Thursday, December 20, 2018

An Interview with Andrew Jones: A European Academic Talks About Islamization of the UK (Revised)




Transcript of Civilization Jihad Awareness interview with Andrew Jones.

(My apologies to Andrew Jones. The previous transcript was poor. I learned a valuable lesson about checking how a transcriptionist does work now, this one used a computer program. I also am guilty of not reading it thoroughly. Again, my apologies to Andrew Jones.)

Andrew Jones is an academic and journalist living and working in Europe.  He has written for JihadWatch, Gatestone Institute and American Thinker.


Paul Sutliff
Welcome to Civilization Jihad Awareness.

Andrew Jones
Hello Paul, thank you for having me.

Paul Sutliff
Your article for Jihad Watch was "UK from Appeasement to Collusion part 1, the Church of England." I found it extremely important because the Church of England was one of the foundations of the Protestant Church. Over here they call it the Episcopal Church. I found it extremely important to think that this is happening in that particular church. I want the world to hear about this. With the problem of mass migration of Muslims which is also known as the hijra... how bad it is in the UK. Your article talks about a massive push to transform the UK after World War II. You mentioned that it never had a democratic mandate, what do you mean by that?

Andrew Jones                                                                                             
Well, mass immigration to the UK began after the 1945 Labour government (the leftwing party in Britain) passed what’s called the Nationalities Act in 1948. In this case, Commonwealth subjects (so that’s people from the ex Empire) were granted residency status in the UK, although this policy was later modified in the 1960s. So although the issue is debatable as the UK like America is a representative democracy, what I mean by "no democratic mandate" is that this piece of very important legislation wasn't mentioned in the Labour Party manifesto for the 1945 election, so no one in the general population voted for it. From 1948 onwards, a steady but digestible flow of immigration continued into the UK and there were many positive contributions to British life from this. But, began by Tony Blair, net migration tripled in 1998 and has continued at historic highs to the present day. So for example between 1998 and 2016, immigration has been between 400,000 and 650,000 per annum [year] with 43% of that being Muslim immigration.

Paul Sutliff
So that's 400,000 to 650,000 per year?

Andrew Jones
Correct.

Paul Sutliff
Wow!

Andrew Jones
And 43% of that being Muslim immigration. So, what you have then is Blair's government effectively stopped enforcing immigration law and arguably thereby becoming a criminal government. And the Conservative Party in subsequent governments, they've just continued that. Now, there's a lot of speculation as to government motives for opening the floodgates for immigration like this, but according to Blair's aid, a guy called Andrew Neather, it was done to quote, “Rub the [political] Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” So in other words, Blair was aiming to permanently transform the UK through mass immigration, deliberately swinging demographics in the left's favor as immigrants and immigrant descendant communities, they overwhelmingly vote Labour like Democrat in the United States. So, being extra-legal, this opening of the floodgates to mass immigration was, again, it wasn't put to the British public in any of Labour's election manifestos. This tremendous transformation of British culture has happened without anyone really being asked.

Paul Sutliff
It's interesting how in different countries or on different continents, we're having the same issues with leftists which are basically communists and how they're trying to destroy our country's governments by mass migration. I'm amazed. So, what's been the impact on the UK of this mass migration?

Andrew Jones
Well, I think a lot of people would agree in Britain that there were many positives to the pre-Blair era immigration. You know, you're talking about a digestible level of diversity, as it were. But since the Blair era, really the immigration has been too great an intensity for British society to comfortably digest. Now, even a guy called Trevor Phillips now admits this, and he was Blair's Equality and Human Rights Commissioner. So, he was someone who was at the center of the Labour Party's project to diversify Britain and even he has admitted now it's gone horribly wrong. Now, on a macro scale as you say, like in America, the British and European political and business elites, it's evident that they’ve developed a taste for mass immigration, an addiction even. This is true across most of the political spectrum, so for the political left mass immigration provides them with new voters and it's ideologically internationalist. So, it kind of breaks down the society they’re sort of revolutionarily set against. And for the center-right, in America you call them RINOs I believe, 'Republicans in name only'; right?

Paul Sutliff
Yes, definitely.

Andrew Jones
For them flooding the labor market drives down labor costs and this, in a way, recreates the conditions of 19th-century capitalism, which were heavily in the boss’s favor. So the left and the center-right, they've aligned in what we now call Globalism, and all of these vested political and corporate interests, they want mass immigration despite between 70-80% of public opinion across nations objecting to it, and plainly put, this is an attack on democracy. So where the UK now is with mass immigration, it's a state of affairs where the native British are a minority in London; so 45% of the capital's population is native British and native Brits are also likely now to be a minority in Birmingham, the UK's second city. In the foreseeable future, Pew Research predicts the UK's Muslim population in a medium migration scenario, it's going to reach 16.7% by 2050 and that’s probably an underestimation. And Oxford University professor of demography; a gentleman called David Coleman, he's calculated that nationally, the native British population will be a minority by 2066. So what you've got from this wave of mass immigration beginning after the war and then accelerating in the 1990s under Tony Blair, it's permanently transformed the UK, and what we now have is a kind of new cultural order emerging; it's a phenomenal transformation.

Paul Sutliff
Wow! I'm just kind of ---I don't understand how a country can purposely move itself so much towards destruction. These statistics are just mind-numbing.

Andrew Jones
I think it’s the vested interests in the country which have pushed it in that direction, and I believe you have similar patterns in the United States.

Paul Sutliff
Not this drastic yet. Thank God for that. Andrew, you have an astounding statistic of an increase of Muslims through mass migration in the UK between 2001 and 2011; 75%. How are they integrating if at all, into English society?

 Andrew Jones
Okay, lots of things going on here. The increase is due to a combination of high birth rates and mass immigration. So you have, for example, your typical middle-class British couple; they'll be having, you know, one or two children at some point in their 30s. So that compares to an immigrant Muslim family, they will have maybe up to five children by the time they’re 30. So it's a quick birth rate, and things change quickly demographically, people don't really realize that; they think it changes slowly, but it actually changes within the space of a couple of lifetimes. And maybe because of this combination of birth rates and mass immigration, the Muslim population now constitutes around 6% of Britain's total population; 12% of London's population. This 75% increase statistic, is widely recognized, but I drew [took] it from the Muslim Council of Britain websites; the MCB they're called. Now, they're the supposedly moderate premier advocacy group for British Muslims. The MCB, it was set up by Pakistani Islamists from a group called Jamaat-I-Islami, so essentially they are the Muslim Brotherhood.

Paul Sutliff
Yes, they are the Muslim Brotherhood, that's exactly right.

Andrew Jones
Okay, so I would say one has to be a little bit careful about using the word “they”, you know, when we say “how are they integrating?” Because many British Muslims, they're well integrated and they find the rise of extremism in their communities alarming. There's a kind of almost like the 'silent moderate' phenomenon, and it is particularly the case I think with the older generation of Muslim immigrants, many of whom came to the UK to participate in the British way of life. Now, the younger generation, however, they do seem to be more at risk of falling prey to extremism, and this is for a couple of reasons. There are the second and third generation identity issues which go with not entirely belonging to the old country, nor to the new country. So extremist ideology can move in on this insecurity and provide a ready-made sense of belonging and purpose, a kind of family. And that alienation is added to by many of the more recent Muslim immigrants coming from highly “Shariaized” countries like Pakistan. Pakistan, in the last 20-30 years, it's Islamized, whereas the first generation of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, they came from, kind of like, the afterglow of the British Empire, so they had a dose of British culture in them before they arrived here, that's not the case with the recent arrivals. And of course, really, as I'm sure your listeners know, and you know, the great background problem globally is the rise of this purist extremist Islam which is funded by vast amounts of money from the Gulf states; these petro-dollars [oil money].

Paul Sutliff
And we have a lot of problems with that here with the Saudis funding a whole bunch of areas and Qatar funding things, especially that have to do with education. Can you outline some of the specifics on this lack of integration?

Andrew Jones
Okay, so the context in Britain that the second and third generation, and the recent arrival Muslims, find themselves in, is one where between half and two-thirds of British mosques could reasonably be called extremist. You've got figures like 45% of British mosques are Pakistani Deobandi sect. Now, that's the same sect of Islam followed by the Taliban. And I’ll just say that again, strap yourself in, but just under half of the mosques in the UK are the same sect as the Taliban.

Paul Sutliff
Wow! Those figures are extraordinary.

Andrew Jones
You add to that, all of the major Muslim advocacy groups, they are extremist run or linked. So we're talking about the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain, Muslim Engagement and Development and the various Islamic charities. There is no government oversight or regulation of mosques, mosque schools or Islamic centres. So on an institutional level, Islam in the UK is predominantly anti-integrationist and extremist-leaning. This upcoming generation of British Muslims, the people who are growing up now, they're being heavily influenced by these organizations, so the problems are getting worse, and this is a problem the British government simply will not openly admit to.

Perhaps they won't admit to it because the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-integrationism is partly their fault. Successive governments have permitted uncontrolled mass immigration which leads to the phenomenon of large immigrant enclaves that make integration impossible. Successive governments have also failed to enforce the law with elements of the Muslim community, most glaringly and shamefully with the largely Muslim rape gang epidemic. And governments have also failed to aggressively pursue Jihadis living in the UK, on the understanding that these terrorists, they fight their Jihad abroad -- often in concert with British geopolitical interests, like you know, using jihadis to topple Gaddafi in Libya, for example. Now, a large part of this problematic appeasement is that all the major British political parties, they're different shades of liberal. It's the same liberal dish served with 3 slightly different sauces, if you see what I mean. So, in many ways, this liberalism is the root problem because the tendency of this liberalism is to tolerate and adapt “come-what-may”, and this creates the circumstances for Islamic extremism to thrive. So, liberal tolerance simply does not require integration of British Muslims, so why should they? Why should they integrate?

Paul Sutliff
How is the UK adapting to this influx, this push of Muslims versus the Muslims adapting to their new homeland?

Andrew Jones
Okay, so the UK adapting to Islam versus Islam adapting to Britain. There is a tendency for the UK government not to require integration…. However, the UK is doing an awful lot of adaptation to Islam, and there are numerous examples of this. They’re pretty alarming, so this adaptation really is a sort of over-toleration. This is what's driving the Islamization of Britain. So let’s think of a few examples. Female Genital Mutilation [FGM] is a largely but not exclusively Muslim practice. This has seen zero prosecutions since it was made illegal in Britain in 1985, with thousands of cases of female genital mutilation every year in Britain, as many as 1 a day, and there have been no prosecutions since it was made illegal in 1985. Staggering!

So, you also have Halal slaughtered meat having been bulk-bought by British schools and fed to unsuspecting non-Muslim children.

Jihadis returning to the UK after fighting in Syria and Iraq -- they've been allowed back into the country and many of them roam free without security service monitoring.

Most importantly though, and this is the subject of a series of articles I am writing for Jihad Watch. All branches of the British states are being influenced by or infiltrated by extremist Muslim advocacy groups. Again, the root of the problem is the appeasing liberalism which dominates Britain's culture. And the argument I'm making is that appeasement, it is mutating into collusion. Without wishing to be alarmist, due to the UK's radically altering demographics and the growing power of a Muslim voting bloc, politicians in Britain, they're increasingly going along with the demands of Islamic activists. And the wider British population faces losing control of its political fate in the not-too-distant future. We're seeing the Labour Party directly collude with extremist Muslim organizations, for example, Muslim Engagement and Development. The Conservative Party is kind of ineffectively playing catch-up. For example, by appointing a well-integrated Pakistani heritage Muslim Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who in many ways he seems a good thing. But they're chasing something, they're chasing this rising voting block. Now, in the medium to long term, the UK by doing this is arguably adapting itself out of existence as a cultural entity with this appeasement. It's a growing problem and it's going to come home to roost at some point I think.

Paul Sutliff
One of the things I noticed under President Obama's rule here in the United States was a change in immigration policy. Until Obama, we had a requirement you had to assimilate into society. And you're using terms like integrate and adapt which is what the U.S. immigration policy changed too. Can you give examples to the listeners of how that is happening in Europe?

Andrew Jones
It's not being pushed that hard. I mean recently in Britain, there was a government drive to promote what's called Fundamental British Values, which are fundamentally liberal values, and central to this was values like toleration and diversity, which, of course, they are sort of shall we say adaptive, they're accommodating and accepting, and there doesn't really seem to be all that much assertion. You know, you can't get much less assertive than not prosecuting for Female Genital Mutilation. So there you have a tangible instance of the almost complete lack of requirement to integrate. And so it's a very reasonable perception that Europe is kind of bending over backwards and not asserting anything of traditional European values or even traditional liberal values. Liberalism has you know…. Karl Popper pointed out, (the philosopher), that Liberalism is now sort of tolerating intolerance and it's being destroyed in the process.

Paul Sutliff
Wow! I think it's fascinating. You’re using the term FGM when we're talking about this because we had a case in the United States recently where a judge decided that our law against Female Genital Mutilation is unconstitutional. It's also interesting, that ties together with the Pakistani mosque, because the persons who were doing this, the persons who got caught were the Pakistani sect that you're talking about. And I find that kind of blends together also. But I probably should go on to ask the next question. I was amazed that no one in the UK government seems to be able to find a reason to shut the Muslim Council of Britain's doors. When I read your reference to 2009 after former MCB Secretary General Daud Abdullah signed the Istanbul Declaration which calls for violence against UK Armed Forces. Would you please tell us about the Istanbul Declaration?

Andrew Jones
Okay, the Istanbul Declaration was a 2009 response by Muslim scholars and activists to the Israeli operation in Gaza at the time; Operation Cast Lead. British Naval Forces as allies of Israel participated in the sea blockade of Gaza, so stopping things going in and out of Gaza by sea route. This declaration said that there was quote “an obligation of the Islamic Nation (the umma) to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters as a declaration of war; a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Muslim Nation (the umma). This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.” That's pretty clear. So as a result of this threat of violence, Gordon Brown's government officially severed ties with the Muslim Council of Britain. But, the ties unofficially continued, and Theresa May has now renewed and strengthened these ties. We can see from this failed attempt by the British government to assert itself, and the impulse to appease winning through, that a large, growing politicized UK Muslim population is going to be influencing British foreign policy decisions in the years ahead. And sadly, the UK throwing Israel under the bus is something we're going to see a lot more of.

Paul Sutliff
Wow! Any time I see a country that goes against Israel, I see its demise. But well, why has the UK government welcomed back these obvious extremists? I'm amazed that I mean, you're hearing about all the Jihadis returning. Why are they welcoming them back?

Andrew Jones
Well I mean, the returning Jihadis is a slightly separate issue to the Muslim Council of Britain.

Paul Sutliff
I am sorry I mean welcoming back these extremists. Why would they welcome back the Muslim Brotherhood council into…? And I see it happened here under Obama, but you had a definite declaration of war against the UK which is kind of worse than we have. We have the Explanatory Memorandum which basically is a declaration of war, but for some reason, our representatives can’t see it.

Andrew Jones
Since the Istanbul Declaration, the Muslim Council of Britain, they've toned down their rhetoric. They have presented themselves as moderates, and that's been part of it worming its way back into government circles. So, they now speak out against terrorism, but, of course, they consider the terrorism of Hamas as a legitimate resistance struggle. Now, that change of tone using, for instance, the moderate kind of "mood music" of interfaith dialogue and so on, that's sweet music to the ears of the British government. The British government sees the Muslim Council as vital to have on-board in its attempt to influence the Muslim community and to tamp down the potential for terrorism. So roughly speaking, the British government approach, it may well be something along the lines of, "let the cultural Jihadists get what they want so the violent Jihadists won’t have a reason to attack us". As in the instance of refusing to grant the Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi, asylum; that was done because the public order implications of her coming to Britain would have been significant. A large number of politicized British Muslims would have been out on the streets, and the government really doesn't want that. So they didn't grant her asylum. Which was morally utterly reprehensible. But this is the situation that the British government faces. In a way, they're being hard-balled into going along with this stuff because the possibility of serious trouble is really quite significant. So if this is what the British government is up to, it's in line with this Salafist idea of the aqd aman, and this is what's known as a “covenant of security.” So this is an Islamic extremist principle of not attacking non-Muslim countries which provide Muslims with security. Now, that may well be the loophole that the British government is trying to kind of wriggle through, but it's a snare. It’s a snare which will tighten because it entails creeping Islamization.

Then, you know, further down the line there's the endgame of the Islamists. So given that the Muslim Brotherhood strategy is to infiltrate and embed itself in a non-Muslim society, slowly gain strength then finally use violence when necessary, a non-Muslim government abiding by this covenant ultimately faces either conflict or total submission; there's no positive outcome. So the Muslim Council of Britain which has well documented Brotherhood links, it seems to be very effectively playing the British government along these lines, snaring it into collusion. But the basic British government objective is to try to, in some way, defuse the situation. And as part of this attempt to defuse the situation, they are trying to get the Muslim Council of Britain on-board, but that's a dangerous game to be playing.

Paul Sutliff
Wow! It's definitely a dangerous game. What you're talking about, it seems not so far in the future here -- which is scary. This is the stuff I've been writing about and warning about, but it's scary to think that some of this stuff is already that far ahead in the UK. You talk about your government knowing it is dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, you state that Prime Minister Theresa May knows exactly who she's dealing with because of the Jenkins report. Could you share with the listeners what this is?

Andrew Jones
The Jenkin’s Report was done in 2014. It was ordered by David Cameron's government at the time, and is also known as the Muslim Brotherhood Review. Sir John Jenkins; he was the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are currently not keen on the Brotherhood. So make of that what you will. The review was commissioned by Cameron to establish the precise nature of the Muslim Brotherhood's subversive activities in the UK and how they facilitate the growth of extremism and terrorism. So basically it was an examination of what are these people are up to, what they are doing. And the review; there's access to an abridged and censored version of the review available online. But the review was, and it remains, largely censored, and it was countered by another branch of the British government; the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And they wanted a more favorable view of the Brotherhood. Now, we can only speculate as to why that might have been, but the Foreign Office has Arabist leanings which date back to the First World War and Lawrence of Arabia, and obviously the British government has a lot of dealings with the Gulf states. So who knows what's really going on behind the scenes, but something definitely went on. Now, Theresa May was Home Secretary at the time of the review, therefore she would have had access to it, she knows its content. And that means that she knows the true nature of Islamic activism in the UK, but she has strengthened and deepened ties with the Muslim Council nonetheless. Make of that what you will.

Paul Sutliff
And that is surprising. Here, the biggest issue we deal with is a group called CAIR, and for a while, they were banned, but now I mean they’ve really strengthened their ties, they solidified everything back with the federal government under Obama, but things are bad.

Andrew Jones
It is possible that the British government may be seeing Trump as kind of an unfortunate blip, and they are continuing with effectively the Obama doctrine, which is to try to kind of shear-off the nonviolent extremists and get them on board, and separate out the violent extremists from the non-violent. And therefore trying to take the wind out of the sails of the violent extremists.

Paul Sutliff
It gives them both what they want which is Islamization. That's the sad part of it that they both want the same thing; they both want to transform the country into a Muslim country. Whether it's here or there, they have the same goals -- the violent and the nonviolent, and that's the sad thing they don't see it. Andrew, you called it.

Andrew Jones
Maybe they do see it and it's short-term political expediency. Because what you're talking about is the cosying-up of liberal governments to the non-violent extremists and kicking the can of the problem down the line, so it becomes appeasement.

Paul Sutliff
That's a good way to put it, because politicians, they basically only think of the immediate future, they don't think long-term because they think about what effects their vote towards re-election….

Andrew Jones
Thinking in terms of the election cycle.

Paul Sutliff
Yes, that is the sad truth. You talk about crossing the line from appeasement to collusion; what do you mean by this?

Andrew Jones
What I mean is that doing as a bully says, in other words, appeasement, it can mutate into becoming basically the bully's sidekick, which is collusion.

Now, the situation the British government faces is that Islamic activists have promulgated this victim narrative among British Muslims, you know, the specter of so-called Islamophobia. This victim narrative, it has the threat of violence coded into it; because if Muslims are the victims of discrimination and persecution, then, if pushed, they will be justified in using violence to counter their supposed oppression. So, something is being set up here to be activated as and when needed.

Now, it's not easy, especially for the overly tolerant Western liberal, to make a stand against the bully who's pretending to be a victim. So the easy path is to give the Islamic activists what they want. And that is appeasement; it diffuses a very uncomfortable confrontation in which the British government, or any government for that matter, would undoubtedly be cast as the persecutor of Muslims, and the mainstream media would pile in on that. Now, that short-term pseudo-solution of appeasement, it of course sets up bigger long-term problems. And one long-term problem is that if unchecked, appeasement becomes collusion. Doing as the bully says to appease, is a hair's breadth away from being on the bully's side, being his sidekick.

That's a bit abstract, so to give you a tangible example, the entire Western European political and media elites are currently crossing that line, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre was perhaps the point at which that began. After that attack, the global liberal media collectively caved-in to the Islamic injunction not to depict Muhammad. Of course they dressed-up this cowardice as tolerance, it was appeasement due to the threat of violence. But not depicting Muhammad is not simply appeasement. It’s simultaneously sharia-compliant. So the global liberal media was checkmated into colluding with the Islamization of the West, and politicians are falling into this same trap.

Paul Sutliff
Well, the first thing that shocked me in your article Andrew on the Church of England was this willingness of an archbishop which is the head of the Church of England underneath the Queen, to enter into interfaith discussions with Jihadi type Muslims; you call them the extremists. What made me stop and take notice was your statement a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams advocated the absorption of aspects of Sharia law into the UK legislation. This is beyond my ability to comprehend; I don't get this. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about this?

Andrew Jones
Okay, I don't see the former archbishop as doing anything that’s any different from the rest of Britain's liberal elite. He seems to be sticking his head in the sand along with the rest of them. I mean, he might hope that as fellow theists in the Abrahamic tradition, Muslims might get on board and integrate if their religious needs are catered for. For instance, by the official sanctioning of Sharia courts for intra-communal Muslim issues like divorce and so on. And he might also hope that the most moderate version of Islam is going to eventually prevail in Britain, if Britain is accommodating enough. As you point out though, these hopes ignore the facts, and therefore seem to be rationalizations underpinned by fear and the fear may well be that Islam won't integrate and that Britain, therefore, has an insoluble problem on his hands. I can't believe that a highly intelligent man like Rowan Williams doesn't see this. So his statement is perhaps a blend of wishful thinking and psychological denial.

Paul Sutliff
I was also shocked by Archbishop Williams’ willingness to somehow remain ignorant. Like you're saying, it might be denial but he's excusing willful connections of the ISB to terrorists influencers. Influencers such as Sayid Qutb, what do you think of this type of collusion with an enemy organization by a leader of the Church of England? Does it say to you and others that the head of the C of E is not a Christian?

Andrew Jones
The Islamic Society of Britain -- they kind of dress themselves up as progressive, but they are influenced by this extremist strain within Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood people like Qutb. For example, the ISB has a member who has a relationship counseling service. But when you look closely, the relationship counseling service is really a kind of rebranded Sharia court. That's the game that they're playing.

Now, I don't see it as my place to comment on the quality of an individual's Christian faith. However, I can see that Christian teachings could be mistakenly misapplied to justify appeasement, you know, turning the other cheek and so on. But to reiterate though, I see Archbishop Williams and Welby and almost the entire British political and media elite as being gripped by a combination of fear, denial and this liberal group-think. This generation of liberals has taken the UK in a very dangerous direction and they now appear to be paddling hard to pretend the dangers aren't there. Now due to this downward pressure coming from the elite, Islam has become the great unmentionable in the UK and perhaps for good reason. Because calling-out the lies that are being spun, this may set in motion something catastrophic, you know, public order problems, and it's no understatement to suggest that the possibility of serious civil unrest is at the forefront of the government's considerations. They're trying to avoid that I think, at all costs really.

Paul Sutliff
Can you elaborate on that?

Andrew Jones
Okay, just imagine this as a hypothetical scenario now. Imagine if the UK government and the media; they one day suddenly stopped lying about the extent of Islamic extremism in the UK. They begin telling the truth about the Muslim Council of Britain, the other advocacy groups and what's taught in a huge number of British mosques. I mean really go to town on that and then make moves to counter it. So this is our hypothetical scenario. All of a sudden, that happens. Now, even if the government took a gradual “salami slice,” or “toothpaste tube” approach, slowly cutting away or squeezing out the extremists, the government would set up for themselves the following. They would have to arrest and probably intern without trial (contrary to human rights legislation) thousands of jihadists. So in the UK, there are 3,000 or so jihadists on the immediate terror watch list…. and them being arrested, the government would then have a situation where the further 20 to 30,0000 potential jihadis in the UK (security services are aware 20-30,000 persons of interest out there, potential jihadis) -- these people, with a crackdown being activated, they would be radicalized by that. You add to that mix a combat-hardened core of a few hundred Isis and Al-Nusra front fighters, they've returned undetected from Syria and Iraq. Then you've got up two-thirds of mosques and madrassas, the mosques schools. They would be lined-up for closure with many extremist Imams needing to be deported. So, you know, human rights legislation would be shredded in this kind of scenario. And all of that simply could not be done within the existing liberal paradigm. In this hypothetical crackdown, as the government moves against extremists, the victim narrative that the Muslim activists have been cultivating in Muslim communities for years, that would come into play and then violent resistance would be justified; sooner or later, the call to jihad would rise up. Now, the doomsday scenario would then be that foreign fighters travel to the UK to “defend the 6 million [sic. 6%] Muslims.” Just as with any other conflict involving Muslims since the Afghan war against the Soviets in the ‘80s. Internationally, all Muslim nations would objects to this “persecution.” And the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they would use the enormous economic and media leverage they have in the UK to force submission. So the British government is in a tight spot and it would find out just how tight a spot it is if they tried to push back against Islamic extremism. It's so embedded now. There are so many potential jihadists in the country -- 20-30,000 -- that the government, if they try and do something about it, they would find themselves in a very difficult situation.

Paul Sutliff
Wow, that is as we say here in America, “putting yourself between a rock and a hard place.” It's still putting off till tomorrow what we have to deal with today, but that's a tough situation. What do you think the implications are for the UK when the Church of England is an advocate for the enemies of the UK? It even goes so far as to hide the enemy status according to your article. Does the UK have a chance to survive if this continues?

Andrew Jones
As things stand, if the UK continues on its present course of appeasement, it’s long-term future seems likely to be or will be very bleak indeed. Culturally and politically, it will be a slow death. As I just outlined though, if the poisonous nettle of Islamic extremism is grasped in the short-to-mid-term there is the potential for this doomsday scenario. So frankly the British government is over a barrel either way and then, like I said earlier, the tendency of politicians is to focus on the short-term and the election cycle and to let "sleeping dogs lie." So the general tendency is really to allow the problems to mount up for the long-term and that's going to be bleak. Where the UK is now, advocating for the enemy, as you say, in the guise of liberal tolerance -- this is near ubiquitous across British public life and that's really the theme of my series of articles in Jihad  Watch. Limited opposition to this Islamization, this appeasement moving into collusion -- the limited opposition that there is from activists or from the non-mainstream political parties, the fringe parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party known as UKIP -- that's widely smeared as supposedly "far-right" and there's this strange, almost totalitarian atmosphere in Britain where people implicitly understand that they should not talk about Islam. Don't go there. Don't talk about it. Don't mention it. Now that unspoken is a vacuum and the Islamic extremists are drawn into that vacuum. They depend upon it and they capitalize on it. They have, in a sense, created a “no go zone” in the minds of Western liberals. And from there, they will continue to push out and take more ground.


Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Judge in his mid 70s forgets he is a federal judge and acts on the fantasy he is on the Supreme Court


On November 20, 2018 Judge Bernard Friedman, of the US Federal District Court in Detroit ruled that a federal law barring Female Genitalia Mutilation (FGM) was unconstitutional since it was in his opinion a law made regarding religion. There are several issues with this erroneous ruling.

  1.  A federal district court is not the US Supreme Court which is the only court that has the power to determine constitutionality of a federal law. 
  2. The Judge is declaring himself the equivalent of nine justices on the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. In doing this it calls into question his mental health. 
  3. This ruling is a display of bias against those who brought charges disqualifying him from making a ruling in the first place. 
  4. FGM s a surgical procedure that mutilates a woman's body. . It is not a religious procedure. It requires surgery, and should require anesthesia, stitches and follow-up care. 
 1. A federal district court is not the US Supreme Court which is the only court that has the power to determine constitutionality of a federal law.

According to US Courts.gov, federal courts, “Federal courts hear cases involving the constitutionality of a law, cases involving the laws and treaties of the U.S. ambassadors and public ministers, disputes between two or more states, admiralty law, also known as maritime law, and bankruptcy cases.” However, this is a summarization of the roles of the entire judiciary branch of the federal government. It does not define what a federal district court does. This is found below:
 The nation’s 94 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.
Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases. (http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure)
Thus the Judge Bernard Friedman had the authority to try the case with a jury. He did not have the authority to over-rule Congressionally enacted federal law. Judge Bernard Friedman has also ruled against the constitutionality of a Michigan law banning homosexual marriage. When one man has the authority to supersede the actions of a state body and/or a state election, we give up being a constitutional republic and return to an oligarchy run by the Judiciary. The big difference here is his previous ruling addressed state law not federal law, which he has no authority to rule against, as he is not a Supreme Court Justice hearing a case on the constitutionality of a law.

2. The Judge is declaring himself the equivalent of nine justices on the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. In doing this it calls into question his mental health.

When a person believes he/she has for more authority than they actually have and acts on that belief, that is by definition delusional. Dr. Steve Bressert, states on PsychCentral.com:
 Delusional disorder is characterized by the presence of either bizarre or non-bizarre delusions which have persisted for at least one month. Non-bizarre delusions typically are beliefs of something occurring in a person’s life which is not out of the realm of possibility. (https://psychcentral.com/disorders/delusional-disorder-symptoms/)
Judge Bernard Friedman has acted as a judge, believing his authority is above that of legislatures for multiple years. Yet constitutionality of law is not officially a district court judge assignment. It is a Supreme Court Justice assignment. Dr. Bresserts article states that diagnostics of delusional behavior require that in order for this to be a diagnosis, the person in question must not have schizophrenia and apart from the delusion other behavior appears normal.

3. This ruling is a display of bias against those who brought charges disqualifying him from making a ruling in the first place.

The judges place in a federal court is to try the case, not take sides. By declaring a federal law unconstitutional the judge acted in a manner that displays bias. As (2) states it may be a delusional belief that allowed an action, but it is also a display of favor/bias on the part of the judge. He did not allow the case to be presented against the doctor accused. Instead Judge Bernard Friedman chose to go beyond the case presented and show his personal thoughts and beliefs by ruling the law unconstitutional. This case was never about whether a law is constitutional or not. It about whether the law was violated or not. That must not be forgotten!

4. FGM is a surgical procedure that mutilates a woman's body. It is not a religious procedure. It requires surgery, and should require anesthesia, stitches and follow-up care.

 The World Health Organization has addressed Female Genitalia Mutilation (FGM) for decades. According to their publication, WHO Guidelines on the Management of Health Complications from Female Genital Mutilation, FGM is not exclusively a religious practice. This means that the judge in his ruling not only saw himself in a delusional higher status, he also saw himself as above medical doctors who have been writing on this topic for decades. Who states the following on the reasons FGM is practiced:
FGM is practised for a variety of sociocultural reasons, varying from one region and ethnic group to another. The primary reason is that it is part of the history and cultural tradition of the community. In many cultures, it constitutes a rite of passage to adulthood and is also performed in order to confer a sense of ethnic and gender identity within the community. In many contexts, social acceptance is a primary reason for continuing the practice. Other reasons include safeguarding virginity before marriage, promoting marriageability (i.e. increasing a girl’s chances of finding a husband), ensuring fidelity after marriage, preventing rape, providing a source of income for circumcisers, as well as aesthetic reasons (cleanliness and beauty) (Ali AA. Knowledge and attitudes of female genital mutilation among midwives in Eastern Sudan. Reprod Health. 2012;9:23.). Some communities believe that FGM is a religious requirement, although it is not mentioned in major religious texts such as the Koran or the Bible. In fact, FGM predates Islam and is not practised in many Muslim countries, while it is performed in some Christian communities (ibid). Whatever the reason provided, FGM reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes. This aspect, and the fact that FGM is an embedded sociocultural practice, has made its complete elimination extremely challenging. As such, efforts to prevent and thus eventually eradicate FGM worldwide must continue, in addition to acknowledging and assisting the existing population of girls and women already living with its consequences whose health needs are currently not fully met.
I call upon President Trump and Congress to act against usurpers in federal judge robes, believing they are Supreme Court Justices. Act to stop this insanity and act to protect the people of the United States by again recognizing that this federal law against FGM is indeed constitutional and that the judge had no authority to declare it otherwise!


Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required



Books
 
 


Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Is CAIR really Hamas in America? You be the judge!



The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was formed due to IAP being accused of financing Hamas. The case went through appeals and the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) finally lost big in 2004 as a result of being determined to have provided financing for Hamas. IAP was dissolved in 1994 as the case was amping up. This allowed them not not to pay out as they eventually lost owing $185 million.
The truth is that, David Boim, a 17-year old American citizen, who was a Yeshiva student in Israel was killed by Hamas. IAP was alleged to have funneled money to the terrorist Hamas, a USA designated terrorist entity. The lawsuit was won by the Boim family in December of 2008; the appellate court upheld a $156 million dollar judgment against IAP and two other Islamic Charities. With the damage done to IAP, the organization was disbanded and reformed into what is now known as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Take note of the original officers of CAIR vs IAP.
As CAIR and IAP had little if any differences of officers, this establishes a direct correlation and relationship of CAIR and IAP. The relationship between IAP and Hamas was established by the Muslim Brotherhood in America (GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT. 003-001 7. 3:04-CR-240-G). Here it is important to understand that Hamas is a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. So there is no better authority to make the statement.
According to the Hamas Covenant:
Article One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.
The Islamic Resistance Movement's Relation With the Moslem Brotherhood Group:
Article Two:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.
So who better is there to recognize that IAP worked with Hamas? Keep in mind we are talking about the very same officer who ran CAIR and still are! But there is still more evidence that CAIR is Hamas in America.
The largest terrorism financing trial of the USA was against, the Holy Land Foundation and Development (HLF). This organization was found guilty of financing Hamas. Now ask yourself why would an organization that finances Hamas, a USA designated terrorist entity, give seed money to the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR)? Worse, why would Nihad Awad perjure himself in court and deny this? After all the lies, Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed a copy of a cancelled check from the Hamas financier, the Holy Land Foundation.


This is the old information. If HLF was a financier of HLF, why did funds go to CAIR? Could it be that they considered CAIR the American version of Hamas?
Opportunities have arisen for CAIR to distance itself from Hamas. As recently as November 2017, CAIR Minnesota Chapter representative, Jaylani Hussein refused to condemn Hamas. Instead he said:
CAIR is the largest civil rights and civil liberties organization. We have 35 chapters across the United States. We’re an American organization. We are a grassroots organization, supported and funded by people locally, made up of people who look like you and look like me. I understand that my organization comes under threat and know why we come under attack. It’s not because of our silence. It’s because we carry a big stick, we remind people of the Constitution. We remind people that American Muslims are exactly like everyone else. And we’re not gonna allow anyone to threaten us, or create the fact that Muslims have to hide, and so we are an organization just like any other organization. We get audited. We get reviewed, we are a state-accredited organization and so if you think we are a terrorist organization then call the FBI and let them know, and let them investigate.
A non-answer. A non-condemnation.
I used to support the PLO, and I used to be the President of the General Union of Palestine Students which is part of the PLO here in the United States, but after I researched the situation inside Palestine and outside, I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.
This is CAIR’s current leader. But then you could not expect a leader of entity to condemn the entity itself.
These are the facts. They are not made up. What do you think? Is there enough evidence here to posit that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is indeed Hamas?



Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required



Books