CNN’s Jake Tapper calls out Linda Sarsour on her “ugly sentiments” and support for cop killers.

Still reeling from a series of embarrassing disclosures and meltdowns that have blackened her image, Linda Sarsour, the self-promoting anti-Semitic provocateur has found herself once again embroiled in controversy. Sarsour, who has proven to be adept and promoting herself on social media, bit off  more than she could chew when she provoked the ire of CNN’s Jake Tapper.

Sarsour had expressed support for Assata Shakur, a fugitive cop killer who murdered a New Jersey state trooper in 1973. Shakur was convicted of first degree murder in 1977 but managed to escape from prison less than two years later and resurfaced in communist Cuba. She is currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list. Sarsour has a long, sordid history of expressing support for murderers including Rasmea Odeh, the PFLP terrorist who murdered two Israeli university students, and is slated to be deported from the United States for committing immigration fraud.

Tapper called out Sarsour on her “ugly sentiments” and asked, somewhat rhetorically, if there were “any progressives out there condemning this?” Sarsour, sensitive to the fact that a prominent journalist from the mainstream dared to criticize her, lashed out with a series of bizarre tweets. She ridiculously accused Tapper of “join[ing] the ranks of the alt-right” in an effort to “target” her.  Sarsour has a habit of spewing such paranoid absurdities. Last week she claimed to be the victim of an orchestrated “Zionist media” conspiracy after irregularities were discovered in an online crowd-funding campaign she started.

Sarsour then challenged Tapper to cite examples of her ugly sentiments. Tapper proceeded to cut the rabble-rouser down to size in short order by noting Sarsour’s public wish to remove Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s vagina. Ayaan is a victim of the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation, a widespread, sadistic and life-altering ritual still practiced by many Muslims, even in the United States. Sarsour’s frantic effort to delete the infamous vagina removal tweet in an attempt to hide her odious past proved unsuccessful, and continues to hound her as she tries to rebrand her image and infiltrate into the Democratic Party.

Sarsour’s supporters in the twitterverse proved equally unsuccessful in silencing Tapper.  Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza called Tapper’s tweets “intentionally inflammatory.” Tapper responded with a biting riposte; “How about being part of a gang that kills a NJ State Trooper? Is that considered inflammatory?” Score 2 for Tapper, zero for the fascist left.

With a few notable exceptions, most of the criticism leveled against Sarsour and her rabid antisemitism has emanated from the center-right. The center-left has been shamefully silent in condemning Sarsour’s abhorrent views, while the hard-left has embraced her fully.

Tapper’s criticism of Sarsour stands in marked contrast to cowardly and pernicious elements on the left who pretend to be progressives but in fact, encourage and support fascism.  A good example of this is provided by liberal activist Sally Kohn who tweeted, “#IStandWithLinda today & always…I know @lsarsour to be a defender of justice FOR ALL!” She then absurdly tweeted “both sides have a problem with hateful crazies. The difference is the left denounces theirs. The right elects theirs president.”

The glaring irony strains credulity. Sarsour is on record advocating violence against Israelis and voicing support for terrorists and cop killers. She is a supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement, asserted that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” alleged that supporters of Israel cannot be feminists, and has expressed a desire to remove the vaginas of women with whom she disagrees. She is a supporter of Sharia law of the brand practiced in Saudi Arabia, a country infamous for oppressing women, and which recently arrested a woman who had the temerity to wear “indecent clothing” to wit, a miniskirt. And yet Kohn and other leftists of similar ilk, while claiming to reject extremism within their ranks, still admire and stand with Sarsour.

Antisemitism is a feature ensconced within the hard-left. The hard-left’s embrace of Sarsour is hardly surprising and is in fact, to be expected. The center-left, which seeks to broaden the party’s appeal to more radical elements, is too craven to challenge Sarsour’s outrageous comments and her support for cop killers, convicted terrorists and assorted anti-Semites. But Tapper’s pointed criticism of Sarsour represents a notable crack in the façade. Whether it leads to further action by the center-left to repudiate known anti-Semites like Sarsour, and tackle rampant antisemitism within its ranks is still too early to say. I’m not holding my breath.



A wolf in progressive clothing.

Linda Sarsour is a dangerous demagogue who craves attention and revels in the spotlight. Ever the self-promoter, Sarsour is a master at manipulating leftist elements within the mainstream media into providing her with a platform to disseminate her odious views. The Washington Post is the latest press outlet to fall victim to her manipulations, allowing her to promote herself on their opinion page. This despite her well documented tribalism and anti-Semitism. She has made appearances on other left-wing media outlets as well where her rabid anti-Semitism has shamefully been left largely unchallenged by craven or ignorant hosts.

The most recent firestorm involving Sarsour centers on a speech she delivered to the Islamic Society of North America at their 54th annual convention. As meticulously documented by the Investigative Project of Terrorism, ISNA is a group that maintains ties with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The group was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the infamous Holy Land Foundation terror financing case. Sarsour felt at home and at ease speaking before this rancid collection of haters.

Sarsour is anything but humble and much of her 22-minute rant centered on her self-proclaimed accomplishments and egomaniacal promotion but there were elements of her screed that took on more ominous and threatening tones. Specifically, she invoked the call to “Jihad” to be waged in the name of “Allah” against the Trump administration, which she claimed was composed of “fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes.”

Sarsour knew her audience and her provocative calls for Jihad drew instant applause. Naturally, Sarsour denied any violent intent and subsequently claimed that her words were taken “out of context” – racists and xenophobes always claim to be taken out of context once they’re caught.

In another speech given at the same conference, Sarsour proudly proclaims her long-standing support for the anti-Semitic BDS movement. The speech further reveals Sarsour’s dark underside when she speaks of a “coordinated,” “Zionist” conspiracy to undermine her legitimacy. Her Zionist plotting rhetoric could have been taken straight out of David Duke’s playbook.

Given her history of demagoguery, Jew-hatred and radical extremism, Sarsour’s, inflammatory rhetoric and wild claims of Zionist conspiracies was unsurprising. We should expect no less from a person who embracesconvicted murderers, claims that Zionism and feminism are incompatible, encourages violence against Israelis, promotes Sharia, supports BDS, berates a questioner because of the color of his skin, and wishes she could tear out the vaginas of women with whom she disagrees.

Sarsour also called upon her audience to refuse to assimilate. “Our number one priority,” she said, “is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and it is not to please any other people and authority…Our top priority even higher than all those priorities is to please Allah and only Allah!” That type of rancid drivel typifies the rhetoric that we are accustomed to hearing from Muslim hate preachers residing in Germany, France and the UK.

Also notable in Sarsour’s speech was what was omitted. In every forum where she is given a platform, the media savvy, intersectionalist Sarsour is always careful to note, in her litany of oppressed peoples, the LGBTQIAcommunity. Her speech before ISNA however, highlighted the need to advocate for undocumented aliens and African Americans but somewhat curiously omitted members of the LGBT community.

Sarsour is a very deliberate person and her omission of this category of people was not an inadvertence but was in fact intentional. Sarsour was speaking before a crowd whose allegiance is to the Muslim Brotherhood, an ultra-conservative, radical Islamic sect that subscribes to the view that homosexuality is an abomination which warrants death. Sarsour did not wish to offend the religious beliefs of her audience and therefore dispensed with any mention of the group.

In fact, despite Sarsour’s public pronouncements of solidarity with the LGBT community, she has never criticized a Muslim country for its treatment of gays. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Gaza and elsewhere in the Muslim world, Muslims are routinely murdered through state-sanctioned killings and yet Sarsour remains deafeningly mute. Some prominent LGBT activists have already noted Sarsour’s abject hypocrisy in this regard.

For Sarsour, her alliance with the LGBT community and faux sympathy with this group is strictly tactical; a way for her to broaden her coalition of hate and divisiveness. But her inherent xenophobia and religious dogma prevent her from truly embracing the LGBT community much the same way that her Islamic supremacist views prevent her from acknowledging any Jewish rights to a single centimeter of Israel.

Linda Sarsour may be many things but one thing she certainly is not, is progressive. Those who deny this unwavering fact are either willfully delusional or deliberately mendacious.


Linda Sarsour Saying ‘Jihad’ To Provoke Backlash Insults Everyone Jihad Has Slaughtered

Linda Sarsour Saying ‘Jihad’ To Provoke Backlash Insults Everyone Jihad Has Slaughtered

You are not my worst nightmare, Linda Sarsour. What is my worst nightmare is another radical extremist waging jihad against people I know and love.

Kelsey HarknessBy Kelsey Harkness,  11, 2017

On September 11, 2001, Islamic extremists killed 2,977 innocent people on American soil. Among the dead were two of my classmates’ fathers who worked in the Twin Towers. We were in seventh grade at the time, just old enough to understand what happened, but too young to understand why.

Over the next decade, I became obsessed with understanding the ideology behind these attacks. How could humans harbor so much hate? To this day, it’s still hard for me to comprehend. But what I learned over the years is that the 19 al-Qaeda terrorists who committed those atrocious attacks were inspired by “jihad.” Since then, many more have followed in their footsteps.

So last week when I heard Muslim-American activist Linda Sarsour call for “jihad” against President Donald Trump, I was “triggered,” to say the least. To be clear, Sarsour did not call for violent jihad against Trump. Anyone who suggests otherwise is intellectually dishonest. For context, Sarsour said in her original speech (which can also be viewed in full here):

“I hope, that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad. We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East but here in the United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

What’s also intellectually dishonest, however, is Sarsour’s assertion that those criticizing her for evoking jihad against the Trump administration is doing so because she’s “their worst nightmare.” You are not my worst nightmare, Sarsour. In fact, I respect you for having the strength to speak out about your beliefs. What is my worst nightmare, however, is another radical extremist waging jihad against people I know and love.

We’re Not Ignorant About the Meaning of Jihad

Most disturbing about this recent defamation campaign is how it is focused on demonizing the legitimate yet widely misunderstood Islamic term I used, ‘jihad,’ which to majority of Muslims and according to religious scholars means ‘struggle’ or ‘to strive for.’ This term has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike, leaving ordinary Muslims to defend our faith and in some cases silenced. It sets a dangerous precedent when people of faith are policed and when practicing their religion peacefully comes with consequences.

Here, Sarsour suggests that anyone who has a problem with her use of “jihad” is peddling and promoting a false definition of the term for the sole purpose of defaming her. She furthermore implies that it’s the fault of our own ignorance that the term “jihad” is so profoundly misunderstood. (What the true meaning ultimately is, I’ll leave to Muslim scholars to decide.)

But if Sarsour really cared about reclaiming this word from the terrorists who so obviously “hijacked” it, she might first consider educating news outlets of its meaning prior to evoking it as a “peaceful” form of protest. Among those news outlets that could use her wisdom are The Washington Post and The New York Times. Certainly, headlines like, “Fifteen Years After 9/11, the Jihadist Threat Looms Larger Than Ever Across the Globe” (The Washington Post) and “The Origins of Jihadist-Inspired Attackers In the U.S.” (The New York Times) suggest a fundamental “misunderstanding” of the term.

Don’t Blame Us For Offense At Deliberate Provocation

In wake of the backlash she received from this speech, Sarsour wrote in The Washington Post, “It saddens me deeply that my three children are frightened.” She added, “It angers me that I have to think about securing my physical safety even while walking through the neighborhoods of Brooklyn.”

If you want to have a theological debate about the true meaning of jihad, you’re blessed with the platform to start it. But in using the term during your speech, that’s not what you were doing. A smart, educated activist, you knew calling for jihad against our president would be inflammatory. Then you went one step further—you blamed us for being offended.

I pray that when I raise children of my own, they’ll have to know only about the peaceful side of “jihad” of which you so fondly speak. But in a day and age where terror attacks happen so regularly, we have no choice but to view jihad as an ugly, violent, and painful part of our personal experience. In the least, I would hope you can respect that.

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer and reporter for The Daily Signal in Washington DC, and the Wednesday editor of BRIGHT, a weekly newsletter for women. She previously worked at Fox News and attended Lafayette College in Easton, Pa. Her views do not represent The Heritage Foundation, her employer.
Linda Sarsour’s Call For ‘Jihad’ Against President Trump Is A Call For Treason

Linda Sarsour’s Call For ‘Jihad’ Against President Trump Is A Call For Treason

By Luma Simms.  10, 2017

Islamic activist Linda Sarsour, co-chair of the 2017 women’s march, says she is “outraged” every single morning when she wakes up and remembers who is in the White House, referring to the president of the United States, Donald Trump. Speaking to the Islamic Society of North America, she recently made several astonishing statements, the totality of which can leave a person with the impression that Sarsour is inciting sedition from Muslims in America.

Time magazine came to her defense, accusing conservatives of misquoting her and making too much out of her speech. Sorry, Time, I’m not buying your excuses. I am a Christian immigrant from Iraq. We know what Muslim agitation and radicalization looks like and where it leads. Sarsour knew full well how what she said would affect the particular community she was speaking to. This was no women’s march, this is a talk to the Muslim community, in which she chastises those who would accept our government peacefully.

Three Tactics to Incite Muslim Americans

What Sarsour said, whom she spoke to to, and how she spoke should alert us to the three tactics radicalizers like Sarsour want to use to incite the Muslim community. One, keeping Muslim communities isolated and unassimilated: “Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community, it is not to assimilate and please any other people and authority” (emphasis mine).

Two, by stoking outrage within the Muslim community, and using the progressive Left’s rhetoric: “We are struggling against tyrants and rulers…here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House… We as a Muslim community in these Unites States of America have to be perpetually outraged” (emphasis mine).

Third, alluding to the garden-variety terrorist acts that we have witnessed around the world: “Our top priority and even higher than all those other priorities is to please Allah and only Allah” (emphasis mine). This tactic may not be as obvious to Western viewers, but if you are a faithful Muslim who is being chastised for assimilating, then told:

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism…If you, as a Muslim, are standing on the sidelines, if you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country, you are not a patriot… When we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad… We have to stay united, we have to stay organizing, we have to stay outraged.

Underlying this entire speech is a fundamental assumption: The American government is oppressive and it is our duty to resist and fight against it. Anyone inside and outside the Muslim community who assimilates, who sides with American government, is an oppressor and should be resisted. This is warfare mentality; it is agitation and incitement. But will the Muslim community heed Sarsour?

More About Sarsour’s American Muslim Audience

According to the Pew Research Center’s best estimates, as of 2015 there were 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. That is the total for all ages. This is roughly 1 percent of the population of the United States. Pew projects that Muslims will increase to 2.1 percent of the American population by the year 2050. They also found that 63 percent of Muslims were immigrants.

In a 2011 survey, 69 percent said religion is important in their lives, 48 percent said men and women should be separated when praying at a mosque, 70 percent lean toward the Democratic Party, and 48 percent believe their leaders do not speak out enough against Islamic extremists. Of foreign-born Muslims, 58 percent said Americans were friendly, but only 30 percent of Muslims born in America said American people are friendly toward Muslim Americans.

Muslim Americans seem likely to be financially secure. In that same 2011 survey by Pew, 74 percent said hard work leads to success, and 46 percent said they were in excellent or good financial condition. The survey also showed that American Muslims were just as likely as other Americans to have a $100,000 or more annual household income. Finally, 49 percent of those surveyed said they would identify as Muslim first. Pew even took the time to ask questions about recycling, using Facebook, watching television, and playing video games, but what I didn’t see are questions about how American Muslims view the rule of law and equality under the law.

We Need to Know What American Muslims Think

The research done so far on this community has not been much. That survey of 1,033 Muslim American adults in 2011, when the total adult population of the Muslims in the United States at that time was 1.8 million (2.75 million including children), only surveyed 0.057 percent of the entire American Muslim population.

We don’t seem to know much about what U.S. Muslims think about fundamental American commitments such as equality before the law and engaging in violence to achieve political ends, but the international numbers on that even in “moderate” Muslim countries is frightening. In Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, large majorities of Muslims support establishing sharia law. Even in Muslim-minority countries such as Russia and the United Kingdom, approximately 40 percent of Muslims support sharia.

This is the context into which Sarsour was knowingly making her comments, as well as a global context of poor Muslim assimilation into Western countries, as evidenced by the rate of European terrorism. Their relatively high education levels and financial stability does not necessarily mean American Muslims may not be open to radicalization techniques like that of Sarsour’s, either, because the buttons she’s pushing are Muslim identity and religion.

Pew reports that Muslim Americans consider themselves religious but not dogmatic. That’s optimistic, but again, given the global data on what Muslims think about politics and religion, and surveys suggesting a quarter of American Muslims think terrorism is a legitimate response to people who draw pictures of Mohammed, we need more and better information, and for American Muslim leaders to speak with tact, not calls to violence. That’s especially crucial given that a number of domestic terrorist attacks have been committed by Muslim U.S. citizens neighbors thought were well-assimilated. American ISIS sympathizers have been also found to listen to inciters of violence such as the well-known American Muslim cleric Ahmad Musa Jibril in Dearborn, Michigan.

Will the Muslim community turn away from their assimilation trajectory and follow Sarsour’s plan to isolate themselves, stay perpetually outraged, and organize against the U.S. government? One of Pew’s headings is “Middle Class and Mainstream.” I pray they are right. But let’s not hide our heads in the samd, either, or excuse those whose speeches would ominously alter that heading.

Luma Simms is an associate fellow at The Philos Project. She writes on culture, family, philosophy, politics, religion, and the life and thought of immigrants. Her work has appeared at First Things Magazine, Public Discourse, The Federalist, and elsewhere. Follow her on Twitter: @lumasimms.
Erdogan’s War on the West

Erdogan’s War on the West

Miqdaad Versi, the Muslim Brotherhood activities in the UK, and Islamic Supremacism

Miqdaad Versi, the Muslim Brotherhood activities in the UK, and Islamic Supremacism

A Clash between Civilisation and Barbarism – a little historical context

Samuel Huntington postulates that since the Cold War was over there could develop a new Clash of Civilizations and that one of these possible clashes could be between Western Civilization and Islamic ideology.  Today we could look at a resurgent Russia and the growing influence and power of China as possible flash points  (Russia in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, China in Asia).   This site will concentrate on the modern day clash between Western Civilization and Islamic ideology.  

Battle of Vienna and the blunting of Islamic expansion into Europe

Despite the claims of Islamic State to be a world wide caliphate the Muslim Caliphate ended in 1924 with the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate.  This Caliphate dominated an extensive empire and had done so for hundreds of years.

The Ottoman Caliphate, under the Ottoman dynasty of the Ottoman Empire, was the last Sunni Islamic caliphate of the late medieval and the early modern era. During the period of Ottoman growth, Ottoman rulers claimed caliphal authority since Murad I‘sconquest of Edirne in 1362.[1] Later Selim I, through conquering and unification of Muslim lands, became the defender of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina which further strengthened the Ottoman claim to caliphate in the Muslim world.

The demise of the Ottoman Caliphate took place because of a slow erosion of power in relation to Western Europe, and because of the end of the Ottoman state in consequence of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations mandate.Abdülmecid II, the last Ottoman caliph, held his caliphal position for a couple of years after the partitioning, but with Mustafa Kemal’ssecular reforms and the subsequent exile of the royal Osmanoğlu family from the Republic of Turkey in 1924, the caliphal position was abolished.

When we review Islamic history we see that Islam has always been an aggressive, expansionist ideology that expanded its religious and political sphere of influence through military might.  Its expansion was quite rapid  as it coincided with the decline of Roman influence in the region and it eventually came into conflict with Western Civilization on its home ground (Europe), and made significant inroads into Europe, until its ambition for control over Europe (in fact the whole world) was blunted at the battle for Vienna in 1683.

Battle of Vienna 1683

 This battle saw a huge Ottoman army under Kara Mustafa Pasha defeated by John III Sobieski, king of Poland – who commanded the smaller Western (Christian) forces.

This battle is widely recognised as the turning point in Islamic expansionism and over the next 16 years Islamic forces were driven further back towards their own heartland.

Gradual decline of the Islamic Caliphate

As we have seen in the above  Islamic military expansion was blunted at Vienna and over the the coming centuries European power and  influence grew while the Ottoman Caliphate‘s power and influence slowly waned until it collapsed under European pressure in 1924.  Yet with the collapse of the Islamic Caliphate a new movement was born and started to grow within Islam.  This movement yearned, and still yearns, for the glory days of the Islamic Caliphate (IC).  This is what Islamic State (IS) is all about.  But IS were not the first to seek the re-institution of the Islamic Caliphate.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمين‎‎Jami’ah al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), shortened to the Muslim Brotherhood (الإخوان المسلمون al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), is a transnational Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt by Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna in 1928.[1][2][3][4] The organisation gained supporters throughout the Arab world and

influenced other Islamist groups such as Hamas[5] with its “model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work”,[6] and in 2012 sponsored the elected political party in Egypt after the January Revolution in 2011. However, it suffered from periodic government crackdowns for alleged terrorist activities, and as of 2015 is considered a terrorist organization by the governments ofBahrain,[7][8] Egypt, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.[9][10][11][12]

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life

Founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood

of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state.”[13] Its mottos include “Believers are but Brothers”, “Islam is the Solution”, and “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”[14][15][16]

Follow the above embedded link for the full article on the Muslim Brotherhood and just google it for more information.  At the end of the day Islam is supremacist in every way: religious, social, cultural and political (it is in fact an all embracing ideology).  A simple definition is a person who believes that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them.  A well known usage of the word is white supremacists .  But what is missing is Islamic Supremacism.  A very good introduction to it is Raymond Ibrahim’s: ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM: THE TRUE SOURCE OF MUSLIM ‘GRIEVANCES’.

The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the reinstatement of the caliphate (and thus sharia) and it uses every means at its disposal to progress this goal.  An interesting article on the state of the Egyptian MB can be found here.  A good introduction to the MB work in the USA is the Clarion Projects article The Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan For America – Court Document and an extensive look at their work and goals can be seen at  The Muslim Brotherhood in America (by Frank Gaffney).  This is a must see and read set of articles and videos and should be shared with family and friends.

Muslim supremacy

Islam is an ideology of submission.  Islam means submission (not peace) and as we have seen, it has a history of aggressive expansionism. European military might stopped them and militarily they are too weak to engage in open warfare with the West.

Therefore, as Gaffney shows, they have a different strategy for dominance.  Many think that it is only those that are seen as extremist that share this goal.  Not so.

We have all probably seen such photographs, and here in the UK some of us will have actually seen the demonstrations.  Yet these are not the real dangerous Islamist’s.  We see them for what they are – dangerous extremists that will kill us if they can.  The recent attacks in Europe and the USA have shown us this face of Islam.

It is not the extremist protesters and Islamist terrorists that poise the real danger to our society but the clean shaven men in suits and women in Muslim dress that espouse to be feminists but in reality seek to advance the influence of sharia law above Western values.   They work within the freedoms afforded to them as members of our society to destroy the very thing they are gifted as members of our society.

In the UK we have men like Miqdaad Versi who works for the Muslim Council of Britain a darling of the mainstream media (including the BBC).  Douglas Murray writes of Versi in a recent Gatestone article:

On the day that the BBC were giving Versi his rave review, he was on social media sharing an untrue story claiming that the government’s Prevent counter-radicalisation strategy was forcing King’s College London to monitor all student emails. The story was wholly bogus (KCL’s policy of reserving the right to monitor all emails on their system came a year before such a policy became a legal duty). But the fact that Versi was sharing this story was typical of the double-ledger he runs when it comes to facts. He is happy to apply rigorous standards to others, but holds exceedingly lax standards himself, so long as he can carry on his own campaigning work against the UK government’s counter-terrorism and counter-extremism programmes — or continue to exercise his own low standards in trying to cover for people who are designated as “extremists” by the UK government . Or indeed, in belonging to an organisation correctly identified as an “enabler” of prejudice against the minority Ahmadiyya community.

According to the UK government the Muslim Council of Britain, the  Islamic Society of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain were all founded by the Muslim Brotherhood:

In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organisations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret. But for some years the Muslim Brotherhood shaped the new Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), dominated the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

So Versi (like counterparts in the USA – Council on American-Islamic Relations – there are a number of articles on CAIR on this site) are products off and working on behalf off, the Muslim Brotherhood.  Yet how many times are we told by the political and media elite that there is no such link and that we are foolish and paranoid to think that there is an international link between what is going on in Europe and the USA (indeed globally).  Are we so dumb that we are incapable of connecting the dots?

None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret.

The links are kept secret, or so they hoped, but such links are out in the open.  A transparency no one in the Islamic leadership, in the Muslim Brotherhood or the above Islamic organisations, desired.

Then we have female activists like Malia Bouattia  the current President of the National Union of Students in the UK that Murray describes as a nasty anti-Semite.  What is obvious here is two Mulsim activists that are both anti-Semitic while pretending to stand up for human rights.  Their close ideological links are illustrated by their opposition to Prevent: UK’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  A clear-eyed look at this strategy: Myths and Misunderstandings: Understanding Opposition to The Prevent Strategy.   Miqdaad Versi and Malia Bouattia are on the same page when it comes to opposing the UK’s attempts at tackling Islamic radicalisation and terrorism.  It is hardly surprising in Bouattia’s case when she is closely allied with the Islamic radical group CAGE in the UK.  A group that openly supports Islamic terrorists.  A tangled web of mutual support and deceit spaning international borders – much of it centred on hatred of Jews and especially Israel.  A hatred that stems from their prophet Muhammad.

An example from the US is Linda Sarsour a star of the left (democrats).  Here we see her with Bernie Sanders the guardian of the working class, women and minorities (the down trodden).  A perfect example of a radical Islamist masquerading as a feminist yet if she had her way America would be living under sharia.  The acceptable face of radical Islam put forward by the political elites to try and soften the image of Islam and so many are taken in.

Islamic ideology is clearly supremacist and violently so

Yet we see our mainstream media (dominated by the left) and politicians regurgitating the worn out mantra `Islam is a religion of peace’. The piece Theresa‬ May – Islamic apologist? looks at this.  From Theresa May to Obama we are told this and they expect the general public to believe this despite what we see on a daily basis.  Obama wrote in his Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times:

“The world must continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam,”

His argument is that real Islam is not the aggressive supremacist ideology presented by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood. We see the lie of this every day of our lives.  Bombs, guns, axes, knives and lorries – anything that can kill and maim and spread terror and fear – are used against us.  The constant barrage that Islam is above criticism and under pain of death we are not to voice any criticism to this barbaric ideology.

This is what we see on our streets all too often – done by Muslims on behalf of Islam.  Yet after each attack we are told this is not real Islam and that real Islam is a religion of peace.  We have American law enforcement not allowed to use the words Islamic (under the Obama administration) when it comes to attacks. It is radicalism.  Radical what?  We see this in the media nearly every time they cover Islamic terrorist attacks.  They struggle for a link that is not Islamic!  The worst kind of delusions if you believed they believed what they were telling us.  But I can’t believe they actually believe the nonsense they feed us.  Is it possible they actually believe Islam is a religion of peace?

We have been fed so many lies for so long that many of us no longer know what truth is.  Lots of us are so compliant we take no heed of what is going on around us.  We are caught up with the cares of life: job, family, home, car and what ever else occupies our time.  What’s happening in the Middle East, or France, Germany and the rest of Europe hardly registers.  If it does we do a few hashtags and maybe attend a prayer vigil and then completely forget about it.

Western Civilization is at war and the war is on our streets.  But we are not in a clash of civilizations we are at war with a barbaric ideology from seventh century Arabia.  Surely our politicians cannot expect us to believe we are not?  Are we nothing more that dumb morons to be lead by the superior class?

For those of us who are Jews and Christians we should remember Muhammad’s view of us:

He curses Jews and Christians for taking graves as places of worship:

When the disease of Allah’s Apostle got aggravated, he . . . . would say, “. . . May Allah curse the Jews [and] Christians because they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship.” By that he warned his follower of imitating them, by doing that which they did. (Bukhari)

We are viewed as nothing more than apes and pigs that are worse than nothing compared to Muslims.  We are like vile beasts and should be treated as such.

Religion of Peace



Originally posted 2017-02-13 16:12:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Mr Trump please come to London and I will teach you about UK Muslims – Mayor Khan

Mr Trump please come to London and I will teach you about UK Muslims – Mayor Khan

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Invites Donald Trump To Meet British Muslims – To Prove They’re Not ‘Bad People’

I wrote this article when Khan made his outrageous and condescending statement and since then he has criticised President Trump on more than one occasion.  I wonder what lessons Mayor Khan will teach the British people now? Katie Hopkins gives one of the best analysis on the London attack and the state of Britain I have read in a long time.  In her article, she calls out Khan and all like him for what they are.  His words are more than hollow – empty of sincerity when he can’t bring himself to even mention Islamic terrorism bringing death and mayhem to the streets of London.  Maybe they are still good people?  When he says (below) to base our view of Islam on our experience of Islam we should take him to heart!  It is perverse that this date was chosen – when we were remembering another brutal attack in Brussels – Islam attacks the very heart of our country.

You are probably aware by now that  Sadiq Khan  the new London mayor has said he wanted to educate the ignorant Mr Trump by introducing him to his family and others of the Islamic faith in the UK in order to show him how much Muslims are part of mainstream British life.  He believes that neither Trump or his close advisers know much about mainstream Muslims in the UK and were basing their opinions on what they saw in the media.

He says:

Look, a lot of people may not have met Muslims because they live in an area where there aren’t Muslims. They may not have broken bread with a Muslim, they don’t work with a Muslim, they don’t have children going to a school where Muslims are…So the only experience they have of Muslims could well be what they see on TV on the news when there are criminals, terrorists, bad people committing acts of terror and terrorism, using the name of Islam to justify their acts. And so I accept some people’s view of Islam may be clouded by what they see on the TV and the news.

It reminds me of growing up and living during the Ulster conflict – the troubles (68 to 98).  People that did not know Ulster took their opinions from what was in the media (which was invariably always bad news).  Most had never visited Ulster and had no first hand knowledge of it or the conflict, yet held strongly felt views about it at times.  This is what Khan is saying about the Trump camp.


Originally posted 2016-05-22 00:46:03. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Pin It on Pinterest