Articles

Monday, November 27, 2017

How Obama Brought Back Muslim Enslavement of Black People

America’s first black president didn’t bring “Hope” to America, but he did bring slave auctions to Africa. After Obama “liberated” Libya for the Islamist rebels, Arab Muslims sell black slaves for a few hundred dollars at slave auctions.

While leftists tear down the statues of slave owners from centuries ago, it was the left that brought back the sale of black men as property.

Slavery was always one of Barack Obama’s favorite subjects.

It was a favorite subject because it provided him with countless opportunities for tearing down America.

When called upon to disavow the racist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rants of his mentor, he instead denounced the Constitution as “stained by this nation's original sin of slavery.” At the funeral of the Dallas police officers murdered by a member of the racist hate group he supported, he once again invoked this original sin even while he was justifying Black Lives Matter’s bigotry and violence.

At Hillary’s DNC convention, Michelle Obama claimed that the White House had been “built by slaves”.

The unifying theme was that America’s racist past made its origins, including their constitutional restraints on his power, illegitimate. A Constitution tainted by slavery should not be able to inhibit the actions of the nation’s first black president. His wife had a special moral authority over the White House because it had been built by slaves. Slavery gave the Obamas a unique moral claim on power.

But Barack Obama and his ancestors had never been slaves. They might have been slave owners and sellers. And America’s first black president unquestionably helped bring Muslim slavery back to Libya.

After Obama invaded Libya to aid the Muslim Brotherhood, black slaves are being sold there once more.

Videos show black people being put up for sale for as little as $400 by Arab Libyan Muslim slave traders. The black men being sold as slaves are described as “big strong boys for farm work.”

After years of lecturing Americans about the “original sin” of slavery, Obama brought it back.

The black men being sold as slaves are Nigerians. Islam forbids Muslims to enslave Muslims. Nigeria has a large non-Muslim population. It is likely another case of Arab Muslims selling Christians into slavery.

Unlike President Bush, Obama paid little attention to Africa. When he did pay attention to Africa, it was largely to reward Muslim violence against African Christians in Nigeria, Kenya or Côte d'Ivoire.

And, most prominently, Libya.

Obama’s Arab Spring encouraged Islamist movements in their bids for power whether they used ballots or bullets. The resulting devastation in the Middle East, with its death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and the rise of ISIS, has captured the world’s attention. But the Islamist wave spread chaos and terror through Africa. Egypt and Tunisia fell into the hands of Islamist killers who brutalized their own people even as the media cheered these “democratic revolutions”. Boko Haram allied with ISIS in Nigeria.

And Obama illegally bombed Libya to aid the Muslim Brotherhood and allied Islamist groups in their bid for power. The regime change operation in Libya had been urged on by Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State had been encouraged by her associates to use it as a platform for a presidential run. But the Islamist takeover in Libya made for a bad photo op. Our attempts to address the flow of Qatari weapons into the hands of terrorists (after Obama gave a pass to their weapons smuggling scheme during the civil war) led to the Benghazi massacre. And the blackest stain on Hillary’s record.

But it didn’t stop with Benghazi.

Libya tumbled into a second civil war between Islamists and the Libyan government. Despite the media blackout, the violence touched off by Obama’s regime change has never really stopped. ISIS has a significant presence in Libya. And until recently had a death grip on parts of Benghazi.

And that isn’t the worst of it.

The Islamist Arab rebels had quickly begun targeting Africans during the civil war in a racist purge. Photos and videos showed beheadings, beatings and mutilations. The false claims of genocide in Benghazi that Obama had used to justify his invasion became real when his invasion led to the actual ethnic cleansing of Africans in Libya.

The first black president, who had allied with hate groups such as Black Lives Matter that accused America of genocide, had made possible an actual genocide of black people by his Arab Muslim allies.

The rebels he had armed and backed would identify themselves as, “The Brigade for Purging Slaves, Black Skin”.

And then it got even worse.

The Tuaregs, a Berber Islamist people whose leaders claim to trace their “pure” ancestry back to Mohammed, invaded and captured a large section of Mali. Accompanying them were Al Qaeda Jihadists. The Tuaregs keep slaves and have been at war with the “blacks”. Their hostilities were motivated in large part by the conviction that “blacks” were slaves while they were the descendants of Mohammed.

Obama ignored another racist Islamist war caused by his pro-Islamist intervention. Instead it was the French that stepped up. The recent deaths of four American soldiers in Niger however can be traced back to the disaster in Mali.

Sgt. La David Johnson, the African-American soldier whose condolence call by President Trump touched off a storm of leftist outrage, was murdered after being captured and tied up. The Jihadists who murdered Johnson are believed to be from the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, an ISIS affiliate empowered by the Mali invasion, whose perpetrators are from a group deeming themselves “white”.

While President Trump has been accused of racism by Rep. Frederica Wilson over the death of the African-American soldier, it was Obama who had empowered the racist Islamists that murdered him.

Meanwhile back in Libya, the slave trade has made a comeback. Videos show public slave auctions in Libya where light skinned Arab Libyans sell black Nigerians for a few hundred dollars.

The slave auction, that terrible institution, wasn’t brought back by the right. It was the left.

Slavery isn’t new to the Islamic world. And where Islam rules, slavery returns. The leftist-Islamist alliance doesn’t just mean the burning of churches and the bombing of synagogues, or that Jewish students are hounded out of college campuses while European streets flow with blood.

Muslims immigrants have brought slaves to America. When Islamists took over Egypt, one of their political projects was undoing the ban on slavery. "It's not possible to say that slavery is inherently absolutely categorically immoral in all times and places since it was allowed by the Quran and the Prophet," Professor Jonathan Brown, an Islamic Civilization professor, at Georgetown, insisted.

Brown is an Islamic convert. The Washington Post, and the rest of the left, came to his defense.

The left spends a great deal of time lecturing Americans on the evils of slavery. But it is they and their allies, from Cuba to Libya, who practice slavery today.

The slave auction is ancient history in America. But Obama’s Islamist alliance brought it back to Africa.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

The Luxury Hotel from Leftist Hell

The world’s first leftist anti-Trump hotel is here. You won’t be surprised to learn that it’s opening in Washington D.C. (with additional locations in Seattle, Hong Kong and San Francisco.)

And you’ll be even less surprised to hear that it’s a luxury hotel with organic mattresses and crystal healing. Instead of a Bible, there’ll be a United Nations pamphlet. The minibar will have an activist toolkit. Staffers will be hired for their commitment to leftist social justice. (That’s technically discrimination, but it’s not as if leftists live by the laws that they impose on the rest of us.)

The Eaton Workshop is for a "global tribe of innovators, progressive thinkers and creatives", "thought leaders", "provocative minds" and "kindred spirits". There will be "dialogue and debate", but no one to debate with because the hotel is only for leftists "who are thinking outside the box".

But not so far outside the box that they might question leftist dogma or use Airbnb.

The People's Republic of Eatonistan will cater to "a diversity of fields and backgrounds as well as gender and ethnicity" as long as they can afford to stay at a luxury hotel. So it’ll mostly be wealthy white leftists.

Eaton Workshop claims to be inspired by Warhol’s Factory and Burning Man. So don’t expect much from room service.

Why build a luxury hotel that’s a living embodiment of the Saturday Night Live skit about lefties escaping into a bubble after Trump’s victory? Because that is what a spiteful and elitist left really wants. Behind the flattery about innovators, thinkers and provocative minds are a bunch of wealthy leftists who hate the rest of us. They’re the media, the entertainment industry and a big chunk of the government.

That’s why Eaton House is opening in Washington D.C.

When leftist protesters flooded the city for the inauguration, they hated having to fly and stay with Trump supporters. Now there will be a self-segregated hotel so that they won’t have to.

Members of the government resistance will have cocktails in between talks by Ta-Nehisi Coates and Frank Rich. You’ll bump into Keith Olbermann screaming at the concierge and Leonardo Dicaprio at crystal healing before testifying on Capitol Hill on how only science-haters question Global Warming.

"It's like a non-profit, but better," Katherine Lo, its founder, explained. It’s better because it will make the Lo family lots of money from the smug and stupid leftists paying premium prices for identity politics.

Katherine Lo is a child of the Lo family whose net worth is in the billions. Great Eagle, their family business, controls hotels all over the world, including the Langham and Eaton hotel chains.

Like most leftists, Lo inherited her money. She has a BA in Sociocultural Anthropology.

Behind the slick leftist claptrap is Great Eagle Holdings which is rolling out the Eaton House hotels under the guise of “responsible capitalism”. Lo is just the public face of an effort by, Ka Shui Lo, her dad, to reinvent his mediocre hotel brand by making it more socially conscious.

Great Eagle is based out of Hong Kong. And Hong Kong is under the thumb of the People’s Republic of China. So you can bet that Eaton House in Hong Kong won’t be catering to anti-government radicals.

Ka Shui Lo’s real estate really took off after the Tiananmen Square massacre when its impact on real estate got him the future site of Citibank Tower at a bargain price. His younger brother, Vincent Lo, also benefited from the Communist massacre of pro-democracy protesters, when he built a hotel with the Communist Youth League and when it grew troubled after Tiananmen Square, helped with their loan.

“I helped out,” Lo is quoted as saying. “They've never forgotten. Relationships are long term here.”

Vincent Lo had his own ugly history with President Trump. And he sits on Great Eagle’s board.

The Lo family is entangled with a number of Chinese state-owned enterprises. Great Eagle has partnered in the U.S. Real Estate Fund with China Orient Asset Management: a "bad bank" for the state-owned Bank of China. The Bank of China is among the principal bankers of Great Eagle.

And so the leftist anti-Trump luxury hotel is actually part of a journey from the Tiananmen Square. The Anti-Trump #Resistance will be brought to you by the leftist massacre of democracy protesters.

You can check out any time you like from leftist tyranny, but you can never leave.

All the calls for “political liberation” by “provocative voices” end with tanks and corpses. The Lo family bet on the Communist Party remaining in power. And the bet paid off. Now they’re betting on leftist power in America. And if it has to be done with tanks and bullets, so that the “thought leaders” can remain victorious, as the New York Times wrote of the Soviet massacres, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.” And you can’t make a luxury hotel for leftists without an activist toolkit.

More recently, the New York Times reported that Obama had lamented that it would be much easier to be running China. Before the left suddenly decided that colluding with America’s enemies was a bad idea, Obama had put forward Chas Freeman, who had sat on the board of a Chinese state-owned oil company, and had argued that the Tiananmen Square protests should have been nipped in the bud.

You can't make Egg Foo Yung without breaking a few eggs either.

The Eaton Workshop "imagines a more utopian future" for an "inclusive tribe of changemakers."

Behind the art exhibits, the crystal healing, the gurus, the organic mattresses, the talks and podcasts, the Eaton Workshop reveals the ugly truth about the left. It’s the movement of a pampered and privileged elite that doesn’t want to share a hotel, let alone a country, with the rest of the country.

The same leftist activists who would boycott an Israeli hotel will have no objections to its parent company’s links to a brutal Communist dictatorship that has murdered millions. While they are eager to denounce America as a genocidal and racist tyranny, Tiananmen Square means nothing to them.

Leftist elites have built their own culture, even apart from the garbage culture that their media outlets and entertainment industry force down our throats, of narcissistic self-regard, identity politics victimhood, faux spirituality, pseudo academic jargon and conspicuously political consumption.

The Eaton Workshop wants to cash in on all this. And it will.

A leftist luxury hotel embodies all the sordid hypocrisies and cognitive dissonance of the left: its entitlement and victimhood, its indulgence and oppression, its self-righteousness and degeneracy.

It is what the left really wants.

Leftists want a totalitarian state for us and a luxury hotel for themselves. They want to ban cigarettes, large sodas, fast food and plastic bags for the peasants even as they lounge about smoking pot, gorging on the priciest foods and ordering organic online. (Shopping for groceries in stores is for the proletariat.) They want vigorous debates in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. They want open borders for the country while they use price barriers to keep the rabble away from their own playgrounds.

And they want to cloak all these hypocrisies in a meaningless jargon full of empty flattery for their brilliance as “thought leaders”, “changemakers”, “innovators”, “creatives” and “provocative thinkers”, which dresses up their privileged politics in the revolutionary uniforms of “personal liberation” and the fake robes of spirituality of “journeys of self-realization”.

But if you pull back the silken curtain from the narcissistic vanity of a leftist elite in love with its own voices, you can smell the smoke, hear the screams and see the tanks waiting outside.

The Eaton Workshop will be there for the Antifa trust fund kids arriving to smash in the skull of an African-American police officer, for the #Resistance NSC employee leaking national security secrets to a Washington Post reporter and the Democracy Alliance billionaire plotting a coup against the country.

Leftist culture is the lie an extremist movement tells itself about where it will go next. The Eaton Workshop is the hotel where the left can stay and lie to itself as it gets off the democracy train.

And the tanks and red flags are waiting outside.

Maybe the next Eaton Workshop can be on Tiananmen Square.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Why the Democrats Really Turned on Bill Clinton

In the winter of ’56, Khrushchev told the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that Stalin may not have been a very nice guy. In the fall of ’17, the media began to concede that maybe Bill Clinton did abuse a whole bunch of women. And maybe those women weren’t really part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to make a bloated piggish progressive hero seem like he might not be a very nice guy.

Why are Democrats turning on the Clintons? Same reason Khrushchev turned on Stalin. They’re purging the Clintons for the same reasons that they defended them. They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reasons that they covered them up. It’s about power and money.

The Democrats smeared Bill Clinton’s accusers then. Now they’ll exploit them to throw the Clintons out.

The #MeToo campaign provided an opening. But if you really want to understand why the left is disavowing Bill Clinton, ignore the hashtags and look at the bigger picture.

Earlier this month, the rollout of Donna Brazile’s book raked Hillary Clinton and her campaign over the coals. The former interim DNC boss made the case that the Clinton campaign had rigged the primaries.

Brazile’s outrage at the rigging is laughable. Not only was she caught passing a debate question to Hillary, but the only reason she was allowed to replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz is that she was a Clintonista who had served as a Clinton adviser and was promoted to head Gore’s campaign.

After Hillary’s collapse, Brazile was left out in the cold. Like Schultz, she was one of Hillary’s fall girls. And unlike Schultz, she didn’t have a cozy congressional district to call her own. Her CNN contract was torn up after the debate question leak. (Though if you think CNN was actually surprised that a Clinton ally leaked it to the Clintons, you’re also shocked that there’s gambling going on at Rick's Cafe Americain. CNN had disavow Donna who then had to disavow Hillary. Now the Dems are disavowing the Clintons.)

Brazile’s book tour was Act 1 in purging the Clintons from the Dem establishment. Talking about Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and abuses is Act 2. And the odds are very good that there’s an Act 3.

Why get rid of the Clintons? Let’s look at what the First Grifters have been doing to the Dems.

In May, Hillary rolled out Onward Together. The new SuperPAC was supposed to fundraise for lefty groups. But the groups don’t actually appear to be getting the cash.

Understandable. The flat broke Clintons always have lots of bills to pay and private jets to book. And good chardonnay doesn’t come cheap. A 1787 vintage Chateau d'Yquem runs to $100K a bottle.

Fresh from that success, a paid advisor to Hillary co-launched something being called Party Majority. This wonderful new organization would “act as a parallel structure to Democratic Party committees at the national and state levels”, vacuuming up a whole lot of cash while putting its boot on the DNC.

The Clintons were once again trying to displace the DNC. And that would let them skim a lot of cash from the DNC to fund their political operation and lifestyle. And, even once again, rig the process.

Who’s up for Hillary in 2020?

Party Majority rolled out in early November. Since then the Clintons are suddenly being hit from all sides by their own.

Funny how that works.

If President Hillary Clinton were in the White House, the First Gentleman could work his way through an entire nunnery and every media outlet in the country would praise him as our greatest feminist.

If the Clintons had done the decent thing (for the first time in their miserable grifter lives) and stepped away from politics, Bill could have been a bitter, bigoted and befuddled Democrat elder statesman.

Just like Jimmy Carter.

But the Clintons just wouldn’t stop. And so the circular firing squad has finally been convened. Its members are hypocritically pretending that they’re purging Bill because they suddenly care about the women he had sexually assaulted over the years.

It only took the Dems an entire generation to figure out that rape is wrong.

Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings are terrible. Every time she goes on television, more people are likely to vote Republican. Her entire existence is a reminder of why the Democrats lost so badly in ’16.

Not only won’t Hillary Clinton retire to bake cookies and send anonymous threatening letters to her neighbors because their kids occasionally throw a ball over her mansion’s iron gates, but she insists on sabotaging the 2020 candidates who are her party’s best hope to succeed where she miserably failed.

Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened, took numerous shots at Bernie Sanders. And her entire book tour appeared designed to sabotage his book tour. Then she began attacking Joe Biden.

Both Bernie and Joe, unlike her, are viable 2020 candidates. (Which says nothing good about the Dems.)

The media doesn’t suddenly “believe Juanita”. Or rather it always knew that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and the other women were telling the truth. It didn’t silence them because it thought they were lying. It silenced them because they were telling the truth about its guy.

Now Bill Clinton isn’t the media’s guy anymore. He’s a problem.

And what the media does “believe” is that the Clintons will continue to be a liability that might cost them victories in 2018 and 2020. The DNC badly needs money. The Clintons are once again posing a threat to the DNC’s financial viability. And the Dems have become less willing to lose House and Senate seats to sate the insatiable greed of the grifters from Hope.

Then there’s 2020. The Dems don’t want to risk their nominee facing passive aggressive attacks by Hillary Clinton. Nor do they even want to see Hillary Clinton on the air for the entire election.

The Clintons could have had a nice retirement. Seats on boards and foundations. Occasional smaller scale speaking gigs. Bill would have been a featured speaker at the next DNC convention.

And maybe even Hillary in a lesser role.

But they wouldn’t go quietly. And now the left is making it a mandatory retirement.

Act 1 blames Hillary for rigging the primaries. Act 2 calls out Bill’s abuse of women. Acts 3, 4 and 5 will delve into some other Clinton scandals that Democrats have been denying for over a generation. If the Clintons don’t get the message, the final act will plant a big red boot in their behinds.

And this won’t even be the first time that the Dems tried to get rid of the Clintons.

After Bill’s time was up, the Dems and the media tried to head off a Hillary political career at the pass. Let’s flip through the pages of the New York Times in 2001 that describes Hillary's “calamitous Senate debut” and cautions that “talk about her presidential prospects has ground to a halt.”

“The man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening,” a Times column reads. “The Clintons may or may not be led away in handcuffs someday.”

In AmSoc, history is constantly being rewritten. A few years later, no criticism of the Clintons could be allowed. And everyone forgot that Carter’s chief-of-staff had called them, “The First Grifters.”

Or at least they pretended to forget.

It’s not the first time that the Dems have tried to get rid of the Clintons. But it might be the last.

Like Stalin’s Communist successors, Democrats should not be allowed to pretend that they knew nothing or that their purge of the Clintons is motivated by a sudden attack of integrity.

They’re purging the Clintons for the same reason that they covered up for them.

They’re calling out Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults for the same reason that they covered them up.

They did it out of political self-interest then. And they’re doing it out of political self-interest now. There’s nothing clean or honest about what they’re doing. There’s no moral reckoning here. Only a political reckoning. It’s not about the women Bill abused. It’s about DNC cash and the 2020 election.

That’s the dirty, ugly truth. And it’s as dirty and ugly as the Clintons and the Democrats.

(This article previously appeared at Front Page Magazine.)

Monday, November 13, 2017

The Race to Censor Internet News

How can you tell that internet censorship is really taking off? Easy. It’s becoming a business model.

Steven Brill is raising $6 million to launch News Guard. This new service will rate news sites on their trustworthiness from green to red. Forget politically unbiased algorithms. The ratings will be conducted by "qualified, accountable human beings" from teams of “40 to 60 journalists.” Once upon a time, journalism meant original writing. Now it means deciding which original writing to censor.

"Can trust be monetized?" The Street’s article on News Guard asks. But it isn’t really trust that’s being monetized. It’s censorship. It’s doing the dirty work that Google and Facebook don’t want to do.

The Dems and their media allies have been pressuring Google and Facebook to do something about the “fake news” that they blame for Trump’s win. The big sites outsourced the censorship to media fact checkers. The message was, “Don’t blame us, now you’re in charge.”

Facebook made a deal with ABC News and the AP, along with Politifact, FactCheck and Snopes, to outsource the censoring for $100K. When two of these left-wing groups declare that an article is fake, Facebook marks it up and viewership drops by 80%.

Facebook is reportedly considering adding the Weekly Standard to its panel of fact checkers. Even if that were to happen, it would be the difference between putting the New York Times without David Brooks or the Times with David Brooks in charge of deciding what you can read on Facebook. Adding a token conservative who is acceptable to the left doesn’t change the inherent bias of the system.

Not only does the roster of fact checkers lean to the left, but so do its notions of what’s true and false. For example, Snopes and Politifact both insist that General Pershing’s forces never buried the bodies of Muslim terrorists with pigs. But General Pershing specifically stated in his autobiography, "These Juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice that the Mohamedans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig.”

Both the New York Times and the Scientific American reported on it at the time. Despite that Snopes rated this widely accepted historical fact as “False” and Politifact marked it as “Pants on Fire”.

Snopes also recently marked a story that Christ Church in Virginia is removing a George Washington plaque as false even though the church publicly announced that it was doing so.

Politifact and Snopes are entitled to their incorrect opinions. The trouble is that they don’t extend the same privilege to those they disagree with. And Google and Facebook promote fake fact checks while burying sites that discuss actual historical facts. The big internet companies don’t want to get involved in all these arguments. But nor are they willing to let their users decide for themselves anymore.

And so Net Nanny for news has become an actual business model. Instead of protecting children from pornography, News Nanny protects adults from news. And from views outside the left’s bubble.

By adopting the News Nanny model, Google and Facebook are treating their users like children.

The News Guard model is in some ways even more insidious than biased fact checking because it sets up lists of approved and disapproved sites. Google is rolling out something similar with its “knowledge panels” for publishers. Search for the New York Times and the panels will tell you how many Pulitzers the paper has won. Search for Front Page Magazine and the panel note describes it as, “Political alignment: Right-wing politics”. No note listing a left-wing political alignment appears in the panel for the New York Times despite its recent laudatory series about the Soviet Union and Communism.

The media never has an official political orientation. Not even when it’s cheering Communism. But its opponents and critics always have one. Follow Google’s link for Front Page’s political alignment and the top entry states, “Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable”.

That’s a wholly inaccurate description of either Front Page Magazine or conservative politics in America. And it’s another example of how the fight against “fake news” by the left actually ends up producing it.

And it isn’t meant to stop there.

The Google Blog casually mentions that the panels will also list, “claims the publisher has made that have been reviewed by third parties”. You get one guess as to who those “third parties” will be.

Fact checking has become a pipeline to censorship. The big social and search companies outsource fact checking to third parties and then demonetize, marginalize and outright ban views and publishers that those third parties disagree with. Fact checks are no longer an argument. They’re the prelude to a ban.

Google and Facebook respectively dominate search and social media. When they appoint official censors for their services, those left-wing fact checkers become the gatekeepers of the internet.

And the internet isn’t supposed to have gatekeepers.

Senator Al Franken, of all people, made that point at the Open Markets Institute. OMI’s people have emerged as the leading opponents of big tech monopolies on the left.

“No one company should have the power to pick and choose which content reaches consumers and which doesn’t,” Franken said. “And Facebook, Google and Amazon, like ISPs, should be neutral in their treatment of the flow of lawful information and commerce on their platform.”

There is no more obvious example of the lack of neutrality than Facebook and Google’s partnership with “fact checkers”. If Net Neutrality means anything, it should strike down Google’s partnership with Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network and Facebook’s use of Snopes to silence conservatives.

When sites picked and chose content based on algorithms, they were deciding which content reached users based on what was likely to be popular. And, occasionally, based on their own agendas. Now they are picking and choosing which content reaches users based on political orientation. While the advocates for Net Neutrality rage against cable companies, Comcast and Charter aren’t engaging in political censorship. No matter how they disguise it, Google and Facebook’s news nannies are.

News Guard is an ominous warning that online censorship is becoming a viable business model as the big tech companies look around for someone else to do their dirty work for them. But subcontracted censorship is still censorship. And the only people impressed by the credentials of the “fact checkers” are those who share their politics. Unfortunately that covers the leadership of Google and Facebook.

Discussions about fake news often begin and end with “trust”. Major media outlets with Pulitzers are trustworthy. Major fact checking operations are also trustworthy. Even Snopes is somehow trustworthy despite its utter lack of professionalism, and its founders accusing each other of embezzlement,

But “trust” has more than one meaning. We trust those people and organizations we like. And sometimes those organizations form a trust. And anyone who isn’t in, is untrustworthy.

Trust in the mainstream media has never been lower. Yet the big tech companies insist that mainstream media sources are the only trustworthy ones. They want us to trust them, because they don’t trust us.

The internet was a revolutionary environment that liberated individuals to make their own choices. Bloggers could compete with big media. Leaked emails could bring down a government. But the internet is becoming less free. Access is controlled by a handful of tech companies that keep getting bigger and bigger. The survivors of the scale wars will combine cable, content and commerce in new ways. And in a politicized culture, they won’t just signal their political views, they will enforce them.

If we don’t fight now, ten years from now conservatives will be the rats in the walls of the internet.

Thursday, November 09, 2017

Allahu Akbar is Why Muslims Kill

Allahu Akbar. You hear it everywhere these days.

Special agent Scott Wickland said that he heard cries of "Allahu Akbar" before the Benghazi attack. And then the guards ran for their guns.

In Nice, France, the Islamic terrorist who killed 86 people and wounded over 400 by running them over with a truck, shouted, “Allahu Akbar”. In New York, the Islamic terrorist who was trying to imitate him, also shouted, “Allahu Akbar.” The 9/11 hijackers had the same message, “Allahu Akbar”.

“Allahu Akbar” has been present at virtually every major recent Islamic terror attack in the West.

But according to the New York Times, “Allahu Akbar” is an “innocent” and “innocuous” expression. According to one of the Times’ sources, “You see a reallу beautiful woman” and “уou go, ‘Allahu Akbar.’”

If all those shouts of “Allahu Akbar” in Paris, London and New York are caused by Muslim terrorists encountering attractive women, their reaction of choice to an attractive woman is a killing spree.

“Allahu Akbar” is not “innocent” or “innocuous.” It’s at the core of what makes Islam violent.

To understand the violent history of “Allahu Akbar”, let’s climb into a time machine and go back to the year 628 and to a place that will one day be known as Saudi Arabia. It’s hot out here in the desert. Temperatures from the spring to the fall routinely cross the hundred degree mark and keep going.

We’re in Khaybar. It’s a desert oasis maintained by the Jews. If being in 109 degree heat has got you down, you stop by the oasis, and have a cool drink of water and some dates. Then you keep going. Out here trade runs through the desert and the oasis is a gas station. If you want to choke off major trade routes, you go after an oasis. And that’s what a cult leader whose followers today terrorize the world by attacking its travel routes, airline hijackings, pirates preying on ships, train and bus bombs, was doing.

Muslims call what happened next, the “Battle of Khaybar”. Like most Muslim battles, it was a treacherous ambush and a massacre. And it helps explain why there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia today. Nor do Muslims regret this act of ethnic cleansing. Instead they celebrate it. Muslims still threaten Jews by chanting, “Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud.” "Remember Khaybar, Jews, Mohammed’s Army Will Return."

And “Allahu Akbar?”

That’s what Mohammed shouted as he realized that his surprise attack had been successful. "Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed.” He boasted that any nation attacked by Muslims would suffer a similar fate. And then he “had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives”. Mohammed also picked up his own sex slave. “Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet.” Safiya’s husband had been murdered. Like their ISIS successors, the Prophet of Islam’s band of killers and rapists took the women as slaves.

That’s where “Allahu Akbar” originated. And that’s why Muslims still shout it at terrorist attacks.

Allahu Akbar does not mean “God is Great.” It means “Allah is Greater”. What was Allah greater than at Khaybar? Allah was greater than the religion of the Jews because Mohammed was able to defeat them.

In Islam, a religious war is also a religious test. Muslim victories demonstrate the supremacy of Allah.

Despite the incessant claims that Muslims, Jews and Christians all worship the same god, the Koran tells Muslims something very different. “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. These are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” (Koran 9:30)

The preceding verse commands Muslims to "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" and “who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture until they pay jizya and submit."

Those who “were given the Scripture” are Christians and Jews.

Jews and Christians had “taken Rabbis and monks to be their lords besides Allah”. The Christians had taken “Messiah, the son of Mary” when they had been commanded to “worship only one Allah.” (Koran 9:31)

Jews and Christians were “Kuffir” and “Mushrikeen”. They had taken “partners” in addition to Allah. Christians and Jews seek to “extinguish the light of Allah” (Koran 9:32). Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam supreme over all other religions. (Koran 9:33). Jews and Christians obstruct the “Way of Allah” (Koran 9:34) Muslims are encouraged to make Jihad against non-Muslims (Koran 9:38). Those who refuse to carry out Jihad will be punished by Allah (Koran 9:39).

When Muslims defeat Christians or Jews, they prove that Allah is superior to Jewish and Christian beliefs. And that the teachings of Islam are superior to the teachings of their religious enemies.

“Allahu Akbar” originated with Mohammed’s attack on the Jews of Khaybar. When Muslim terrorists shout it today, they are declaring that they are about to prove Allah’s superiority by killing non-Muslims.

“Allahu Akbar” isn’t merely associated with terrorist attacks. It’s the reason for those attacks.

Muslims kill non-Muslims to prove that, “Allahu Akbar”: that Allah is greater the religions of their victims.

“Allahu Akbar” is the motive for Islamic terrorism.

A typical excuse is that Muslims will use “Allahu Akbar” to celebrate a good event. What this excuse misses though is that Islam is a supremacist religion. And Muslims believe that the good event that they are celebrating is due to being the only ones who truly worship “Allah”. That’s a common religious belief. And they are entitled to it. But the problem is that this relationship rests heavily on Jihad.

The Islamic mission is to make Islam supreme over all other religions (Koran 9:33). If Muslims aren’t striving to defeat other religions, then “Allahu Akbar” rings hollow. Islam does not primarily offer an internal religious experience that transforms the believer, but an external collective experience that transforms the world. Jihad, the acts of terror we see on the news, are that religious experience.

“Allahu Akbar” is the supremacist core of Islam. Mohammed offered a religious experience that merged desert banditry and conquest, whose sacraments were the murder of the enemies of Islam and the rapes of their wives and daughters. The horrifying Islamic rituals of ethnic cleansing, rape and torture demonstrated that, “Allahu Akbar”. That Allah was greater than the dead men and raped women.

The Yazidi girls who were sold as sex slaves to ISIS fighters, as the Prophet Mohammed had done, describe their Islamic captors intimidating them by shouting, “Allahu Akbar”, and recall the Islamic rapist of a 12-year-old girl saying that it brought him “closer to Allah”, of a 15-year-old girl calling it a “prayer to Allah” and of the rapist of another 12-year-old girl describing her abuse as “pleasing to Allah.”

The official ISIS publication praised Allah for enabling its Jihadists to capture non-Muslim women.

“I write this while the letters drip of pride. Yes, O religions of kufr (non-Muslims) altogether, we have indeed raided and captured the kāfirah women, and drove them like sheep by the edge of the sword. I and those with me at home prostrated to Allah in gratitude on the day the first slave-girl entered our home.”

How can raping children be a prayer to Allah? Because, “Allahu Akbar”. Being able to rape non-Muslim girls is a matter of “pride”. It shows that Allah, the god Muslims worship, is superior to their religion.

When ISIS Jihadists rape children or when an ISIS Muslim sympathizer runs over people in New York, Berlin or Nice, it’s a prayer of praise to Allah. And the prayer is, “Allahu Akbar.”

The more non-Muslims are killed, abused and enslaved, the more the truth of Islam and the supremacy of Allah are proven with the screams of the wounded, the dying and the families of the dead.

This is Islam. This is what it was in 628. That’s what it is today.

“Allahu Akbar” is a mandate to kill non-Muslims. A Muslim terrorist taking a gun, a knife or a truck and attacking non-Muslims is living out, “Allahu Akbar”. He’s showing that Islam is superior.

“Allahu Akbar” isn’t something he happens to say while killing you. It’s why he’s killing you.

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

A Jihad Grows in Florida

“The racist president who is a supremacist — white, who does not like Blacks, does not like the Chinese, he does not like the Muslims, he doesn’t like the Hispanics," Vicente Adolfo Solano declared in Spanish, standing in front an ISIS flag. "In the name of Allah and our leader, Abu, we are going to defeat you.”

Solano, a 53-year-old Honduran living in Miami, seemed like an unlikely candidate to join ISIS.

But there he is on video lashing out at President Trump. Solano was resentful over his “temporary immigration status”. Hondurans living in the United States had been automatically converted to “refugees” after Hurricane Mitch in 1999. Temporary Protected Status for the eighteen year hurricane refugees expires in Jan 2018. And President Trump appears unwilling to extend it any further.

Even if Solano was here under TPS, he should still have been deported due to his criminal record. But instead he remained here, and was so furious at the country that had taken him in that he joined ISIS.

Solano was caught with an inert pressure cooker bomb at the Dolphin Mall. His goal was to set off the bomb in the crowded food court to kill as many Americans as he could. Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving and the start of the Christmas shopping season, was to be a day of unforgettable horror.

"I am going to plant a bomb like in Boston, in the name of Allah," he had declared. "Like in Boston, like Suarez wanted to do in the Keys, that's how they're going to get it, and even worse."

The Boston Marathon bombing is familiar to most Americans. Harlem Suarez is more obscure. But it’s not hard to see why Solano would have identified with the Latino Islamic terror convert.

Suarez had been sentenced to life in prison this year for a plot to detonate a backpack bomb on a Key West beach in Florida. “Kill our enemies and convert to Islam now in USA,” Suarez had urged.

“We will destroy America and divide it in two. We will raise our black flag on top of your White House,” he had boasted in a video.

The judge who sentenced Suarez had dismissed him as a clown. His family and the media had suggested that this was yet another case of the FBI entrapping a “naïve” young Muslim. And that wasn’t hard to do considering the emergence of some of his attempted ISIS recordings which began with, "In the name of Allah, the most — uh, wait, hold on. F___!" But the Solano case shows that he has become an inspiration to Latino converts to Islam. Suarez had desperately wanted to recruit other terrorists.

And he succeeded.

Bombing the Dolphin Mall had originally been Suarez’s idea. He had suggested planting bombs there to an undercover informant. Now one of his fans actually tried to follow through with the idea.

Solano and Suarez aren’t aberrations. Also this year, James Gonzalo Medina pleaded guilty to a bomb plot aimed at the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center. He will likely be sentenced in November. His lawyers and the media tried to blame a ‘brain cyst’ and assorted flavors of mental illness. But it wasn’t mental illness that caused Medina to change his name to James Muhammad.

“I feel that I'm doing it for a good cause for Allah,” he had explained.

In one of his videos, Medina/Muhammad had declared, “I am a Muslim and I don't like what is going on in this world. I'm going to handle business here in America. Aventura, watch your back. ISIS is in the house.”

The Muslim convert had originally plotted a shooting attack against the Jewish Center with an AK-47. He told an undercover agent that he was “comfortable” killing women and children. He had discussed, “going to a synagogue and just spraying everybody... cause we're Muslims.”

He finally settled on a bombing and was arrested on a Friday night with an inert explosive device.

Medina, like Solano, had a criminal record. Like Suarez and Solano, his lawyers will probably try to blame mental illness or some variety of mental incapacity. But there is something else going on here.

All three Islamic terrorists were quite vocal about their motivations and agendas. All three were Latino converts to Islam. And while the media has attempted to minimize the threat they posed, there’s no obvious difference between them and fellow Florida Jihadist Omar Mateen who managed to murder 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando with a plot as violently unlikely as theirs.

After the Pulse massacre, the media shaped the conversation around homophobia and traded discredited fake news conspiracy theories about Mateen’s hypothetical homosexuality. All of this was a convenient way to avoid discussing the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorists down in Florida.

Suarez was a waiter. Medina was a glass installer. Solano was a painter. All three men were near the bottom of the economic ladder. And they had found a way to link Islam to their own resentments.

Solano hated America. His diatribes at President Trump and America embodied his resentment over his temporary immigration status. He blasted Americans as “invaders of this country who came to this country to kill all of the Indians. They abolished them, and now they’re telling us to get out of here. They are the ones who have to leave.” Medina hated Jews. Suarez was as ambitious as he was inept, spending all his money to buy status symbols that he couldn’t afford. And dreaming grandiose dreams.

The Islamic State provided men like these with outlets for their resentment and grandiosity. Solano’s immigration fuming, Medina and Suarez’s failures could all be rolled into the Jihad.

It would be a grave mistake to think of their terror plots as having nothing to do with Islam.

From its first days, Islam was built on harnessing the grandiose fantasies and violent resentments of its leaders and followers from Mohammed on down. Islam was always about settling scores, with more successful merchants, with the Jews, the Christians, other families and tribes, poets and empires.

Resentment, not religion, is the secret fuel of Islam. It has always been a religion whose greatest appeal is to the resentful, the aimlessly violent, the shiftless and the egotistical. Westerners have come to think of religions as theological. Sometimes as cultural or tribal. But Islam is emotional. It tells men like Suarez, Solano and Medina that they are great men on a mission from Allah to change the world.

Suarez fantasized about recruiting other Muslims to a cause.

"I wanna see it go worldwide with now all the Muslims realizing you know, when it's our time,” Medina fantasized. “Next thing you know it will be in California, Washington, and the brothers are saying you know, it's our time now."

“We are going to defeat you,” Solano threatened.

The grandiosity and its accompanying collective identity is the appeal of ISIS. Any Solano, Medina or Suarez, a painter, a waiter or a glass installer, can suddenly become the leader of a phantom army.

The expanding Jihad with its numerous emirs has always understood that. The plotters may look like buffoons to us. But the difference between a buffoon and a monster is success. If the 9/11 hijackers had failed, their plot to destroy the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House using boxcutters would have seemed hilarious. Had Omar Mateen’s plot been broken up early, the media would have dismissed him as a delusional idiot whose terror plots were nothing more than empty fantasies.

Suarez may have been a buffoon. But he has already inspired one terrorist plot. How many more will there be?

Florida has an Islamic Latino terror convert problem. And it needs to be addressed before it’s too late.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

Our Taxpayer Funded Saddam

A tree may grow in Brooklyn, but a Saddam Hussein memorial has grown in Qalqilya.

Qalqilya is one of those ancient, historic “Palestinian” cities. So it dates back all the way to 1893. The population of Qalqilya more than quadrupled under Israeli rule. That’s typical of Zionist genocide which somehow vastly increases the number of Arab Muslims and their shrill accusations of genocide.

In the ancient 19th century Palestinian city of Qalqilya, dating back all the way to the days of President Grover Cleveland and the invention of the jukebox, Hamas is popular. It even elected its own mayor before he was removed from office and the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah was put back in charge. Politics in Qalqilya remains a pitched battle between Hamas and Fatah over who hates the Jews more and has the best plan for destroying them.

There isn't much to do in Qalqilya except visit its zoo. The Qalqilya Zoo is the worst zoo in the world and embodies everything wrong with “Palestine”. Israelis helped set up the zoo as a gesture of peace. It was supposed to be a "jewel in the crown of Palestinian national institutions."

And it just might be.

Recently, a bear ate a 9-year-old boy’s arm at the zoo. The zebras and the giraffes allegedly died as a result of Muslim attacks on Israelis near the zoo. The self-taught taxidermist who runs the zoo has an exhibition of dead animals he has stuffed and mounted, and whose deaths he blames on Israel.

Like everything else about “Palestine”, Israeli goodwill ended in death and anti-Israel propaganda.

But Qalqilyans or Qalqilyites now have something else to do besides get their arms ripped off by a bear or visit one of the city’s 26 mosques. They can stop by the Saddam Hussein Memorial.

One side of the memorial has Saddam Hussein in a beret saluting himself. The other shows an older Saddam waving his rifle in the air. If the city fathers of Qalqilya had been more on the ball, they could have acquired the Ruger M77 bolt-action rifle in question for under $50K after it was taken from the rubble of his presidential palace in Mosul and sold at auction by a senior CIA officer in Baghdad.

The Saddam Hussein Memorial bears such cheerful welcoming messages as "Saddam Hussein – The Master of the Martyrs in Our Age," and "Arab Palestine from the River to the Sea."

Governor Rafi Rawajba compared Saddam, Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas: the current head of the Palestinian Authority. "Saddam was an emblem of heroism, honor, originality and defiance, as was the martyr Yasser Arafat.”

"President Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) makes sure to follow in the footsteps of these two great leaders," he gushed.

Qalqilya Mayor Othman Daoud, also of Fatah, had previously paid tribute to Saddam for sticking to “his principles and the Palestinian cause until his death as a Martyr.”

The governor of Qalqiliya was appointed by Abbas. While the Palestinian Authority president doesn’t have Saddam’s arsenal or snazzy berets, he has the same affinity for democracy as Saddam.

President Abbas was elected to a four-year term in 2005. It’s been the longest four years ever.

Governor Rafi Rawajba was appointed by Abbas, not elected. He’s a member of Fatah, which is the political movement that dominates the PLO, and the PLO runs the Palestinian Authority. Also present was an official from the Arab Liberation Front which is also part of the PLO. The ALF was a project of Saddam Hussein and he used it to hand out cash to the families of Islamic terrorists in Israel.

Before the latest Iraq War, the ALF promised to hand out a million dollars to terrorist families. The Bush administration used that as evidence that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists and had to be removed.

There’s just one problem.

The ALF claimed that Saddam had handed out $35 million to terror families in 3 years. The Palestinian Authority pays out over $300 million a year. It’s currently at $355 million.

The PA spends 10 times more on terror payments in 1 year than Saddam did over 3 years.

And the best part is that most of the money comes from us. The Palestinian Authority doesn’t have much of an economy. It relies on foreign aid. Some of that money comes from Europe, Japan and the Saudis. A whole lot of it comes from Americans.

Even while we were fighting to remove Saddam Hussein, we were funding the PLO which included a faction under Saddam’s control that was doing the very thing we were condemning him for.

The Taylor Force Act, named after an American veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq murdered by a Fatah-supported terrorist, is slowly wending its way through Congress. If it isn’t neutered, it will cut off some of our aid to the Palestinian Authority until it stops funding terrorism.

Taylor Force was murdered by Bashar Masalha.

Palestinian Authority television reported that, "In Qalqilya, hundreds of citizens accompanied by the body of Martyr Bashar Masalha."

"The Martyr Bashar Masalha returned from Qalqilya to his village Hajja in a procession," PA TV gushed, describing the burial of a terrorist who had murdered an American as a "national wedding" in which he was "embraced by the soil of his homeland as a Martyr."

Qalqilya is not the only Muslim settlement in Palestinian-occupied Israel to have its own Saddam Hussein memorial. There’s one in Beit Rima, a town square in the Palestinian Authority’s capital of Ramallah and a UN refugee center in Jenin.

And, if business goes on as usual, the PA will be funded by hundreds of millions in taxpayer money.

Maybe it’s time we finally stopped funding the Palestinian Authority, its terrorists and the aspirations of its dictator to follow in Saddam Hussein’s footsteps.

If the Muslim colonists of the Palestinian Authority want to continue their war with Israel over settlements like Qalqilya illegally built on the indigenous territory of the Jewish people, they can do that without our help. As they were doing it without our help for decades until Bill Clinton decided that a greasy Egyptian former Muslim Brotherhood member named Arafat was his key to a Nobel Prize.

American taxpayers are paying Muslim terrorists to murder Americans. We’ve poured money into the Qalqilya Governate which has benefited from numerous USAID projects. And, in return, the locals are erecting monuments to Saddam Hussein. And a Fatah thug appointed by President Abbas, the dictator we subsidize with hundreds of millions a year, claims that Abbas is following in the footsteps of Saddam.

After spending thousands of lives in Iraq, we’re spending hundreds of millions of dollars funding a Palestinian Saddam.

Making the Taylor Force Act into law is the only decent thing to do. But Secretary of State Tillerson also needs to end the doubletalk about the Palestinian Authority’s funding of terrorism. And Abbas’ enablers, in the media and the Jewish world, have to be held accountable for the lies and the terrorism.

The Palestinian Authority’s terror boss has made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t want peace. The latest reconciliation effort with Hamas is another reminder of it. He isn’t interested in democracy either. Not unless the elections are rigged. What does Abbas want? If you believe his crony in Qalqilya, he wants to be Saddam Hussein. If he wants to follow in Saddam’s footsteps, he can do it without our cash.

Or the next Saddam Hussein memorial can be on us.

Thursday, November 02, 2017

Blood on the Left's Hands in Manhattan

Earlier this year, a final settlement was reached in the war on the NYPD’s counterterrorist Islamic surveillance. The Manhattan courtroom where the lawfare effort to dismantle the NYPD’s ability to stop terrorist attacks was heard is blocks away from the site of the latest Islamic terrorist attack in New York.

Walk two blocks down to City Hall. And then head down Chambers to the West Side Highway. That’s where the terrorist attack that killed eight people ended when an NYPD officer shot the terrorist. If he had kept going down the West Side Highway, instead of crashing into a school bus, he would have eventually been within attack range of the 9/11 Memorial. And maybe that was his original plan.

But his message was very clear. He shouted it as he left the truck with which he murdered 8 people.

“Allahu Akbar”. These were the last words on the Flight 93 flight recorder. Mohamed Atta had advised his fellow 9/11 hijackers to, “Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because it strikes fear in the hearts of the infidels.”

Sayfullo Saipov, the Muslim terrorist who carried out the latest attack, was just listening to Atta’s advice. The 16th anniversary of the attacks has passed, but the hatred of Allah’s killers burns as hot as ever.

And the attack carried clear echoes of 9/11.

Saipov had listed an address in Paterson, NJ. Paterson, known to the locals as ‘Paterstine’ for its sizable Islamic community, is where the PLO terror flag flies over City Hall and where Islamic terrorist sympathizers celebrated after their compatriots murdered thousands on 9/11.

Paterson is also where 6 of the 9/11 hijackers lived.

The attack by the Muslim settler from Uzbekistan was almost identical to previous Car Jihad attacks in Europe. Right down to using a fake firearm. But New York City had avoided the non-stop terror wave that engulfed Paris and other European cities thanks to the hard work of the NYPD.

But every time the NYPD broke up an Islamic terror plot, the media and its leftist allies would howl that the racist police had entrapped another innocent mentally ill Muslim. When the Newburgh Four plotted to bomb synagogues in the Bronx, the media was in their corner. HBO even aired The Newburgh Sting, a piece of propaganda whitewashing the terrorists. The revisionist documentary played at the Tribeca Film Festival. And Tribeca is the site of the latest Islamic terrorist attack.

Linda Sarsour, the leading Islamic activist on the left, defended Ahmed Ferhani, who had also plotted to blow up a synagogue, and Shahawar Matin Siraj, who was convicted of plotting to blow up a Manhattan subway station, as victims of NYPD entrapment.

But it’s hard to think of a NYPD or FBI terror bust in New York that the media didn’t undermine. The Nation and the Guardian led the lynch mob. But soon CBS, The Atlantic and the New York Times joined in. All the Muslim terrorists that the NYPD had stopped were really immature and easily manipulated young men. The plots had been invented by paid informants. And it didn’t stop there.

For the last four years, the ACLU and other pro-terror groups had waged an effective lawfare campaign to cripple the NYPD’s counterterrorism. And they succeeded. The NYPD’s ability to send informants into mosques was handicapped. New York cops were now required to consider the “impact” of informants on mosques after Islamist groups claimed that their presence discouraged mosque attendance. The approvals required made it much harder to use one of the more effective terror prevention tools.

The Demographics Unit, one of the most important big picture intel tools for the NYPD, was shut down. But that wasn’t enough. Even when the NYPD agreed to a settlement, Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. insisted that it didn’t go far enough to protect “law-abiding Muslims and believers in Islam who live, move and have their being in this city.”

Sayfullo Saipov moved his being and the truck it was in over the bodies of New Yorkers leaving tire tracks over corpses. The Manhattan attack, like every Islamic attack before it, could have been stopped. But the NYPD’s hands had been tied. And the left had done the tying. It defended every Islamic terrorist that the NYPD had arrested. And prevented the NYPD from investigating mosques and radicalization.

Now it has what it really wanted. Dead Americans. And it has their blood on its manicured fingers.

The Uzbeki Islamic terrorist had listed an address in Paterson, New Jersey. The NYPD had come under attack for conducting surveillance in New Jersey. One of the targets was a mosque in Paterson. The Uzbeki Muslim terrorist also links back to Florida. The media has largely ignored or tried to cover up the string of Islamic terrorist attacks linked to Florida, from the Pulse Massacre in Orlando, to the latest Islamic terrorist plot to bomb the Dolphin Mall on Black Friday.

Sayfullo Saipov had come here in 2010. In that short amount of time he managed to amass criminal records in Pennsylvania and Missouri for traffic offenses. After stints in at least three other states, he went on a killing spree that took eight lives and wounded as well as traumatized countless others.

Dem leaders in New York are already rolling out the standard messages urging everyone to go back to life as usual. Mayor Bill de Blasio called the attack “cowardly”. But the attack wasn’t cowardly. It was vicious and murderous. It’s Bill de Blasio and the other politicians who crippled the NYPD because they were afraid of political pressure from Linda Sarsour and CAIR who are the real cowards.

They are cowards with blood on their hands.

The New York media’s first response after the attack was to try and blame road rage. Before long, you will see it running the standardized “Muslims fear backlash” stories that are a staple of every effort to sweep the latest Islamic terrorist attack under the rug along with the blood and the bodies.

Islamic terrorists like Sayfullo Saipov are able to do what they do because they have a long list of collaborators like the ACLU, Democrat politicians, Federal judges and the mainstream media.

While law enforcement fights a desperate battle to stop the next Saipov, the men and women tracking the terrorists know that if they get their man, the media will make them the villains. Just ask the good people who brought down Ahmed Ferhani, James Cromitie, Shahawar Matin Siraj and so many others.

Sane societies celebrate those who risk their lives to keep them safe. The leftist culture machine does everything it can to destroy them and to aid the Islamic butchers who run over pedestrians for Allah.

The way to stop the next Saipov is to untie the NYPD’s hands.

After every shooting, the left insists that anyone who opposes gun control wants people to die. But guns don’t hop off the shelf and shoot people. And trucks don’t run over pedestrians on their own.

Islamic terrorists drive them into crowds, over pedestrians and cyclists, in London, Nice, in Berlin, in Jerusalem and in New York City. And leftists who refuse to stop them might as well be behind the wheel.

Leftists who would rather control the police than the Islamic terrorists want people to die.

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

We Didn't Beat ISIS, It's Here

ISIS has been beaten. It's been forced out of city after city. Its fighters are dying or have run away. Its resources are exhausted. 

It's over.

And yet once again, there's blood on the pavement and screams filling the air of a Western city. And the note in the bloodied truck links the attack to ISIS.

We didn't beat ISIS because it's not just an army or an alliance. It's an idea. The idea is Islam.

By declaring a Caliphate, ISIS made its existence interchangeable with Islam and its manifest destiny. Losing so many battles has weakened that identification, but there are still plenty of Muslims willing to kill for it. And it isn't because ISIS has radicalized them with some brilliant internet memes, but because it promised to fulfill the ideas and beliefs of their religion. 

ISIS is popular because it appeared to have come closest to doing what no other Islamic group had been able to do in a century, resurrect the Caliphate. ISIS was popular because it was Islamic.

It was popular to the degree that it was Islamic. It was popular because it brought back Islamic institutions from slavery to mutilating thieves without any apologies or concessions. 

That is the simple truth that our leaders refuse to deal with.

What causes an Uzbek immigrant, along with Pakistanis, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Tunisians and American converts to Islam, to be willing to kill and die? They aren't killing and dying for ISIS. But the Ummah, the global Islamic tribe that embodies their honor, for the virgins of paradise, and for the cry that accompanied their atrocities. The cry of, "Allahu Akbar."

And until we understand that, we won't beat ISIS. Because ISIS is Islam.

We beat ISIS twice before. Once in its previous incarnation as Al Qaeda in Iraq and in its even earlier incarnation as Saddam Hussein’s regime whose Sunni Baathists went on to play a crucial role in ISIS.

Each time it was reborn as another murderous monstrosity.

We beat Saddam, Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State. But it keeps coming back because we don’t understand what it is. And we don’t get it because we don’t understand what Islamic terrorism is.

Critics who accuse the US of creating ISIS by bombing Iraq miss the point. ISIS is the latest embodiment of Sunni supremacism and historical nostalgia for the Abbasid Caliphate. Both Saddam and the Caliph of ISIS capitalized on that nostalgia the way that Hitler did on Charlemagne. 

We’re not just fighting a bunch of ragged terrorists. We’re fighting against the sense of manifest destiny of a large Muslim population, not just in Iraq and Syria, but in London, Paris and every state in America.

The Islamic terrorist groups of the Middle East are especially dangerous because, as ISIS did with its Caliphate, they can closely link themselves to crucial epochs in Islam. Al Qaeda leveraged its Saudi face to form a visceral connection with Muslims worldwide. ISIS repeated the same trick with its Iraqi link. And large numbers of non-Arabs and converts to Islam rallied from around the world to the Jihad.

ISIS is now the new Al Qaeda. It may not be able to hold on to its Iraqi or Syrian conquests, but it has become an international terrorist organization that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda. And that may be what it wanted.

Why settle for some dirty and dusty kilometers in Syria or Iraq, when you can have the world?

Like the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups, the Islamic State was never very good at running things. The PA won’t make peace with Israel for the same reason that Hamas won’t make peace with the PA: statehood is a compelling imperative, but requires hard work in reality. It’s much easier to send off a few useful idiots to blow themselves up and then collect the Qatari checks.

Civilizations manage societies. Barbarians have more fun destroying things than taking out the garbage or cleaning the streets.

The original Islamic conquests wrecked the societies and cultures they overran the way that barbarians always do. They wouldn’t have succeeded if civilization had not been in a state of collapse. Today’s Islamic conquests are a similar reaction to our civilizational decline. 

ISIS claimed that it could win a military showdown: it was wrong.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of political and demographic invasion, sneered at by ISIS, may be less glamorous, but the demographic conquest is going very well. Just ask the frightened natives of Paris and London. 

The challenge for Islamic terrorists is turning that demographic growth into military strength. ISIS emerged as the Uber of Islamic terrorism by unlocking the key to turning Muslims anywhere into terrorists with no training or recruitment. While Al Qaeda had pioneered the strategy, ISIS made it work.

Dismissing the terrorists who have been killing for ISIS in the West as “lone wolves” misses the point.

The Islamic terrorist who goes on a stabbing spree in London or a shooting spree in Orlando is no more a “lone wolf” than an Uber driver who picks up a passenger is just some random eccentric. They’re parts of a distributed network that is deliberately decentralized to better fulfill its central purpose.

CVE and other efforts to tackle “online extremism” fight messaging wars that ignore the demographics. But our targeted strikes on ISIS ignore demographics in the same way. We keep looking at the trees while missing the forest. But the forest is where the trees come from. Muslim terrorists emerge from an Islamic population. They aren’t aberrations. Instead they represent its religious and historic aspirations.

ISIS and Islamic terrorists aren’t going anywhere. Defeating them through patronizing lectures about the peacefulness of Islam, as Obama’s CVE policy proposed to do, was a futile farce. Bombing them temporarily suppresses them as an organized military force, but not their religious and cultural origins.

As long as we go on seeing Islamic terrorism as an aberration that has no connection to the history and religion of Islam, our efforts to defeat it will be pinpricks that treat the symptoms, but not the problem.

Only when we recognize that Islamic terrorism is Islam, that the crimes of ISIS and countless others dating back to Mohammed were committed to achieve the goals of the Islamic population, will we be ready to face the war that we’re in and to defend ourselves against what is to come not just in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in America, Australia, Canada, Europe, India, Israel and everywhere else.

We are not fighting a handful of Islamic terrorists. We are standing in the path of the manifest destiny of Islam. Either that manifest destiny will break against us, as it did at the Gates of Vienna, or it will break us. The attacks were once yearly. Now they are monthly. Soon they will become daily.

Every attack is a pebble in an avalanche. A pebble falls in Brussels, in Fresno, in Dusseldorf, in New York, in Munich, in London, in Garland, in Paris, in Jerusalem, in Mumbai, in Boston and in more places than anyone can count. We are too close to the bloodshed to see the big picture. We only see the smoke and hear the screams. We see the boats bringing armies into Europe. We see refugees fill our airports.

Those are the trees, not the forest: the pebbles, not the avalanche. Those are the battles, not the war.

The Islamic State is not going anywhere. It’s not a name. It’s an Islamic imperative. And it’s here.