Archive | May, 2018

U.S. Islamic Schools Teaching What ISIS Teaches

Would it be a problem if ISIS jihadis were teaching in U.S. Islamic schools?

If you answer “Yes” then why is it okay to have the same material ISIS teaches being taught in U.S. Islamic schools?

The text book What Islam is All About is the most widely used 7th grade text book being taught in Islamic schools across America.

In the description of how to use this book, author Yahiya Emerick  explains, “Nearly every statement, paragraph or teaching is followed by reference from the Koran.”

As is taught at the highest level schools of Islamic jurisprudence, What Islam is All About teaches that Islam is not a religion, but a complete way of life governed by sharia (Islamic law).

This textbook for 7th grade children teaches there are 3 duties in Islam:  Dawah, Jihad, and Encouraging Good & Forbidding Evil (“good” and “evil” as defined by sharia).

Dawah is the call or invitation to Islam, and is mandatory before muslims can wage jihad.

“The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…and the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.”

[Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law]

What Islam is All About teaches children that “Jihad” is “most often associated with physically confronting evil and wrongdoing” and the book has a picture of a tank, just in case the children are confused about its meaning.

Ensuring the children understand the duty of jihad in Allah’s eyes, this textbook teaches muslim-American children that those who are killed in jihad are “martyrs” or “Shahids” who immediately go to paradise.

In fact, this is exactly what doctrinal Islam teaches.

The Islamic legal definition of jihad in sharia (Islamic law) is warfare against non-Muslims.

Sharia (Islamic law) clearly states:  “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims”  (Um Dat al Salik, Reliance of the Traveller, Book O9.0)

To be clear, U.S. citizens who attend U.S. Islamic schools are being taught to preform Dawah before they wage Jihad, and that both are duties of all muslims.


From What Islam is All About:

“If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to paradise.”

“Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead. No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.”  Koran 3:169


What Islam is All About  explains “There is no such thing as terrorism in Islam. Nor can a Muslim ever be a fundamentalist because there is only one way to follow Islam.”

In Islam, “Terrorism” means killing a muslim without right, i.e. killing a muslim for a non-sharia prescribed reason.

On March 12, 2018, 17 year old Corey Johnson, of Jupiter, Florida, spent the night at a friend’s house he knew for over 10 years.  Yet, Corey killed another boy staying over by slitting his throat, and stabbed his friend’s mother and younger brother before being arrested.

Corey did what he did because, according to him, the Koran commands him to do such things.  Specifically, in this case, to kill those who mock Islam or muslims.

What Islam is All About  explains, the goal of Islam is to promote peace, justice and order in society. This means peace according to Sharia.

It goes on to say “The basis of the legal and political system is the Sharia of Allah” and “The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

How is any of this contrary to the teachings of Al Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayef, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Shabaab or any other jihadi organization on the planet?

Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse

If this were a movie, no one would watch it because it would be so utterly unbelievable.

Let’s begin with a company called GULFTAINER.

GULFTAINER is owned by the Emir of Sharjah in the UAE and Hamid Jafar.  Hamid Jafar is the brother of Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar, and the two work together on many joint ventures.

Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar is the former Iraqi Deputy Minister of Defense who ran Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction programs – nuclear, biological, chemical.

Dr. Jafar was on the Pentagon’s capture/kill list.

The UAE was a significant funding source for the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and continues to support the global jihad.

Brothers Hamid and Dr. Jafar created Crescent Enterprises, which is now run by Hamid’s son Badr, the CEO of Crescent Enterprises and the Chairman of Gulftainer’s Executive Board.

In 2010, Gulftainer and the Jafars entered into a joint venture with Rostec, owner of Rosoboronexport, the Russian state-owned exporter of the Club-K, which is built to look like a cargo container but is actually a launch platform for cruise missiles.

President Trump imposed sanctions on Rosoboronexport.

In 2014 in a secret deal, the U.S. awarded GULFTAINER a 35-year lease to operate Port Canaveral (Florida), a key port for submarine and space operations.

GULFTAINER executive Badr Jafar visited the Obama White House on March 27, 2014, three weeks before the secret Port Canaveral deal was announced and signed.

How did such an insane proposal get approved by the U.S. government?

Such transactions must be approved by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

The Staff Chairman of CFIUS from 2009-2014 overseeing these matters was senior Muslim Brotherhood leader Aimen Nabi Mir, who served two terms as the President of the Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA), the student wing of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

In the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Northern District of Texas, 2008 – ISNA is identified as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood which directly funded Hamas leaders and organizations overseas.

Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States.

On April 6, 2018, Delaware’s state-owned Diamond State Port Corporation unanimously approved a deal under which GULFTAINER will receive a $580 million 50-year lease to the Port of Wilmington (Delaware).

There is more to this story to include direct business deals between the Jafar family and the Clintons, the Iranian government, Uranium One and more.

In Summary:

A foreign company whose leading agent is the man who developed and ran Iraq’s nuclear/biological/chemical weapons program is partnered with a Russian weapons company producing cruise missile launch systems disguised as cargo containers.  That company, GULFTAINER, now owns one strategic U.S. port and is likely to gain another in the near future.

U.S. officials should hang for this.

Red Flags Raised: Did CDC Hide Defensive Gun Use Data?

Did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suppress defensive gun use data 20 years ago that supports the argument by gun owners that there are more than 2 million such incidents annually?

That’s the question now being raised in several reports, including one lengthy discussion published by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO), a project of the Second Amendment Foundation.

The controversy swirls around a controversial study done by Florida State University criminologist professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that estimated as many as 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually by armed private citizens. Gun prohibitionists have long dismissed that finding, primarily because it doesn’t fit their narrative that people don’t often use guns in self-defense.

Reason magazine’s coverage of this includes an update that may be a bit of a caveat, depending upon how Kleck follows up:

UPDATE: You will note the original link doesn’t work right now. It was pointed out to me by Robert VerBruggen of National Review that Kleck treats the CDC’s surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck’s original survey was, but they apparently were not. From VerBruggen’s own looks at CDC’s raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.) Informed of this, Kleck says he will recalculate the degree to which CDC’s survey work indeed matches or corroborates his, and we will publish a discussion of those fresh results when they come in. But for now Kleck has pulled the original paper from the web pending his rethinking the data and his conclusions.”

In 1995, Kleck and Gertz published “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” igniting furious debate, and no small amount of stubborn resistance from anti-gunners.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms actually did some math of its own and launched a multi-city campaign several years ago declaring “Guns Save Lives.” CCRKBA estimated at the time that 2,191 Americans use guns in self-defense every day on average. Other pro-rights groups have made similar arguments.

According to Blue Lives Matter and, Kleck looked at the newly-discovered CKC data and “found that the CDC’s results showed guns were used defensively by people about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”

In the overwhelming majority of these defensive gun uses, it appears a shot is never fired. The mere display of a firearm was enough to abruptly end an attack or other crime in such cases.

DRGO contended in its lengthy piece that Kleck and Gertz were right all along, and the CDC data, even though it only deals with 15 states, confirms it.

But the question now is why has that CDC data been gathering dust all these years?


Toronto Mass Killing Coverage Subsiding: No Guns Involved

News coverage of Monday’s deadly Toronto sidewalk rampage seems to be subsiding, raising suspicions among some in the firearms community that the reason is because a gun wasn’t involved in the murders of ten pedestrians with a rental van as the weapon of choice.

The dual standard of public angst was not lost on the leader of a national gun rights organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). Chairman Alan Gottlieb, in discussing what he called “a horrible tragedy,” challenged the “liberal media” to start using the term “assault vehicle.”

“Or,” he added, “simply call these killing machines ‘assault weapons.’”

Gottlieb could have a legitimate point.

“Fatal vehicle attacks have been increasing,” he noted. “The 2016 Nice terror attack killed more than 80 people. Last year a man driving a rental truck killed eight people on a bicycle path in New York City. Also last year, 13 people were killed in Barcelona, eight more died in a car attack in London and four were killed in Stockholm. If a gun had been the weapon instead of a vehicle, all of those would have been mass shootings.”

And they would also have been fueling protests outside of gun shows, and marches through the streets of liberal enclaves such as Seattle, San Francisco, and perhaps Washington, D.C. But guns were not involved, so there was no opportunity to demonize Gottlieb’s grassroots action group, or the National Rifle Association, gun owners in general, their firearms or the Second Amendment.

Using the rhetoric of the gun prohibition lobby, Gottlieb wondered how to define or describe an “assault vehicle.”

“Is it a van or truck,” he puzzled. “Does it have a high-powered engine? Does it have an automatic transmission? Can it be fitted with a high capacity fuel tank? Do they all come in solid black, or are other colors available? Can they be equipped with large mufflers to suppress engine noise? Once we define them, should we ban them, require special training to operate them, or just raise the age limit to buy or rent one?”

“Or is the problem the individual driver,” he questioned, “rather than the equipment he turns into a weapon. Once you realize how absurd it is to call a car an ‘assault vehicle,’ you see the lunacy of defining, and then banning, so-called ‘assault rifles.’”

When CBS News did a follow-up on the Monday mayhem, it quoted Meena Chowdry, who had come to Toronto to join others in paying respects to the van attack victims. She had an interesting observation.

“I needed to come here to show that I’m not afraid of this city,” she said. “That one man’s actions cannot taint an otherwise beautiful, welcoming city.”

Indeed, Gottlieb would agree, fix blame where it belongs, on the suspected perpetrator.

“We need to focus the blame where it belongs,” he said, “on the deranged, violent person who commits the violent act. We don’t reflexively demonize every other motorist for the acts of a madman, so why do some people insist on penalizing every gun owner for the acts of criminals?”

Anti-gunners cannot, or simply don’t want, to make that leap in logic. That may be best illustrated by a Thursday National Review column authored by Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. Headlined “Talking Past Each Other on Gun Control,” Ehrlich’s essay is “distillation of conversations” he recently had with pro-gun control acquaintances that did not so much illustrate people talking past one another, but more accurately revealed the anti-gun mindset: It’s about eliminating guns, not horrible crimes.

Writing in USA Today, Christian Schneider, an opinion editor at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, noted how one California congressman quickly tried to exploit Sunday’s Nashville Waffle House shooting:

“Hours later, with the gunman still at large, Democrat Ted Lieu of California tweeted to Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, asking when he would ‘stop silencing’ them and allow them to debate gun safety measures in the House. ‘You’re quitting,’ Lieu wrote. ‘You no longer need to be beholden to @NRA.’

“While Lieu’s tweet is a despicable piece of political opportunism, it’s hardly unique.”

Indeed, political opportunism is the name of the game for the gun prohibition lobby. In an email message to justify its new anti-gun-rights initiative effort in Washington State, the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based gun control group tried this sales pitch:

“We didn’t want to have to put together this initiative. We had to – because the Washington State legislature failed to step up this year to pass lifesaving legislation.

“The Reduce Assault Weapon Violence Initiative addresses many root causes of recent tragedies. It would raise the minimum age to purchase semi-automatic weapons to 21, implement Enhanced Assault Weapon Background checks, hold gun owners responsible if unsafely stored firearms are used by children or other prohibited persons, ensure continued eligibility to possess or purchase assault weapons, require informed consent at the point of firearm purchase, and establish a 10-day waiting period for assault weapon purchases.

“Earlier this year, in spite of unprecedented calls for action, the Washington State legislature failed to pass a bill that would’ve made our schools and communities safer from gun violence.”

According to many of the activists gathered last Saturday on the Washington State Capitol steps in Olympia, there is no credible evidence that any of this anti-gun group’s proposals would prevent a single violent crime. The initiative was announced about 24 hours ahead of the Olympia gathering and it only served to harden the resolve of gun owners to fight back.

“Gun Responsibility” is camo-speak for “gun control.” The group’s initiative, if it gathers enough signatures, will qualify for the November ballot. Between now and then, a lot of energy will be spent on both sides over a measure that, if it becomes law, might only penalize law-abiding citizens, and especially young adults, while failing to prevent a single tragedy.

The Alliance’s earlier initiative effort, the I-594 background check measure, was passed in 2014. The tragic Mukilteo party shooting, and the Cascade Mall shooting in Burlington, happened in 2016.

Child Care Provider Sues After Illinois Tells Her To Choose Between Gun Rights And Business

An Illinois woman who runs a child care service out of her home is suing the state, saying its restrictions on day care facilities make it illegal for her to keep a gun in her house for self-defense.

Jennifer Miller’s lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for central Illinois after the state emerged as a battleground in the post-Parkland gun debate, with citizens and various localities trying to stake claims on either side of the issue.

Mrs. Miller and her husband, Darin, both hold concealed-weapons permits. But Illinois’ rules prohibit handguns from being kept in day care homes, with exceptions only for law enforcement or others who have to carry guns for their jobs.

Any firearms in other day care facilities have to be unloaded, kept under lock and stored separately from ammunition.

The Millers say the rules mean they have to make a choice: give up their guns or have Mrs. Miller give up her day care.

The state last month gave them a warning, the lawsuit says.

Mrs. Miller has been a day care home licensee since last year and a day care home provider since 2016. Her husband is a special equipment operator for a paper producer in central Illinois — a job that would not require him to keep a gun in the house.

Gun rights groups have taken up their cause.

“We’re in court to make sure that the state cannot discriminate against day care operators who merely wish to exercise the rights we’ve restored in Illinois,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb, whose group brought the lawsuit with the Illinois State Rifle Association and Illinois Carry.

The lawsuit names Lisa Madigan, the state’s attorney general, and Beverly Walker, director of the state’s Department of Children and Family Services, as defendants.

Ms. Madigan’s office declined to comment on the merits of the case.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Family Services said the agency couldn’t comment on pending litigation.

It’s not clear how many people are affected by the day care rules, but pro-gun advocates say local cases such as this can turn into precedent-setting expansions of gun rights.

Mr. Gottlieb pointed out that his group’s challenge to Chicago’s ban on handguns ultimately led to a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming that states must respect an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

A separate legal challenge from the group also forced Illinois to allow the concealed carry of weapons in 2013, after courts found the state’s restrictions on the practice unconstitutional.

Indeed, Illinois appears to be a hotbed of legal challenges over gun rights.

The Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates are suing to block the village of Deerfield, in suburban Chicago, from enforcing a ban on semi-automatic firearms.

Meanwhile, Effingham County, located about 75 miles southeast of Springfield, recently moved in the other direction by pushing to become a “sanctuary” for gun owners if state lawmakers approve stricter gun controls.

A resolution the county board passed last week reads in part: “If the Government of the State of Illinois shall infringe upon the inalienable rights granted by the Second Amendment, Effingham County shall become a ‘sanctuary county’ for all firearms unconstitutionally prohibited by the government of the State of Illinois.”

Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler acknowledged that the resolution was largely symbolic but said the county wanted to take a stand against a number of gun control bills that the state legislature is considering.

“It’s symbolic … but it really proves that people in southern Illinois are getting tired of being pushed around,” Mr. Kibler said recently on Fox News.