Islamic supremacism: 2014 Archives


Willful blindness in Washington.

No one in the ruling class of either party wants to face up to the truth of what it will take to defeat and destroy ISIS. The generals are the only sane ones.

Washington’s Ruling Class Is Fooling Itself About The Islamic State

Washington's foolish approaches to the Islamic State will not destroy them or discourage others from following in their footsteps.

Angelo Codevilla
September 19, 2014

The American people’s reaction to Muslim thugs of the “Islamic State” ritually knifing off the heads of people who look like you and me boils down to “let’s destroy these bastards”—which is common sense. But our ruling class, from President Obama on the Left to The Wall Street Journal on the Right, take the public’s pressure to do this as another occasion for further indulging their longtime preferences, prejudices, and proclivities for half-measures in foreign affairs—the very things that have invited people from all over the planet to join hunting season on Americans.

Continue reading..



Obama threw away the success that had been achieved in Iraq by President Bush in pursuing the surge with General Petraeus. When Obama took office, Iraq was stable, but, rather than do what the United States has uniformly done, leave a sufficient force behind to help maintain stability (think Germany, Japan, Korea), Obama, against the advice of our generals, pulled all U.S. troops out to satisfy his leftwing Democratic base. We lost all intelligence and influence in Iraq by not being there. Disaster has resulted.

Could this have been foreseen? Well, yes. Below is a minute or so of a press conference President Bush held in 2007 before the success of the surge had become evident and the president was getting heat from the press -- and Democrats in Congress, including Senator Obama.



Check out this Facebook item:



We may be sick of war. We may wish to blot it out and convince ourselves that "war is over."

Jonah Goldberg reminds us,

"No one in the West wants a generational struggle with jihadism any more than Israel wants perpetual war with Hamas in Gaza. The problem is the enemy always gets a vote."

The followers of Mohammad have been voting for world conquest for 1400 years and there is no evidence they are changing their vote now.

By Jonah Goldberg
August 13, 2014

The hawks (including me) were wrong about a lot, but some got one thing right. It’s going to be a long war.

In the early days after 9/11 there was a lot of talk about a “clash of civilizations” and a long “existential struggle” facing the West. I once asked the late Christopher Hitchens what he felt on that terrible day, and he said he felt no small amount of joy. Not for the suffering and death, but for the fact that the West finally had been awakened to the terrible but necessary struggle before us.

And for a time, many liberals bought into the idea that America was heading into a generational struggle with jihadism.

Read on...



While the Islamic State is butchering Christians and other non-believers in Islam in the Middle East, doing its part to conquer the world for Islam, in Europe the same war for Islamic supremacy is going on using different methods: Muslim immigration, high birth rates and refusal to assimilate.

The following is a news report of the situation in Brussels, Belgium. Brussels is the heart of Europe, the headquarters of the European Union. Yet it perhaps is the city that is closest to becoming part of the Muslim world complete with Sharia (Islamic law) governing every aspect of the lives of all inhabitants. As the Islamic leader simply says in the video, Islam and Sharia are the same, two different words for the same thing. If you are a believer of Islam, you must accept Sharia. Whoever you are, if you live under Islam, you will obey Sharia.

It is projected that Brussels will have a Muslim majority within 20 years and there is nothing that can be done to alter that.

What can non-Muslims do? Leave.

Is it inevitable that all of Europe will become Islamic? Without a war, and soon, yes.

Are Europeans awake to the threat? Many appear to be, but they are resigned to an Islamic future.



The Middle East's most perceptive observer is Caroline Glick, an American-Israeli living in Israel. Her rare ability to see the Middle East as an American and an Israeli provides us with valuable insight.

The threat is blowback
by Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post
Friday, June 19, 2014

Watching the undoing, in a week, of victories that US forces won in Iraq at great cost over many years, Americans are asking themselves what, if anything, should be done.

What can prevent the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – the al-Qaida offshoot that President Barack Obama derided just months ago as a bunch of amateurs – from taking over Iraq?

And what is at stake for America – other than national pride – if it does?

Muddying the waters is the fact that the main actor that seems interested in fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq is Iran. Following ISIS’s takeover of Mosul and Tikrit last week, the Iranian regime deployed elite troops in Iraq from the Quds Force, its foreign operations division.

The Obama administration, along with Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, views Iran’s deployment of forces in Iraq as an opportunity for the US. The US, they argue should work with Iran to defeat ISIS.

The idea is that since the US and Iran both oppose al-Qaida, Iranian gains against it will redound to the US’s benefit.

There are two basic, fundamental problems with this idea.

First, there is a mountain of evidence that Iran has no beef with al-Qaida and is happy to work with it.

According to the 9/11 Commission’s report, between eight and 10 of the September 11 hijackers traveled through Iran before going to the US. And this was apparently no coincidence.

According to the report, Iran had been providing military training and logistical support for al-Qaida since at least the early 1990s.

After the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, al-Qaida’s leadership scattered. Many senior commanders – including bin Laden’s son Said, al-Qaida’s chief strategist Saif al-Adel and Suleiman Abu Ghaith – decamped to Iran, where they set up a command center.

From Iran, these men directed the operations of al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab Zarqawi. Zarqawi entered Iraq from Iran and returned to Iran several times during the years he led al-Qaida operations in Iraq.

Iran’s cooperation with al-Qaida continues today in Syria.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in directing the defense of Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, Iran has opted to leave ISIS and its al-Qaida brethren in the Nusra Front alone. That is why they have been able to expand their power in northern Syria.

Iran and its allies have concentrated their attacks against the more moderate Free Syrian Army, which they view as a threat.

Given Iran’s 20-year record of cooperation with al-Qaida, it is reasonable to assume that it is deploying forces into Iraq to tighten its control over Shi’ite areas, not to fight al-Qaida. The record shows that Iran doesn’t believe that its victories and al-Qaida’s victories are mutually exclusive.

The second problem with the idea of subcontracting America’s fight against al-Qaida to Iran is that it assumes that Iranian success in such a war would benefit America. But again, experience tells a different tale.

The US killed Zarqawi in an air strike in 2006. Reports in the Arab media at the time alleged that Iran had disclosed Zarqawi’s location to the US. While the reports were speculative, shortly after Zarqawi was killed, then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice floated the idea of opening nuclear talks with Iran for the first time.

The Iranians contemptuously rejected her offer. But Rice’s willingness to discuss Iran’s nuclear weapons program with the regime, even as it was actively engaged in killing US forces in Iraq, ended any serious prospect that the Bush administration would develop a coherent plan for dealing with Iran in a strategic and comprehensive way.
Moreover, Zarqawi was immediately replaced by one of his deputies. And the fight went on.

So if Iran did help the US find Zarqawi, the price the US paid for Iran’s assistance was far higher than the benefit it derived from killing Zarqawi.

This brings us to the real threat that the rise of ISIS – and Iran – in Iraq poses to the US. That threat is blowback.

Both Iran and al-Qaida are sworn enemies of the United States, and both have been empowered by events of the past week.

Because they view the US as their mortal foe, their empowerment poses a danger to the US. But it is hard for people to recognize how events in distant lands can directly impact their lives.

In March 2001, when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan, the world condemned the act. But no one realized that the same destruction would be brought to the US six months later when al-Qaida destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon.
The September 11 attacks were the blowback from the US doing nothing to contain the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic-missile tests, as well as North Korean proliferation of both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to rogue regimes, like Iran, that threaten the US, are the beginnings of the blowback from the US decision to reach a nuclear deal with Pyongyang in the 1990s that allowed the regime to keep its nuclear installations.
The blowback from Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power is certain to dwarf what the world has seen from North Korea so far.
Yet rather than act in a manner that would reduce the threat of blowback from Iraq’s disintegration and takeover by America’s worst enemies, the Obama administration gives every indication that it is doubling down on the disastrous policies that led the US to this precarious juncture.

The only strategy that the US can safely adopt today is one of double containment. The aim of double containment is to minimize the capacity of Iran and al-Qaida to harm the US and its interests.

But to contain your enemies, you need to understand them. You need to understand their nature, their aims, their support networks and their capabilities.
Unfortunately, in keeping with what has been the general practice of the US government since the September 11 attacks, the US today continues to ignore or misunderstand all of these critical considerations.

Regarding al-Qaida specifically, the US has failed to understand that al-Qaida is a natural progression from the political/religious milieu of Salafist/Wahabist or Islamist Islam, from whence it sprang. As a consequence, anyone who identifies with Islamist religious and political organizations is a potential supporter and recruit for al-Qaida and its sister organizations.

There were two reasons that George W. Bush refused to base US strategy for combating al-Qaida on any cultural context broader than the Taliban.

Bush didn’t want to sacrifice the US’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, which finances the propagation and spread of Islamism. And he feared being attacked as a bigot by Islamist organizations in the US like the Council on American Islamic Relations and its supporters on the Left.

As for Obama, his speech in Cairo to the Muslim world in June 2009 and his subsequent apology tour through Islamic capitals indicated that, unlike Bush, Obama understands that al-Qaida is not a deviation from otherwise peaceful Islamist culture.

But unlike Bush, Obama blames America for its hostility. Obama’s radical sensibilities tell him that America pushed the Islamists to oppose it. As he sees it, he can appease the Islamists into ending their war against America.

To this end, Obama has prohibited federal employees from conducting any discussion or investigation of Islamist doctrine, terrorism, strategy and methods and the threat all pose to the US.

These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI’s failure to question or arrest the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.

They were also responsible for the army’s refusal to notice any of the black flags that Maj. Nidal Hassan raised in the months before his massacre of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, or to take any remedial action after the massacre to prevent such atrocities from recurring.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of Islamism. It is the organizational, social, political and religious swamp from whence the likes of al-Qaida, Hamas and other terror groups emerged. Whereas Bush pretended the Brotherhood away, Obama embraced it as a strategic partner.

Then there is Iran.

Bush opted to ignore the 9/11 Commission’s revelations regarding Iranian collaboration with al-Qaida. Instead, particularly in the later years of his administration, Bush sought to appease Iran both in Iraq and in relation to its illicit nuclear weapons program.

In large part, Bush did not acknowledge, or act on the sure knowledge that Iran was the man behind the curtain in Iraq, because he believed that the American people would oppose the expansion of the US operations in the war against terror.

Obama’s actions toward Iran indicate that he knows that Iran stands behind al-Qaida and that the greatest threat the US faces is Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But here as well, Obama opted to follow a policy of appeasement. Rather than prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stem its advance in Syria and Iraq, Obama treats Iran as though it poses no threat and is indeed a natural ally. He blames Iran’s belligerence on the supposedly unjust policies of his predecessors and the US’s regional allies.

For a dual-containment strategy to have any chance of working, the US needs to reverse course. No, it needn’t deploy troops to Iraq. But it does need to seal its border to minimize the chance that jihadists will cross over from Mexico.

It doesn’t need to clamp down on Muslims in America. But it needs to investigate and take action where necessary against al-Qaida’s ideological fellow travelers in Islamist mosques, organizations and the US government. To this end, it needs to end the prohibition on discussion of the Islamist threat by federal government employees.

As for Iran, according to The New York Times, Iran is signaling that the price of cooperation with the Americans in Iraq is American acquiescence to Iran’s conditions for signing a nuclear deal. In other words, the Iranians will fight al-Qaida in Iraq in exchange for American facilitation of its nuclear weapons program.

The first step the US must take to minimize the Iranian threat is to walk away from the table and renounce the talks. The next step is to take active measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears prepared to do none of these things. To the contrary, its pursuit of an alliance with Iran in Iraq indicates that it is doubling down on the most dangerous aspects of its policy of empowering America’s worst enemies.

It only took the Taliban six months to move from the Bamiyan Buddhas to the World Trade Center.

Al-Qaida is stronger now than ever before. And Iran is on the threshold of a nuclear arsenal



The insanity of making a deal with Iran to contain ISIS is clearly spelled out by Melanie Phillips, Britain’s top analyst of the Islamic threat to the western world.

With Iran, my enemy's enemy is still my enemy
Melanie Phillips in the Jerusalem Post
June 20, 2014

Rub your eyes. One minute Iran is a principal enemy of civilization – sponsoring terror around the world, arming the Assad regime’s mass slaughter in Syria, developing nuclear weapons to further its war against the West and its declared aim of exterminating Israel. The next minute it has become America’s ally and the West’s new best friend.

The US says it is “open to engaging the Iranians” over the crisis in Iraq. The reason for the volte-face is that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a savage terrorist army previously known as al-Qaida in Iraq, has routed the Iraqi army and now controls territory from the outskirts of Aleppo in Syria to Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq, even threatening Baghdad.

The prospect of such a well-equipped and financed fanatical force controlling a swath of Iraq is an unconscionable threat to the West. It puts oil supplies in jeopardy, creates an enormous territorial infrastructure for holy war and will serve as Indoctrination Central for even more Muslim youths pouring in from the UK and Europe to be trained and sent back to their host countries to perpetrate terrorist atrocities.

Notwithstanding this catastrophe, the US has no intention of getting sucked back into Iraq. Enter Iran, which has offered its ally, Iraq’s Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the use of its army, its spies and its fearsome Revolutionary Guards to deal with the ISIS Sunni insurgency.

There are many Western voices saying that, despite Iran’s record, the West should ally with it in dealing with their common enemy in ISIS and stabilizing Iraq. But any cozying up to Iran would be astonishingly short-sighted. For sometimes my enemy’s enemy is also my enemy. And Iran remains the West’s deadly enemy.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been in a state of self-declared war against the West. The State Department considers it to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It supports Hamas and Hezbollah, and has been behind countless murderous attacks against US, Jewish and other Western interests.

The idea that Iran has an interest in stabilizing Iraq is the opposite of the truth. Iran has every interest in destabilizing Iraq. Since the fall of Saddam, it has been doing precisely that.

After years of supporting Shia militias fomenting sectarian strife in Iraq and blowing up US and coalition soldiers there with its roadside bombs, Iran signed a deal last February to sell Iraq arms and ammunition worth $195 million, in violation of international arms trade laws. The aim was to continue to support the Shia militias in terrorist violence against the Sunni minority.

If Iran now embeds itself in Iraq, the country will be permanently destabilized.

Saudi-backed Sunni militias will fight back, with the risk of dividing Iraq into two armed camps, Shia and Sunni. These would not only fight each other, but would create two separate Iraqi terrorist bases for jihadi attacks against the West.
At the same time, if the West allies with Iran it will also be helping keep its murderous puppet Assad in power in Syria. And if the US really is desperate to use Iran as its proxy against ISIS, that will undermine what remains of the West’s bargaining power in the negotiations to destroy Iran’s capacity to make nuclear weapons.

Such an unholy alliance could therefore end up handing Iran a double victory on a plate. Indeed, it’s almost as if it is behind the whole thing.

Although this must be purely speculative, it is not entirely fanciful. For in the Arab and Muslim world, forces can simultaneously be allies and enemies.

Although ISIS is a Sunni force and is supposedly at war with the Assad regime in Syria, there is evidence to suggest that both Iran and its Syrian puppet regime may have cooperated with it. In 2012, the US Treasury Department identified Iran as supporting the ISIS precursor, al-Qaida in Iraq. And ISIS is thought to have done oil deals with the Assad regime itself, which some analysts speculate may have wanted to boost jihadi fighters in order to discredit the opposition in Western eyes.

It is possible, therefore, that having used ISIS for its own devious ends Iran now finds its activities have got out of hand. Even if Iran had nothing to do with ISIS, however, any Western overtures to the clerical regime would be a serious error.

This week, the Iranian leadership suggested the price of its “help” in “stabilizing” Iraq would be a deal over its nuclear program. State Department denials that these two issues would be in any way linked lack a certain credibility. This is because, since the start of the Geneva negotiations, it has appeared that the US and the rest are determined to do a deal with Iran, even if this is a rotten deal that won’t prevent it from reaching nuclear breakout capacity.

Indeed, it is not too cynical to suspect that the Obama administration may be eyeing the Iraq crisis as potential diplomatic cover for a nuclear sell-out to Iran for which it always intended to settle.

Moreover, by his own admission Obama aims to achieve a strategic realignment in which Iran is transformed from the enemy of the West into its ally, stabilizing the region by creating a supposed equilibrium of power against Iran’s Sunni enemy, Saudi Arabia.

This is a strategic error of the first magnitude.

To give Iran the edge will not produce regional stability. The more Iran is empowered, the more Saudi Arabia will fight it. The outcome will be a hugely increased likelihood of war and endemic tribal conflict engulfing the region.

In addition, both Iran and Saudi are working not just against each other but to destroy and dominate the West. As such, both should be seen as the West’s mortal enemies. The Western aim, therefore, should be to defeat or at very least box in both of them.

Iraq has turned into a catastrophe because, when the US pulled out, the Obama administration left a vacuum in which Maliki pumped up tribal conflict and paved the way for the ISIS insurgency.

Iran, the most manipulative and sophisticated geopolitical strategic player in the world, understands that Obama’s desperation to turn his back on the threats from the Islamic world has left the US weakened and exposed. Whatever its origins, the Iraq crisis offers Iran an opportunity to exploit that weakness, a threat with which the West now seems too paralyzed to deal.



This Financial Times report set forth below on killings in northern Nigeria “neglects” to identify the attackers and explain their motives. Like all too many of such reports missing are the words “Islam” and its aim to drive all Christians out of the lands in which they live so Islamic control and Sharia can be imposed on those lands and the remaining people.

The plan: Burn the churches, destroy the economy, gun down the Christians they come across and the rest will flee to the south of Nigeria.

Since Boko Haram has begun its murderous campaign in 2009, this article’s author estimates that more than 12,000 have been killed, mostly Christians and no doubt some Muslims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In a recent article the claim was made that Boko Haram has killed more people in the last five years than all the other al-Qaeda affiliated groups combined in the Middle East and Africa. While their kill total is impressive, that’s probably not so. Muslims are busy killing Muslims in Syria (to say nothing of Iraq) and the estimated death toll there is 200,000, which include many Christians who apparently are being killed mostly by Sunni "insurgents," since the native Orthodox clergy supported the "re-election" of Assad. (Of course, Christians are suffering persecution in Shiite Iran and Iraq.)

All Muslim “insurgents” or “militants” or “terrorists” are driven by Islam’s mandate to conquer all the lands of the world for Allah and convert or kill all the non-believers in the process. When it’s Muslims against Muslims, the quarrel is over who will lead the worldwide (or regional or local) drive of supremacy. Violence is always an acceptable “tool,” but deceit and trickery and infiltration of societies by non-assimilating immigrants who will out-birth the natives are often more effective weapons of conquest.

And where is the money coming from? In Boko Haram’s case, it is Sunni so the money most likely is filtering in from the Saudis. Is the U.S. protesting this flow of money into jihad from our ally Saudi Arabia?

The weapons are in large part coming from the broken nation of Libya which the Obama administration decided to destabilize, resulting in, among other things, the murders in Benghazi of our ambassador and three other Americans who, despite Obama’s words about the rationale for rescuing the deserter Bergdahl, were indeed “left behind.”

To be sure, not all Muslims are bent on world conquest for Allah, but it is difficult to say who is and who isn’t. Since there are some 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, the number who will perform violent acts in the cause of Allah is large. Estimates range up to 25%; that more than 325 million. Even a mere 10% is 130 million. A poll of Muslims 30 and under in the U.S. found that about 28% thought suicide murders could be acceptable under the “right circumstances.”

How many are true believers who quietly work for establishing Sharia in place of the Constitution in the United States? This is the declared goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, to conquer America from within. Why was Major Hasan Nidal in the Army? How did Hillary Clinton happen to have a Muslim as a top aide at the State Department whose family has been deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood for decades?

Where are the Muslims loudly protesting the carnage done in the name of Islam?

What you are likely to hear is Saudi-funded public relations organizations asserting that these people “misunderstand Islam” or have “perverted” Islam.

Trouble is, what these misunderstanders are doing is following the letter of the Koran and the words and examples of Mohammad.

The article.

Boko Haram kills more than 200 in assault on three Nigerian Christian villages

Jos bombing Boko Haram.jpg
©AFP The aftermath of a bomb attack in the city of Jos in May

By William Wallis in London and agencies for the Financial Times
June 5, 2014

Dozens of civilians have been massacred in three villages in Nigeria’s remote north east in the latest attacks carried out by suspected Boko Haram insurgents, who are carrying out almost daily atrocities in the region.

Gunmen in combat uniforms on Tuesday rode army trucks through Borno state’s Gwoza area, the main stronghold of the terrorist group, firing on villagers and burning houses and churches to the ground, security sources told Reuters news agency.

Other news agencies and local online media outlets cited witnesses suggesting the death toll from the attacks could be as high as 200.

Andrew Tada, a Gwoza man living in Maiduguri, Borno’s capital, said he lost two cousins in the attack. He said residents had told him they were preparing to bury 45 people from one village alone.

“It is very sad and the villages are deserted now,” he told Reuters. “We are just asking government to give us security to go there tomorrow to evacuate the corpses for burial.”

Boko Haram has killed as many as 12,000 people since launching an insurgency in 2009 and grabbed world headlines after it abducted more than 250 girls from a secondary school in the remote town of Chibok in April.

By some estimates more than 560 civilians have been killed by insurgents since April 14 – the day of the abduction and a bus park bomb in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, that killed at last 75 people. In one of the deadliest single attacks, a bomb in the central city of Jos last month killed 118 people, officials said.

The mass kidnapping and bombings have piled political pressure on President Goodluck Jonathan at a critical moment in the electoral calendar, with political tension already heightened ahead of polls scheduled next February.

His government has flip flopped on whether or not it is prepared to negotiate with the militants to secure the release of the girls, amid daily protests at the government’s handling of the hostage crisis.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who used to live in Nigeria, paid a visit to Mr Jonathan on Wednesday, to express condolences for the near daily atrocities carried out by the insurgents, who are attempting to carve out an Islamic state from Nigeria’s multi-faith and ethnically divided population.

He expressed “sympathy for the struggles and suffering of the recent days” and said he was “deeply saddened by the bombings in Jos” because he knew the city well.

The security source told Reuters about three-quarters of the residents in the three villages near the Cameroon border – Attagara, Agapalawa and Aganjara – were Christians, but he did not know if Tuesday’s attacks had targeted them specifically.

US troops are in neighbouring Chad on a mission to find the abducted girls. Britain and France have also offered help, but the Nigerian authorities fear any attempt to rescue them by force could endanger their lives.

Fifty-seven of the 276 kidnapped girls escaped in the early days of the abduction according to officials in the Borno state government.



There are too few leading statesmen in the world urging action against the spread of Islamic imperialism. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered such an urgent warning in London this week.

Islam is a political ideology wrapped in a religious cloak that has as its goal nothing less than the conquest of the world and the elimination of all who do not accept true Islam. In the Koran and in the words and actions of Mohammad there is no doubt but that it is the duty of every Muslim to advance Islam however he or she can, by war, by violent means, by terrorism, by deception and stealth, the methods to depend on what is possible at a given place and time.

In the Middle East warring factions, all with the same goal, but differing as to who should be in charge -- Sunnis or Shiites -- are seeking to advance Islam. In Africa where there are weak governments Islamic terror groups are murdering, burning and pillaging to take over territory and drive Christians and other non-Muslims out. The Islamic invasion of the mostly Christian Central African Republic by heavily armed Islamic fighters has resulted in he deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Christians and other people.

In northern Nigeria alone, Boko Haram has killed over 5,000 in the past four years despite efforts of the Nigerian government to stop them. Last week Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 girls from a school to serve as cooks, cleaners and sex slaves. What is Boko Haram's goal?

Boko Haram is proud to be one of Al Qaeda’s African franchises, along with AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and al Shabaab in Somalia. “We are together with al Qaeda,” Boko Haram spokesman Abu Qaqa told reporters in Nigeria by phone last November. “They are promoting the cause of Islam, just as we are doing. Therefore they help us in our struggle and we help them, too.”

And, in Yemen, a top Al Qaeda leader calmly states that its number one target is America as the most important defender of the principal enemy, Christianity.

We must eliminate the cross,” he says, referencing what he sees as Christian power. He adds: “The bearer of the cross is America!”

In the United States itself the FBI has thwarted hundreds of attempted terrorist acts, but, sadly, not the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013 or the murders of fellow soldiers by Major Nadel Hasan at Ft. Hood. There is strong evidence that the U.S. government is being infiltrated by Islamic true believers whose goal is to supplant the Constitution with Islamic law, the Sharia.

Saudi-backed Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Student Association are on many colleges campuses and Washington is home to the notorious Saudi-funded political propaganda operation the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Islamic organization (the Holy Land Foundation) found guilty of funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas.

Fortunately, not all Muslims follow the mandates of the Koran, but just want to live a decent life and worship God. But those who are the most knowledgeable of Islam are potentially the most dangerous if they remain Muslims. They are obliged to treat all non-Muslims as the enemy and to strike against them (us) when conditions are right. When will a quiet Muslim true believer becomes a jihadist? No one can say.

As yet, the U.S. has not been affected to the extent Britain has, with neighborhoods, villages and towns taken over by Muslims and run as if they were in a Muslim country, observing Sharia and keeping non-Muslims out. Similar "no go" zones exist in France. But in Hamtramck, Michigan the Muslim muezzin (call to the mosque) is broadcast throughout the city five times a day. In nearby Dearborn, Michigan the terrorist Shiite organization Hezbollah has many fervent supporters and neighborhoods where non-Muslims are not welcomed.

With heavy immigration and a soaring birth rate, the Muslim population of Europe is approaching 40 million and is a serious problem not only in France and Great Britain, but in virtually all countries of western Europe.

Tony Blair speaks of "denial" about the dangers posed by Islam. Denial is a problem throughout Europe and the United States, starting with Washington, D.C. and the national media.

There is an effort by Muslims and some Islamic apologists to draw a distinction between Islam and what is called "Islamism" and "Islamists." Islamists are the extremists who are said to distort Islam's message. The trouble is that Islamists are taking what is in the Koran and the hadiths (words and actions of Mohammad) as the marching orders they are meant to be. As many others put it, including the prime minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan, "Islam is Islam." In other words, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam," but there are "moderate Muslims."

Tony Blair: Fighting Islamism – The Defining Challenge of Our Time

Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister, delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in London entitled 'Why the Middle East Still Matters.' In it he described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.

He argued "there are four reasons why the Middle East remains of central importance and cannot be relegated to the second order."

The first three: oil, proximity to Europe and Israel, whilst important, were not the focus of the speech. Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and most important reason: Islamic extremism also known as Islamism.

He identifies the conflict in the Middle East as one between an open and tolerant viewpoint and a fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He said "wherever you look – from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria and then further afield to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan – this is the essential battle."

Addressing those who regard these conflicts as distinct he said "there is something frankly odd about the reluctance to accept what is so utterly plain: that they have in common a struggle around the issue of the rightful place of religion, and in particular Islam, in politics."

It is this central point that he hammered home again and again over the course of his 40 minute speech.

He argued that this struggle does not end at the borders of the region. Rather, "The reason this matters so much is that this ideology is exported around the world."

He asked listeners to "Take a step back and analyze the world today: with the possible exception of Latin America (leaving aside Hezbollah in the tri-border area in South America), there is not a region of the world not adversely affected by Islamism and the ideology is growing."

He notes that "The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40m and growing. The Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations are increasingly active and they operate without much investigation or constraint. Recent controversy over schools in Birmingham (and similar allegations in France) show heightened levels of concern about Islamist penetration of our own societies."

The main thrust of the speech focused on "two fascinating things."

"The first is the absolutely rooted desire on the part of Western commentators to analyze these issues as disparate rather than united by common elements. They go to extraordinary lengths to say why, in every individual case, there are multiple reasons for understanding that this is not really about Islam, it is not really about religion; there are local or historic reasons which explain what is happening. There is a wish to eliminate the obvious common factor in a way that is almost wilful."

Predictably, opponents took the opportunity to argue exactly that. For example, the Guardian's summary quoted a Saudi Daily paper which blamed Israel. Commentator Mehdi Hassan blamed Tony Blair himself for the problem, because of the Iraq war.

Blair went on to argue "The second thing is that there is a deep desire to separate the political ideology represented by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood from the actions of extremists including acts of terrorism."

He acknowledged the motivation behind these fears, saying "We feel almost that if we identify it in these terms, we’re being anti-Muslim, a sentiment on which the Islamists cleverly play."

Blair swept these distinctions aside, acknowledging the laudable motives behind such interpretations, but ultimately pinpointing the profound danger posed by the Islamist ideology, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.

He urged the West and indeed the entire world, to unite against the ideology Islamic extremism.

Former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane compared the speech to Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain address. Douglas Murray argued in the Spectator that Blair went too far in his efforts to brand Islamism as disconnected from Islam and called on moderate Muslims to help combat radicalism by driving extremists from their communities.

Blair outlined potential foreign policy options for the West vis-a-vis various Middle Eastern countries in order to combat Islamists and to support religiously open and tolerant elements.

In particular he focused on Egypt saying "on the fate of Egypt hangs the future of the region. Here we have to understand plainly what happened. The Muslim Brotherhood government was not simply a bad government. It was systematically taking over the traditions and institutions of the country. The revolt of 30 June 2013 was not an ordinary protest. It was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation."

All of these different policies are facets of the same policy: that "across the region we should be standing steadfast by our friends and allies as they try to change their own countries in the direction of reform. Whether in Jordan or the Gulf where they’re promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be supporting and assisting them."

Perhaps this statement by Blair sums up the message of his keynote speech best: "When we consider the defining challenges of our time, surely this one should be up there along with the challenge of the environment or economic instability."

The full text of the speech can be found here.



As Obama is more and more openly sympathetic towards Islam, even preventing his administration from linking it to obvious acts of terrorism, murder and mayhem, he is increasingly showing his disdain and dislike for Christianity.

This condemnation of Obama's anti-Christian policies is surprising for the usually quiet voice of the Vatican on what some might call political matters, which in fact have serious moral and U.S. constitutional implications.

Vatican Chief Justice: Obama’s Policies ‘Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’

March 21, 2014 - 1:32 PM

Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court at the Vatican.

( -- President Barack Obama's policies “have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization,” Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican, said in a recent interview.

Cardinal Burke added that Obama wants to restrict religious freedom and force the individuals, outside of his or her place of worship, “to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions.”

In an interview first published in Polish in Polonia Christiana magazine and republished exclusively in English at LifeSite News, Cardinal Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis, was asked about President Obama’s policies towards Christian civilization and if there are any “Catholic reactions against this policy? If yes, what are they, [or] if not, why?”

Cardinal Burke, who heads the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court at the Vatican, said: “It is true that the policies of the president of the United States of America have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.”

“Now he [Obama] wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship; that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions,” said Cardinal Burke.

He continued, “Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago. It is true that many faithful Catholics, with strong and clear leadership from their Bishops and priests, are reacting against the ever-growing religious persecution in the U.S.”

“Sadly, one has the impression that a large part of the population is not fully aware of what is taking place,” said the cardinal. “In a democracy, such a lack of awareness is deadly. It leads to the loss of the freedom, which a democratic government exists to protect. It is my hope that more and more of my fellow citizens, as they realize what is happening, will insist on electing leaders who respect the truth of the moral law as it is respected in the founding principles of our nation.”

As has reported, the Catholic bishops of the United States have stated that the Obamacare mandate requiring individuals (and businesses) to carry health insurance that offers contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-payments is an “unjust and illegal mandate.”

They have also declared the mandate a “violation of personal civil rights,” and that it should be “rescinded.”

“The mandate continues to represent an unprecedented (and now sustained) violation of religious liberty by the federal government,” said the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“As applied to individuals and organizations with a religious objection to contraceptive coverage, the mandate violates the First Amendment,” they said.

In a 2012 letter on the issue, sent to parishes across the country to be read at Sunday Mass, the bishops said, “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.”

So far, 94 lawsuits have been filed against the Obamacare mandate and the Department of Health and Human Services, by a variety of plaintiffs. In several dozen of those lawsuits, the courts have granted the plaintiffs an injunction, meaning they do not have to comply with the mandate as their case moves through the courts. Some of those cases are headed to the Supreme Court.

- See more at:



To its credit, the Boston Globe has begun regularly carrying articles about Islamic atrocities on pages 2 and 3 of its daily edition. Previously, there were few if any such reports printed.

The horrifying report from Associated Press appearing this morning is just another one of many similar reports coming from northern Nigeria where the systematic effort to drive non-Muslims out of the territory has been going on for years. Muslims want to occupy more land and accomplish that by terror, rape, murder, plunder and arson. The principal victims are Christians. Christians make up about 50% of Nigeria's population, most of whom are in the south of Nigeria. Muslims are spreading south from the Muslim-majority countries of Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Niger, Sudan and Chad by force and violence, in short, by waging war.

The leading war group in northern Nigeria seeking to drive out all Christians and other non-Muslims from their traditional villages and lands is Boko Haram, which is loosely translated as "Western education is forbidden."

This means the group has a special focus on wiping out any "pollution" of Western learning from the Islamic teaching allowed by Sharia.

What motivates and justifies such violence? The answer is simple: Islam. Those being in the forefront of the invasions are doing what is called for in the Koran and by the words of "the perfect man" Mohammad. Mohammad ruthlessly captured and destroyed villages and murdered all male inhabitants and took the children and women as slaves.

Political correctness reigns in this article less than it usually does in reports of Muslims committing violence. Here the killers are called "Islamists" and "Islamist extremists." Many articles call these Muslims "militants" or "insurgents" or some other neutral term, even "terrorists," but without making any connection to Islam

"Islamists" and "extremists" are those Muslims who understand what the Koran and Mohammad have told them (and every Muslim) to do and feel duty bound to do it, that is, wage jihad until Islam is supreme in the world. This means conquering territory and converting, killing or subjecting non-Muslims to subservient status. As long as the cause is the advancement of Islam, all is permitted.

The question that is not asked that should be is "Where is the money coming from for the equipment and munitions and supplies used by these Muslim murderers?" The best guess is the Saudis, who have been propagating "true" Islam for decades in mosques and madrassas in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan and other majority-Sunni countries as well as throughout Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia. If you train the fighters, you probably wind up supporting them when they go off to fight. What has the U.S. government done to stop such a flow of funds?

Christians are the prime target of Islam with the aim of driving them out of every Muslim-majority country. Christianity is viewed by Islam as the principal obstacle to the spread of Islam, so Muslims and their colleagues in the secular Democrat left are constantly attacking Christianity, sneering at it, seeking to undermine it, belittling its beliefs and making a follower feel like an outcast, if not a "bigot" or a "racist."

As for Islamic atrocities, particularly those carried out against Christians, the media downplays them, either by not reporting them at all or ignoring the likelihood of the role of Islam in the atrocities. Muslim killers are called "militants" or "insurgents" and Islam isn't mentioned.

And the Democrat Obama administration is complicit, such as terming the Allahu Akbar murders of defenseless America soldiers by Major Nidal Hasan "workplace violence," not Islamic terrorism, which it clearly was.

Persecution of Christians by Muslims is currently as bad as it has ever been in all the centuries of Islam's existence. With 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and trillions of dollars in oil revenues flowing into Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, Islam is better positioned to wage its world war than it has ever been.

The ugly violence described in the article below is just one of thousands of similar incidents occurring every year as part of the persecution of Christians and non-Muslims by Muslims.

Attacks by Islamist groups force school closings in Nigeria

By Haruna Umar and Michelle Faul | Associated Press
March 19, 2014

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria — The Borno state government is closing all high schools indefinitely amid fears of massive attacks by Islamist extremists, officials and teachers said Tuesday, confirming a move that may be considered a victory for Boko Haram, a terrorist network whose nickname means ‘‘Western education is forbidden.’’

Some 85 schools will be closed, affecting nearly 120,000 students in an area that has Nigeria’s worst literacy rates, “until the security situation in the state improves,’’ Borno’s governor, Kashim Shettima, said Monday on the BBC Hausa language service.

The closures come amid growing anger at the military’s failure to suppress an Islamist uprising in northeast Nigeria, despite a massive deployment of troops and a 10-month-old state of emergency.

Islamist militants have burned down scores of schools in attacks that have killed hundreds of students. Other schools fearful of attacks have closed in Yobe and Adamawa states.

‘‘We have run out of excuses for our failure to live up to our responsibility to protect our innocent defenseless children from gratuitous violence,’’ the speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, told legislators at a special session last week to mourn the latest victims — 59 students killed at a boarding school in Yobe on Feb. 25. Extremists locked some of the students inside a dormitory and then set it aflame.

The military but also the government, including the legislature, must ‘‘act swiftly and decisively in the protection of the citizenry,’’ said Tambuwal.

The school closures could have far-reaching consequences, including ending the education of some students in a region where few have the opportunity to get to high school, said the chairman of Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission, Chidi Anselm Odinkalu.

‘‘The average secondary school enrollment is slightly under 5 percent’’ in northeast Nigeria, “so I think it’s easy to understand that you cannot overestimate what the consequences of this could be, given the parlous state of education in the region and the fact that, clearly, whoever is orchestrating this is focused on targeting schools, educational institutions,’’ he said.

The government should consider setting up well-protected camps where children can continue their education, he said in a telephone interview with the Associated Press.

Such an ‘‘extreme measure’’ could be justified because ‘‘the entire area is a war theater,’’ Odinkalu said.

The United Nations estimates that since 2010, the Islamist uprising has forced some 300,000 people to leave their homes in northeast Nigeria, most displaced within the country and some across borders in Chad, Cameroon, and Niger.

Nigeria’s military recently claimed successes in aerial bombardments and ground assaults on extremist hideouts in forests and mountain caves along the borders with Cameroon and Chad. But the government forces were unable to stop extremists who on Friday shot their way into the main military base in the northeast, Maiduguri’s Giwa Barracks, where they freed dozens of detained fighters before soldiers repelled the attack. The battle went on for five hours, terrifying citizens who fled their homes. The Defense Ministry said scores of extremists were killed.

On Monday, students started leaving the University of Maiduguri, saying they feared another attack. At least one student was reported killed by a stray bullet in Friday’s attack on the barracks, which is divided from the campus by a riverbed that extremists use to infiltrate the city.

One school principal said Tuesday that ‘‘we have all agreed to close by this Friday and see what happens next.’’ The principal spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being fired for speaking to reporters without authorization.

The state government hopes to keep open a handful of schools in Maiduguri, where it would be possible for students from other areas to take regional and national examinations scheduled in June, said Malam Ayuba, the principal of another school.

Muhammed Karage, principal of the Federal Government College high school in Maiduguri, said about 150 students already have been relocated to his school from the Federal Government College at Buni Yadi, the school burned down in the Feb. 25 attack. He said that students and staff from other federal colleges were being relocated to the states of Katsina and Kaduna.



Jihad, advancing Islam the world through violence, as demanded of every Muslim in the Koran, gets most of the attention by non-Muslims because of the death and destruction caused. Yet Da'wah, advancing Islam by deceit and deception, is probably more widely practiced by Muslims because in many parts of the world Muslims are not present in such disproportionate numbers they can just exercise their muscle to get their way.

The United States is an excellent example of a locale in which Da'wah is the perfect weapon. There are hundreds of millions of people who think Muslims think the same way they do, which is not the case. These hundreds of millions are not aware that Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world and has been for 1400 years as it pursues its goal of Islam's world domination.

Most important, the nation is in the grip of political correctness: It is unacceptable to speak ill of Islam.

Why this is so is somewhat of a mystery, since pundits and commentators freely speak ill of Christianity. But the opinion makers in the media and Hollywood are mostly left wing Democratic elites and they set the patterns which most people adopt without thinking about it. Political correctness is enhanced by the deliberate policies of the Obama administration, such as forbidding government documents to use the words "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same sentence and terming the Islamic murder of soldiers at Ft. Hood by Major Nidal Hasan as he shouted "Alahu Akbar" "workplace violence." Doublespeak at work.

Da'wah unchecked can undermine the Constitution and our way of life. It's important to understand what is going on when any criticism of Islam is immediately branded as "Islamophobia" by Islam's defenders, seeking to shut down any such criticism. Freedom of speech is not a virtue championed in Islam.

A phobia is an unreasonable fear of something. There is nothing unreasonable about a fear of Islam. It is incompatible with our democratic way of life and our Constitution.

Professor Bukay explains how lethal the threat of Da'wah is to the United States. Part 1 can be accessed by clicking here.

Why Da'wah Before Jihad?
By David Bukay*

David Bukay shows that the Da'wah is as fundamental as Jihad to conquering Western societies. Through exploiting the West's openness and its weaknesses, the Da'wah aims to Islamize and achieve demographic victories. Practitioners of the Da'wah doctrine are luring Westerners under the false pretense that Islam promises a just and free, "democratic" society, and world peace. While the Da'wah -- extending an invitation to become a soldier in Allah's army against the infidels -- is not violent, it is an important step to increase the number of Muslims ready to wage jihad in the name of Allah. Thus, "Da'wah before Jihad" must be seen for the existential danger it is. --Rachel Ehrenfeld


Da'wah means focusing on Islamic educational values internally, and instilling incitement and hate propagation externally. Muslim groups and organizations give highest priority and utmost importance to education, manifested in all their charters and decrees. It has a dual objective: to raise a better Muslim devoted to his religion, and to transform the educational system of the infidels at all levels into venues for spreading Islam.

Internally, Islamic schools seek to provide their pupils and students with education under the shadow of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Investing in educating children is how Islamic society plans a successful future, nurtured via a solid interaction between the home, the school, and the Mosque. Parents are highly advised to read and learn the ways and manners of their prophet, through the Qur'an and the Sunnah; awaken their desire for al-Jannah (Paradise), and warn them of al-Nar (Hellfire). The children must cling to Islamic ways and choose righteous friends, as suggested in the Qur'an: always to love and accompany their own religious fellows and at the same time always deny, resent and hate the infidels whenever they are encountered and wherever they are.

These commandments are the religious basis of the horrendous Islamic terrorist acts all around the world. The examples are the words and deeds of Muhammad from the Sunnah:

"The Prophet said, 'Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a Mujāhid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be Shahīd ten times because of the dignity he receives.'

Umar asked the Prophet, 'Is it not true that our men who are killed will go to Paradise and the infidels will go to the Hellfire?' The Prophet said, 'Yes.' Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.'"

There is the holy imperative to teach children from a very early age the importance of saying la-Ilah Ilallah wa-Muhammad Rasul Allah (There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah). Their love and faith in him alone must be instilled in them from a very early age. They are not allowed to even consider another religion, and may not question about Muhammad, his ways and behavior. This is done by the establishment of an exclusively Muslim educational system, and by adopting the Islamic way of life (i.e. eating Halal foods and celebrating Islamic holidays) as the ultimate goal.

Externally, there is an Islamic manual for the activists, published in brochures and pamphlets, and disseminated through Internet sites. The Da'wah's aim is to propagate in all fields of life, among the infidels, the image of Islam as a religion of peace compassion and harmony--with the assistance of their Western collaborators in academia, media, and molders of public opinion. On Internet sites there are tips of how to bring Islam to the heart of the infidels.

Continue reading "HOW ISLAM SPREADS, PART 2"



Islam is a way of life. Its goal is the conquest of the world and all its people. Its "tools' are jihad and Da'wah. Jihad is the tool of violence. Da'wah is the tool of propaganda, deceit and subversion used to achieve Islamization.

Where Islam is strong and the target population is weak, for example, in various parts of Africa, jihad, that is, violence, is employed to take over lands for Islam and subdue the population much more quickly than could be done by Da'wah. The Central African Republic, Mali and northern Nigeria are examples of territories where governments are weak and are no match for armed jihadists who murder, pillage, rape and burn churches and homes to force Christians and other non-Muslims to abandon their homes and villages.

Where Islam's numbers are small, as in Europe and the United States and Jihad is impractical, Da'wah prevails. But as the number of Muslims increases in neighborhoods by immigration and high fertility rates, some levels of jihad violence may be employed to spread fear and terror to force non-Muslim residents to flee, thus enlarging Muslim-only neighborhoods. This is happening in the UK in various places and Dearborn, Michigan is certainly unfriendly to non-Muslims in many areas.

So how does Da'wah work, say, in the United Kingdom and the United States? The following essay, well worth reading, explains:

by David Bukay

From its very beginning, Islam was spread politically and occupied territories by two arms: Jihad, the violent arms of occupation, violence and war-mongering, and Da'wah, the diplomatic and propaganda arm with the aim of Islamization. We are all well acquainted with Jihad, with its varied manifestations of violence, how it originated from Qur'anic commandments, and we have put our most attention, energies and resources on preventing it. From Islamic perspective, it is critical to internalize that killing and being killed is the utmost of Islamic ideals. This is a win-win situation and it means even killing the Mujahid's parents, brothers and sisters if they are not Muslims. This is a win-win situation: if the Muslim is killed on the battleground, he becomes Shahid and enjoys all the glories of Paradise; and if he wins on the battleground, he becomes master of the infidels and gets booty.

However, though Jihad is the notorious instrument of all Muslim doctrines, Islam means first and foremost conquering the world by Da'wah, by propaganda, by proselytizing, by winning the hearts of all human beings to believe in Islam as the supreme religion. Da'wah is the important arm with the aim to submit and to capitulate. All through Islamic history it has served as the religious legitimization basis to invite all human beings to accept Islam as the only supreme religion. The operational order was always Da'wah first, and if it fails, than Jihad: Da'wah Qablal-Jihad.

The contemporary Islamic onslaught against the free world to conquer and to submit it to Islamic rule precisely shows these tendencies. Da'wah is perpetuated as diplomacy of deceit. It is the secretive lethalenemy that the Free World is even unaware of; it approaches the infidels in moderate, tender, and graceful ways. It is the non-violent stealth strategy of coercion and capitulation; the concept of missionary activity to enforce its will through the Shari'ah. Da'wah is intended to change our minds and our behavior and to subvert our mode of thinking. It is a cultural coercive strategyaimed at toppling the democratic liberal regimes and eliminating freedoms and civil rights. By infiltrating Western technology and societies' fabrics the Islamic aim is to destroy them from within.

Continue reading "HOW ISLAM SPREADS, PART 1"


Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!


Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media


Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Chatham Info
Monthly Archive