiously and without politics. I am not sure our present leaders are capable of either.

The Challenge Of Balancing Compassion And Safety

We are faced with a flood of refugees coming out of the civil war in Syria and the advance of ISIS in other parts of the Middle East. These people need a safe place to go, but the situation is complicated. The nations where they would most easily assimilate are not willing to give them refuge. It is doubtful whether they would be willing to assimilate into western nations, and that fact comes with its own set of problems and concerns.

In evaluating this situation, we need to look at some of our history. The opening paragraph of the United States Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our government is charged with providing for the common defense. Our Constitution is the Law of the Land. We are not open to another law. The people who have come here in the past have understood that and been willing to live under American law. I fear that the Syrian refugees, even those with totally peaceful motives, will want to establish Sharia Law. That is the history of Muslim immigrants. Also, the fact that we cannot vet these refugees because Syria is a failed state means that by admitting these refugees we are putting Americans at risk. That goes against our Constitution. It is also noteworthy that many of these refugees are military-age young men–not families.

Today’s U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about President Obama’s plan to bring Syrian refugees to America. The article reports that so far twenty-five Republican governors and one Democratic governor have stated that they do not want the Syrian refugees in their states.

There are enough stable Middle Eastern countries that could easily take in these refugees. One wonders why they have not stepped up to the plate. Meanwhile, the American President is responsible for the safety of the American people.

The Theater Was Sold

The Times of Israel reported on Saturday that the Bataclan theater, one of the targets in the Friday night terrorism attack in Paris had been sold two months ago.

The article reports:

French magazine Le Point said early Saturday that the Bataclan, where at least 80 people were massacred by Islamic State gunmen on Friday night, has for years been the target of anti-Zionist groups as the Jewish owners often put on pro-Israel events. The publication quoted a member of the extremist group Army of Islam, who told French security services in 2011 that, “We had planned an attack against the Bataclan because its owners are Jews.”

Pascal Lalous and his brother Joel sold the theater on September 11. Joel recently immigrated to Israel.

I don’t believe that the theater attack was a random attack–I suspect the terrorists did not know the building had been sold. The article also mentioned that the band playing at the theater had played in Tel Aviv in July.

As the Muslim population of France has increased, the country has become less safe for Jews. A few years ago, Jewish men were advised not to go out in public wearing their yamakas because they might be targeted. The attack on the Kosher supermarket also targeted the Jewish population.

In January of this year, the U.K. Telegraph posted an article which stated the following:

A record 15,000 French Jews could emigrate to Israel this year amid fears of rising anti-Semitism in Europe, according to the official body overseeing migration to the Jewish state.

The figure – double the number who left France for Israel last year – has been forecast by Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency, following last Friday’s deadly attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris by a French jihadist, which left four Jewish citizens dead.

Part of the problem is the anti-Semitism that is built into Islam. Arabic children are routinely taught that the Jews are descendants of apes and pigs and that Jews use the blood of Arab children in their religious ceremonies. This teaching has to stop.

Terrorists commit terrorist attacks. That’s what they do. That’s who they are. Until the Muslim community stands united against these attacks, we have to conclude that they are in agreement. I understand that the Muslim community is afraid to take a stand, but they need to get past that fear. This is not unlike dealing with the Mafia. Someone needs to talk so that the entire thing can be unraveled. The western world has to take action against the philosophy that terrorism for the sake of Islam is acceptable. I think it is time to retaliate by removing Mecca and Medina from the planet. The only thing terrorists understand is force, they need to experience some force directed at them.

This Is Not A Culture Western Civilization Wants To Import

As the refugees stream into western countries, we need to think about the implications of this influx of Muslims. Most of the refugees are Muslim, for whatever reason America and Europe do not seem to be reaching out to the Christians. Accepting refugees is the humanitarian thing to do, but there are some things we need to consider. One of these things is the willingness (or unwillingness) of the refugees to adapt to western culture. There is no problem with their keeping their religion if they choose, but the refugees need to know what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted an article that shows what happens when Muslims bring their culture into the west and continue with those practices that are not acceptable in western culture.

The article reports:

A Muslim man has confessed to strangling his 19-year-old daughter to death with his bare hands after learning from police she had been caught shoplifting condoms to have sex with her forbidden boyfriend.

Asadullah Khan and his wife Shazia then dressed dead daughter Lareeb, a dental technician, in her clothes.

They then wheeled her in a wheelchair from their high-rise apartment to the family car, drove to a secluded embankment in their home city of Darmstadt in Germany, and tipped the corpse down it.

Under Sharia Law this conduct is acceptable. In western countries this is not acceptable behavior. This is one example of why Sharia Law should never be accepted in America.

Ignoring The Facts To Slant The News

On Sunday, NBC News reported that Dr. Ben Carson, who is running for President, does not believe that a Muslim should be President. The news is reporting this as if it were a horrible example of prejudice. It isn’t–it’s a comment from someone who understands Islam.

The article reports:

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would not support a Muslim as President of the United States.

Responding to a question on “Meet the Press,” the retired neurosurgeon said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He also said that Islam, as a religion, is incompatible with the Constitution.

One of the basic tenets of Islam is the support of Sharia Law. This is coupled with a belief that any legal system not based on Sharia Law is invalid and does not have to be followed. Couple this with the fact that another part of Islam is taqiyya, Taqiyya is based on Quran 3:28 which states that lying can and should be used to confuse and split the enemy.  The result of this is that often when Islamic leaders speak, they have one message for infidels and one for the Muslim audience. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to expect a Muslim candidate for President to lie to the American people about his intentions and then move to implement Sharia Law as soon as he was sworn in. A true Muslim would have no problem lying when taking the Oath of Office. If you don’t believe Sharia Law could come here, be aware that there are already Sharia advisory boards in the United States. It was also reported in a Center For Security Policy poll that 51% of American Muslims believe that American Muslims should have the choice of being under American or Sharia Law.

I agree with Dr. Carson’s statement that a Muslim should not be President of America. It is not a politically correct statement, but it is a true statement.

More Information That Changes The Story

We have all heard the story of Ahmed Mohamed, the Irving Texas high school student who was arrested for taking a clock to school. It was noted that the clock looked like a suitcase bomb, but that was just an unfortunate coincidence. Many people who read the story were horrified that the student was handcuffed and arrested. Well, not so fast.

The Daily Caller posted an article about the incident yesterday.

These are a few random facts that were included in the story. I am not sure I have seen them posted elsewhere:

Let’s start with the clock. It doesn’t remotely resemble one. No, it resembles a briefcase bomb. Photos show a vintage Radio Shack clock, dissembled and put back into a case, with a wire sticking out.  Once it began beeping inside a back-pack, that’s when the trouble started. When police questioned young Ahmed, they said he was “passive aggressive,” stubbornly repeating it was a clock and stonewalling other questions. But here’s the thing, even if the Pope or Dalai Lama brought that device into a school, and then played games with teachers and police, they’d get arrested too.

In today’s world, is it an everyday occurrence for a school child’s backpack to start beeping? Why did it start beeping? Is it possible that it was programmed to start beeping?

Let’s look at Ahmed’s family:

His dad, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed has engaged in publicity stunts before, like defending the Koran in Florida Pastor Terry Jones’ mock trial in 2010. In a 2011 television debate with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch entitled, “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” Mohamed identifies himself as President of Al-Sufi Islamic Center in Dallas and former presidential candidate of Sudan. It’s the country where the Muslim Janjaweed militia carried out genocide against non-Muslim black Africans in Darfur.

The article at the Daily Caller mentions that Ahmed’s handlers include the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood group founded in the 1990’s to advance Islam (and Sharia Law in America)–they serve as the legal arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

So why target Irving, Texas? Well, in March, Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne pushed a Texas legislature bill, “American Laws for American Courts.” She also opposed Sharia mediation at a local mosque.

The article concludes:

So, enter the fresh faced, nerdy kid with the NASA shirt, who tinkers with go-carts and just wants to be an engineer someday. Hollywood couldn’t have cast him better. Just three weeks into high school, he secretly carries in a device that any TSA agent at airport security would think is a bomb. Then provokes police to get arrested, leaving the cuffs on just long enough for his sister to snap a photo.

My fellow Americans, we’ve been trolled. And if we don’t get wise to it, the next Ahmed may very well blow up his school. That’s the inevitable result of silencing teachers and disarming police. Time to face truth, or forever live with the consequences.

We can be politically correct or we can survive as a nation. It’s time to make a choice.

The Danger In Taking In Too Many Refugees

Gateway Pundit posted an article about the impact of the wave of immigrants flooding into Germany.

The article reports:

Muslims initiated a petition on Change.org urging the City of Munich to end Un-Islamic Oktoberfest.

Regardless of how you feel about Oktoberfest, it is a German tradition. It is part of German culture and German heritage. If Germany is gracious enough to provide a safe haven for the refugees fleeing the Middle East, the refugees need to be gracious in accepting the customs and hospitality of their new country. The need to stop trying to import their culture rather than accepting the culture they fled to. It should also be noted that the Arab countries in the Middle East have not stepped forward to take in the refugees–the Arab countries would be a much better fit culturally for the refugees.

If the Middle Eastern refugees want to be welcome in western countries, they need to appreciate the culture they are fleeing to. There is no better way to wear out your welcome than to begin criticizing your host.

Why The Refugees Are Heading To Europe Rather Than Arab Countries

There is a difference between cultures. Western culture, based on a Judeo-Christian ethic, supports the idea of helping your fellow human being in times of crisis. The Muslim culture has built into it the practice of jihad, which by its nature, does not protect innocent life or include the concept of helping those less fortunate.

On Friday, the Center for Security Policy posted a list of reasons why Arab countries are not taking in the refugees fleeing northern Africa and the Middle East.

Here is the list:

  • Muslim countries know that the West will take care of their mistakes so they don’t have to avoid the negative consequences of their actions.
  • Western countries quickly come to the rescue, open their wallets and land to prove to the world that they are not Islamophobes.
  • Arab countries lack compassion and action to rescue each other despite the rhetoric of Arab/Islamic unity. Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations never open their borders to poor Muslims in distress. Even Egypt rejected the Darfur refugees who were later forced to go to Israel, which took them.
  • Oil rich Arab countries make it very difficult for other Arabs to visit except for haj. They are very tribal and refuse to dilute their culture with influx of foreigners. Third world country workers are treated inhumanely and are rarely given permanent residency, citizenship or equal rights as citizens.
  • Arabs would rather spend their petrodollars on expanding their influence in the West rather than making life better for their own citizens or supporting other Muslim nations who are financially less fortunate.
  • Islamic groups believe that refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan will spread Sharia in Europe, which is the main goal of jihad.
  • By clearing the area from the opposition and citizens who are not contributing to the empowerment of ISIS, clears the way for ISIS to expand beyond Syria and Iraq. Europe and America are absorbing the opposition to ISIS, so why stand in the way?
  • Life and saving lives and avoiding human tragedy are not more important than jihad in Arab culture.

There is more to this story. Pamela Geller is an expert who studies Islam and understands how the religion works. She posted an article on her website yesterday. In this article she points out that the majority of the refugees arriving in Europe and young men who are in good physical shape.

On Sunday, Pamela Geller posted an article at World Net Daily that included the following:

In February, the Islamic State threatened to send half-a-million Muslim migrants to Europe in a “psychological” attack against the West. And lest we forget, back in May, I reported that the Islamic State was making a fortune smuggling Muslim “migrants” into Europe.

Immigration jihad, or hijrah, is the migration or journey of Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Yathrib, later renamed by him to Medina, in the year 622 CE. It was after the hijrah that Muhammad for the first time became not just a preacher of religious ideas, but a political and military leader. That was what occasioned his new “revelations” exhorting his followers to commit violence against unbelievers. Significantly, the Islamic calendar counts the hijrah, not Muhammad’s birth or the occasion of his first “revelation,” as the beginning of Islam, implying that Islam is not fully itself without a political and military component.

The EU is telling its members that they must take in these migrants or lose important grants. Yet meanwhile, the oil-rich Muslim countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia, are doing nothing for the refugees. Muslim countries are not taking a single refugee. No, non-Muslim Europe must absorb them all, so as to be all the more easily conquered and Islamized.

The fact is, the mass Muslim migration is symptomatic – it’s not the problem. ISIS is the problem. Iran fueling and fighting Assad’s civil war is the problem. All of this chaos has resulted from Obama’s disastrous and incoherent foreign policy.

I do not have a problem with taking in refugees. However, we need to make sure the refugees come with the understanding that they will need to assimilate and become self-sufficient–not live off of the American taxpayers. In the past when we have taken in refugees, we have not offered them welfare, and they have learned the language and assimilated. We need to understand that every refugee who comes to Europe or America from the Middle East comes with the idea of being part of western civilization.

 

It Won’t Pay To Be A Non-Muslim In Seattle

On Monday, the Christian News reported that the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, has proposed Sharia law-compliant housing loans for Muslim residents. In case you are not aware of what a Sharia law-compliant loan is, it is a loan without interest. How many of us would like to take out a mortgage without interest?

The article reports:

“For our low—and moderate—income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law—which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money—there are limited options for financing a home,” the proposed plan reads. “Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions.”

The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle,” it says.

Arsalan Bukhari, chapter executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Puget Sound Business Journal that he believes that there are approximately two hundred Seattle residents who identify as Muslim that avoid taking out home loans because of their religion.

“[T]hey don’t want to pay interest,” he said.

Mayor Ed Murray mentioned the proposal at a recent press conference, which will go to city counsel for consideration.

“We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs,” he said.

Non-Muslim Americans will still be paying interest on the loans they take out. Aside from the fact that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to bring Sharia Law to America slowly, so that we won’t object to it, what about the Americans who will be paying more for their loans because of the Muslims who will not pay interest? This is stupid on many levels. Is beating your wife (legal under Sharia Law) now going to be legal in Seattle?

Thank God We Didn’t Feel That Way About The Nazis

The Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s latest speech about ISIS.The President stated, “Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida is gonna also require us to discredit their ideology, the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks. As I’ve said before, and I know our military leaders agree, this broader challenge of countering violent extremism. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they are defeated by better ideas. A more attractive and more compelling vision.”

“So the United States will continue to do our part by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online. We’ll constantly reaffirm with words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam, we’re fighting terrorists who distort Islam and whose victims are mostly Muslims.”

First of all, when someone is chopping your head off, that may not be the time to debate their theology with them. Second of all, until you take the weapons away from ISIS, they will continue to kill people and chop their heads off. Third, it is in the basic tenets of Islam to kill infidels or those who do not believe in Islam.

The problem here is that Islam is not being distorted. What we are seeing is in accordance with the Koran. The following is a quote from the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin:

Again, the people killing us claim they do so to wage jihad in the cause of Allah, to impose Islamic law and reestablish the Caliphate.

…The intention of sharia authorities today is to limit the knowledge of non-Muslims to what they are allowed to know about Islam. If we read the books which the enemy declares are the basis of his intentions, we will better understand the nature of the threat. Because the enemy knows he lacks the kinetic ability to defeat us in battle, it is of utmost importance that he prevent us from properly defining him. The primary objective of the enemy in the War on Terror is to keep us from understanding his threat doctrine by keeping us from looking at the fact of Islamic law–“the one organizing principle”–that he, in fact, states is the driver of his threat doctrine. Once we understand his threat doctrine, the game is up. This is true even if he is wrong in his interpretation of Islam and shariah.

This is a battle for western civilization. We need to fight it. I don’t want to send troops to the Middle East, but I am willing to seriously bomb all areas ISIS controls. I am sorry for civilian casualties, but ISIS is killing the non-Muslim civilians. This is a time to use excessive force, not to discuss theology. If Muslims who do not want to establish the Caliphate want to stand with us, that is fine. Otherwise, they need to understand that we will not let them establish the Caliphate or continue to kill innocent people.

Not All Religious Traditions Are The Same

Last Sunday, Fox News reported on the arrest of youth counselor Ahmad Saleem, one of twenty-two people arrested in an undercover child sex sting.  Ahmad Saleem is a Muslim youth coordinator and former CAIR community organizer. He is accused by police of traveling to the home of a minor he met online to have sex.

Unfortunately, Muslim men having sex with underage girls has been a problem in Britain. It looks as if the problem may have arrived here. In November I posted an article about Birmingham, England, where political correctness and fear of being called racist prevented the exploitation of teenage girls there since the 1990’s.

The article reported:

Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported last week that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.

…“The sad part of this story,” Jesson concluded, “is not the suppression of evidence but that the relevant organisations have failed to address this problem.”

Indeed so – and that is because of its racial and religious aspects. British authorities persist in seeing this as a racial issue, when in fact these cabbies only preyed upon these girls because they were non-Muslims, and thus eligible to become “captives of the right hand” (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50) and used as sex slaves.

CAIR and similar organizations will try to put the best face on the arrest of Ahmad Saleem as they can, but remember, according to Sharia Law, he did nothing wrong. Remember also, that the U.N. Human Rights law supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is compliant with Sharia Law (see previous article on this blog). This is what America is opening itself up to when it embraces the idea of Sharia Law. Human Rights under Sharia Law are not the same as Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear Muslim organizations and American politicians saying that Sharia Law will peacefully co-exist with the U.S. Constitution–it will not.

Islam Has A Problem With Free Speech

I am currently reading the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In the book, the Mr. Coughlin explains the Islamic view of free speech and human rights. One of the things he makes clear in the book is that in Islam, human rights and free speech must be subject to Sharia Law. Simply stated, this means that apostasy or slander can be punishable by death. Under Sharia Law, slander is defined as anything that makes the person hearing it unhappy–truth is not relevant in the definition. A recent story posted at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog illustrates this. The headline of the story is, “UC Berkeley Student’s Article Pulled Over Fears For Her Safety.”

This is the article:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

The publishing of this article put the author’s life in danger.

The American First Amendment is at risk. According to the book Catastrophic Failure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that America would not “criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” (Page 309) Secretary Clinton supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education,, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Since the Muslim community seems to be the community that reacts to free speech with violence, we can see what this resolution is actually about. It is a quiet imposition of Sharia Law on non-Muslim countries. If my speech causes violence, I do not have the right to free speech. If my speech does not cause violence, it is acceptable. Logically it follows that since Christians and Jews do not kill people in response to negative statements, criticizing them must be acceptable as free speech. Since Muslims often respond to negative statements with violence, criticizing them is no longer legal.

This is the enemy we need to be aware of in America–the enemy that attacks our Constitution and freedom. It is a subtle attack that needs to be countered with truth and education. Unfortunately, our government and our mainstream media are not familiar with either of those concepts.

 

When You Decide To Move To Another Country, You Need To Respect That Country Or Leave

We live in a world where people can often vote with their feet. They can decide if they want to remain in their country of origin or immigrate to another country. Hopefully they do whatever they do legally, but generally that can be an option. When a person decides to immigrate to another country, they would do well to learn the customs of that country and respect them. Otherwise, why would they remain there? Unfortunately, there are some people who have come to America with the idea of changing America to resemble the country they just left. In that case, please go home. It will be easier for everyone in the long run.

TopRightNews posted an article today that illustrates a problem with some of the people who have chosen to come to America.

The article reports:

The Muslim Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has decided that Memorial Day should not honor those American soldiers who have died, instead, it should honor those Muslim terrorists who were killed by American soldiers.

You read that right. As nearly all Americans come together on Memorial Day to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the country’s freedom and safety, two CAIR officials spent the holiday weekend differently: questioning whether U.S. troops deserve to be honored and tweeting that the country was “established upon white supremacy.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and “un-indicted co-conspirator” in a terrorism-financing trial, disingenuously claims that it is a moderate organization.

Yet, on May 23, Zahra Billoo, the radical executive-director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter, tweeted that she “struggles with Memorial Day each year” about whether to honor American soldiers who died in wars.

If you do not like the way things are done in America, please feel free to go someplace that is more to your liking.