Ban Donald Trump? You’ll Have To Ban Ex-Muslims, European Leaders, And Me As Well

Getty

by RAHEEM KASSAM18 Jan 20161,390

It was perhaps inevitable, when you note the wilful and lazy underreporting by Britain’s mainstream media of issues pertaining to radical Islam, that when a vocal critic came along, people’s first instincts would be to call him a “racist” and seek to curtail their own rights of free speech in response. Turkeys voting for Christmas. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Choose whatever idiom you want… if the shoe fits… ahem.

So when Suzanne Kelly – a long-standing anti-Trump campaigner in Scotland – started a parliamentary petition, the media seized on it, failing to report that a) it was NOT in response to his comments about a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the U.S. and b) it was actually started BEFORE he even said anything of the sort.

It was one socialist, who has been “investigating Trump’s activities and the objections of local residents to his golfing development for several years” who inadvertently triggered tonight’s parliamentary committee debate on effectively banning people from saying anything even remotely critical of Islam. It accidentally turned from a socialist crusade against property rights, to a socialist crusade in favour of an Islamic blasphemy law in Britain.

Don’t worry – today’s debate isn’t binding. Nor is it in the House of Commons chamber. But if you were to turn Sky News on this morning, you’d think there was a key government vote on the matter. Of course, it has been seized upon by Muslim Members of Parliament.

But if Mr. Trump has to be banned from Britain, then who else? Well, a significant number of Britons, really, who believe, as Saxony’s Prime Minister Stanislaw Tillichhas said this weekend, that the West has “too little experience with Islam” and that inward migration should be curbed.

And what about Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has said that “Islam has never been a part of Europe” or Slovakia’s premier Robert Fico, who has said that Muslims are “impossible to integrate”? Do we ban these people too?

Do we ban ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do we ban people like Sohail Ahmed, a self-professed former radical who has since left Islam? Or is the British reaction to Donald Trump’s comments – for that is what most thought they were signing the petition about – reserved for white American men?

Whatever the motivation – and whatever your answer to the questions posed above, it is surely obvious at this point that British democracy is in a very sorry state.

And we could talk about why until we’re blue in the face: self-censorship, post-colonial guilt, media indoctrination, the liberal monopoly on public life… the reasons are endless. Why waste the time?

Instead I suggest we become far more robust in our language. Far more robust in asserting our birthrights. And far more robust in rejecting the attempts at manipulation of our nation state.

Yes, a lot of our efforts this year should go to fighting a European referendum so that we may reassert ourselves on the world stage again. But don’t forget, once parliament is sovereign again, it will be a parliament that we have packed with soft-fascists. Those who want to tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, and think. And those who will today be discussing what amount of free speech should get you banned from this country.

It is this, coupled with the long-standing liberal monopoly of the press and our television channels that we have to think about fighting next. Otherwise what is the point in being a sovereign nation?

Whether or not you agree with me about Donald Trump – you surely believe that it is time for radical change in this country. And that starts with refusing to vote for the same old parties, buying the same old newspapers, and watching the same old TV channels. Turn it off.

Follow Raheem Kassam on Twitter hereand on Facebook here for less of the same, and more of what’s really going on

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Islam, Immigration,Donald Trump, Muslims, free speech,Parliament

Radical Islamic Group Scores Invites to SOTU

Getty Images

by JIM HANSON12 Jan 20161,888

Politicians often bring guests to the President’s State of the Union address, sometimes to make a partisan point. This year that privilege is being stretched beyond the bounds of decency: At least two members of a radical Islamic group will be attending as guests of Members of Congress, supposedly to represent American Muslims. That is a disgrace.

Representatives Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)(D-Calif.) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)(D-Fla.) are bringing leaders from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR says it is an “advocate for justice and mutual understanding.” Yet after the San Bernardino terror attacks last month, CAIR was the chief public advocatefor the terrorists’ family, even arguing in court that they should retain custody of the terrorists’ child.

CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, has stated publicly he supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. CAIR itself wasdesignated a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates in 2014.

The impetus for this travesty was a call by Representative Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) for their colleagues to bring a Muslim to the State of the Union. They said this is needed to counter the “shocking and alarming rise in hateful rhetoric against one particular minority population in our nation.”

But Muslims are not the primary victim of hate crimes in the U.S. The vast majority of victims of hate crimes, according to the FBI, are Jews.

What is actually more shocking and alarming than alleged rhetoric against Muslims is the rise in hateful killings by one minority population.

The recent slaughter in San Bernardino, the attempted assassination of a police officer in Philadelphia, and the slayings of our troops in Chattanooga and Fort Hood all had one thing in common: The killers were Muslim – or, more specifically, jihadists – a significant subset of Muslims who believe Islam must dominate the world.

The violent version of jihad is easier to understand, but the insidious nature of “civilization jihad” makes it even more dangerous in the long term. It aims to use the very institutions of free society to destroy it. This goal and strategy was stated outright in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was seized in 2004 during a police raid in Virginia:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.

CAIR is considered part of a network of front groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in US history, which shut down the Holy Land Foundation due to its funding of Hamas.

CAIR is out front in the effort to downplay the role of Islam in Islamic terror. For example, CAIR reacted to the recent shooting of a police officer with this statement from CAIR-Philadelphia’s executive director, Jacob Bender: ”At this time, it does not appear that he was an observant or mosque-going Muslim.”

He was describing a man who was wearing Islamic garb and who told police he was acting in the name of Islam.

After the San Bernardino jihadist attacks, Hussam Ayloush, director of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter, told CNN that the United States bore responsibility for the killings: “Let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism.”

CAIR does more than justify terrorism and obfuscate the motivations of the jihadists. It pushes the boundaries of “tolerance.” Last year, it promoted the story of Ahmed the clock-hoaxer as an incident of anti-Muslim bias, rather than what it arguably was: namely, an incident of political warfare striking back at the mayor of Irving, Texas, who came into CAIR’s crosshairs when she fought back against an attempt to open an Islamic Law tribunal in Irving.

The success of CAIR in presenting itself as an organization of “moderate” Muslims is especially dangerous as it marginalizes groups actually trying to reform Islam. TheMuslim Reform Movement, headed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, is one such group that actually deserves to be heard. It calls for an awakening within Islam to make it compatible with free western society. We must ensure that extremists like CAIR don’t drown such voices out.

Jim Hanson is the Executive VP of the Center for Security Policy and previously served in US Army Special Forces.

Read More Stories About:

National Security, Jihad, barack obama,Hamas, Muslims, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrats, Muslim Brotherhood,CAIR, State of the Union, Keith Ellison