Category Archives: USA



What is Islam? The obvious dictionary definition answer is that it’s a religion, but legally speaking it actually enjoys all of the advantages of race, religion and culture with none of the disadvantages.

Islam is a religion when mandating that employers accommodate the hijab, but when it comes time to bring it into the schools, places that are legally hostile to religion, American students are taught about Islam, visit mosques and even wear burkas and recite Islamic prayers to learn about another culture. Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race.

Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

Muslims are treated as a racial collective rather than a group that shares a set of views about the world.

That has made it impossible for the left to deal with ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or non-Muslims from Muslim families like Salman Rushdie. If Islam is more like skin color than an ideology, then ex-Muslims, like ex-Blacks, cannot and should not exist. Under such conditions, atheism is not a debate, but a hate crime. Challenging Islam does not question a creed; it attacks the existence of an entire people.

Muslim atheists, unlike all other atheists, are treated as race traitors both by Muslims and leftists. The left has accepted the Brotherhood’s premise that the only authentic Middle Easterner is a Muslim (not a Christian or a Jew) and that the only authentic Muslim is a Salafist (even if they don’t know the word).

The racialization of Islam has turned blasphemy prosecutions into an act of tolerance while making a cartoon of a religious figure racist even when it is drawn by ex-Muslims like Bosch Fawstin. The New York Times will run photos of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” covered in dung and pornography, but refuses to run Mohammed cartoons because it deems one anti-religious and the other racist.

The equating of Islam with Arabs and Pakistanis has made it nearly impossible for the media to discuss violence against Christians in those parts of the world. The racialization of Islam has made Arab Christians, like Bangladeshi atheists, a contradiction in terms. The ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi could only be covered by giving them a clearly defined separate identity. Middle Eastern Christians are increasingly moving to avoid being categorized as Arabs because it is the only way to break through this wall of ignorance.

While racialization is the biggest Muslim privilege, race provides no protection for many Islamic religious practices. Muslims then seek religious discrimination laws to protect these practices even if it’s often a matter of debate whether their lawsuits protect their religious practices or impose them on others.

Islam is a theocracy. When it leaves the territories conquered by Islam, it seeks to replicate that theocracy through violence and by adapting the legal codes of the host society to suit its purposes.

Islamic blasphemy laws are duplicated using hate crime laws. Employers are obligated to make religious concessions to Muslim employees because of laws protecting religious practices, but many of these practices, such as refusing to carry out jobs involving pork, liquor or Seeing Eye dogs, are really ways of theocratically forcing behaviors that Islam forbids out of public life much as Saudi Arabia or Iran do.

Accusations of bigotry are used to outlaw ideas that Islam finds blasphemous and religious protection laws are used to banish behaviors that it disapproves of. By switching from race to religion and back again, Islamists construct a virtual theocracy by exploiting laws designed to protect different types of groups.

Religions in America traded theocracy for religious freedom. They gave up being able to impose their practices on others in exchange for being able to freely practice their own religions. Islam rejects religious freedom. It exploits it to remove the freedom of belief and practice of others. When it cannot do so through religious protection laws, it does so through claims of bigotry.

Religions were not meant to be immunized from blasphemy because that is theocracy. Instead religions are protected from restrictions, rather than from criticism. Islam insists on being protected from both. It makes no concessions to the freedom of others while demanding maximum religious accommodation.

While race and religion are used to create negative spaces in which Islam cannot be challenged, the creed is promoted positively as a culture. Presenting Islam as a culture allows it easier entry into schools and cultural institutions. Islamic missionary activity uses the Western longing for oriental exotica that its political activists loudly decry to inject it into secular spaces that would ordinarily be hostile to organized religion.

Leftists prefer to see Islam as a culture rather than a religion. Their worldview is not open to Islam’s clumsy photocopy of the deity that they have already rejected in their own watered down versions of Christianity and Judaism. But they are constantly seeking an aimless and undefined spirituality in non-Western cultures that they imagine are free of the materialism and hypocrisy of Western culture.

Viewing Islam as a culture allows the left to project its own ideology on a blank slate. That is why liberals remain passionately convinced that Islam is a religion of social justice. Their Islam is a mirror that reflects back their own views and ideas at them. They pretend to respect Islam as a culture without bothering to do any more than learn a few words and names so that they can seem like world travelers.

By morphing into a culture, Islam sheds its content and becomes a style, a form of dress, a drape of cloth, a style of beard, a curvature of script and a whiff of spices. It avoids uncomfortable questions about what the Koran actually says and instead sells the religion as a meaningful lifestyle. This approach has always had a great deal of appeal for African-Americans who were cut off from their own heritage through Islamic slavery, but it also enjoys success with white upper class college students.

The parents of those students often learn too late that Islam is not just another interchangeable monotheistic religion, that its mosques are not places where earnest grad students lecture elderly congregants about social justice and that its laws are not reducible to the importance of being nice to others.

Like a magician using misdirection, these transformations from religion to race, from race to culture and from culture to religion, distract Americans from asking what Islam really believes. By combining race, religion and culture, it replicates the building blocks of its theocracy within our legal and social spaces.

Separately each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. By combining them, Islam gains the advantages of all three, and by moving from one to the other, it escapes all of the disadvantages. The task of its critics is to deracialize Islam, to reduce it to an ideology and to ask what it really believes.

Islam is a privileged religion. And there’s a word for that. Theocracy.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Donald Trump will understand Middle East real estate in 5 minutes

After one year of President Trump, Obama and his policies will be just a bad dream.”

Now, get ready for United States President Donald Trump to be installed in January 2017.  Secretary of State Clinton has already fatally “bitten” into Trump’s “women’s card” baited-trap, hook, line, and sinker.

Imagine Trump in the soon-in-coming nationalized TV debate retorting to Clinton, “Where was your ‘women’s card’ for Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky, or for all of Bill Clinton’s other victims?”

As for the Middle East, real estate mogul Trump will quickly understand the topography, demography, and resource aspects of the Middle East real estate map.  Here’s a quick guide to the 5 keys to the Middle Eastern Real Estate’s topographic, demographic, and asset-rich terrain.

1)  Iran is shooting to steal, for itself, the Black Gold Triangle, taking it from the Sunni Kingdoms. The Black Gold Triangle holds 56% of the world’s oil.  With a Middle East topographic map one quickly sees that the “fertile crescent” which lies between the Tigris [West river] and Euphrates [East river] Rivers topographically traces out what I have dubbed the “Black Gold Triangle.”  This north-southward topographic triangle is essentially the demographic dividing line between the Sunnis to the west and the Shias to the east.

So, on the face of it, the Middle East is a Sunni-Shiite fight over the fertile-crescent’s oil riches.

The Black Gold Triangle INN:ML

The trianglel INN:ML
2) Trump will notice that topographically the 4,000 meter-high Zagros Mountains that form Iran’s western border are the dividing line between Persia to the east, and the Arabs to the West, and that all the oil is on the Arab’s Western side.  Therefore, Iran has really engaged in a Persian divide-and-conquer campaign to divide the Arabs among themselves, and to foment an intra-Arab genocide by inciting the Sunni-Shiite internecine hostilities.  Iran’s goal is to instigate Arab auto-genocide so that Iran can walk into the Black Gold Triangle without anyone stopping them.

Trump will see the current Middle East turmoil not as a Sunni-Shiite battle to the death, but as a Persian plan to steal Arab oil resources.  Once Trump gets this fact, the entire Sunni Muslim American community will vote for him in droves.  Sunnis make up 90% of the world’s Muslims and a similarly huge percentage of American Muslims.

Zagros Mountains  INN: ML

3)   Once Iran is seen as the ultimate fomenter of the horrific violence, mass-murder, and world terrorism,  Mr. Trump will quickly see Israel as the key to forming a sustainable local regional Sunni defense alliance that will stop the Iranian hegemonic land-grab in its tracks.  A lucky fall-out will be that the Sunnis want to eradicate ISIS as much as they want to eject Iran out of the Arab lands.

The key is the fact that the Middle East doesn’t need American troops. The Middle East needs an American President who does not act like an Iranian stooge, and is not threatened by the Syrian-America dual-national Tony Rezko who is said to have engineered Obama’s allegedly fraudulent purchase of his Hyde Park home while Obama was a sitting United States senator.

Obama has done everything in his power to kill an Israeli-Sunni alliance.  An informed Trump will encourage and facilitate an Israeli-Sunni entente – and that means no US troops in the Middle East and a well-earned Nobel Peace Prize for Trump.  Once Trump understands the intersection between dual-national Syria-American Tony Rezko, Obama, Valerie Jarrett. the Mukhabarat, and the Iran-Nuclear Deal, the FBI will be called in to effect order.

Shamshir of Mahdi INN:ML
4)  Next, Trump will see that only thing that stands between Greece, a NATO member with 11 million Christians (that America is sworn to defend), and 370 million Muslims of the Middle East – is the safe and strong fortress of Eretz Israel including the entire ‘West Bank’.  Without Israel, the Islamists would bring their Kalashnikovs instead of their suitcases to Greece.

Without Israel, the United States would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year and lose many thousands of our precious soldiers defending Europe from an Islamo-Fascist invasion from the South-East.  He will understand that control of the physical territory of Israel forms the key strategic European defense hub of the entire Middle East.

For, as Alexander the Great schooled his generals in 333 B.C.E. after he rejected their urgent advice to immediately chase east after the Persian/Iranian Darius III after Alexander defeated Darius III at Battle of Issus, “Friends and fellow soldiers, I do not see how we safely advance . . . to pursue [the Iranian] Darius with the neutral city of Tyre in our rear and Egypt and Cyprus still in enemy hands would be a serious risk. . .. But with all Phoenicia [Israel] . . . ours . . . we shall be able to march on Babylon [Iraq] with security at home, with enhanced prestige and with Persia [Iran] excluded not only from the [Mediterranean] Sea but from the whole [Middle East] continent up to the Euphrates.”

With a safe and secure Israel, there will be peace.  With a defeated Israel, the Iranian Pandora’s evil box will become unstoppable.

 Israel’s strategic value


5)  Finally, in seconds President Trump will understand that the West Bank is the topographic mountains that tower over the low lands of the Sharon Plain that hold 70% of Israel’s Jewish population. And, any “West Bank ‘Demilitarized’ PA States will smuggle rockets into the territory and will rain Sarin-tipped rockets into Tel Aviv five minutes after Israel withdrew to the  “2-State Solution” just like Gaza has rained rockets on Israel’s south.  Trump will see the “2-State Solution” is the “Establishment’s” prescription for an American catastrophic loss of its key geo-strategic asset in the region.

Israel’s enemies  INN:ML
In short, a President Trump will usher in a golden age of peace and harmony in the Middle East by recognizing that the “international establishment’s” 2-State Solution is as much of an international fraud on America as is all of the “Establishment’s” other domestic policies that have destroyed America’s power of good in the world.  And, critically, the real evil of the Middle East is Iran and its evil proxies who are now funded by Obama’s treasonous Iranian Nuclear deal.

White House admits lying to sell Iran deal


BY STUART WINER///A senior official in the Obama administration acknowledged that the background to nuclear talks with Iran was misrepresented in order to sell the impression of a more moderate Iranian regime and thus gain greater American public support for an agreement.

The revelation came in a profile of Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes written by New York Times reporter David Samuels and published on Thursday.

In the same piece, former CIA head Leon Panetta speculated that whereas US President Barack Obama may once have been prepared to use military force to stop the development of an Iranian bomb, he doubts the same resolve exists today.

In conversations with Rhodes, Samuels learned how the administration claimed that key talks with Iran began in 2013, after the election of a seemingly more moderate Iranian government led by Hassan Rouhani, when in fact negotiations had begun and formed the basis of what was to become Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action months earlier in 2012 under the previous hard-line Iranian presidency.

In July 2015, Iran and world powers inked the JCPOA, in which Tehran agreed to dismantle weapons producing elements of its nuclear program in return for the lifting of severe economic sanctions.

Israeli officials, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as many in the Senate, fiercely opposed the deal, which they said did not go far enough in removing Iran’s ability to attain a nuclear weapons capability.

Rhodes explained how policies were considered in which reconciliation with adversaries trumped pleasing existing allies.

“We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it,’” Rhodes said. “It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation.”

Foreign ministers sit around the table at the Palais Coburg Hotel, where the Iran nuclear negotiations were being held in Vienna, Austria on July 6, 2015. (AFP/POOL/CARLOS BARRIA)

Foreign ministers sit around the table at the Palais Coburg Hotel, where the Iran nuclear negotiations were being held in Vienna, Austria on July 6, 2015. (AFP/Pool/Carlos Barria)

“The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal,” Samuels wrote.

“Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false,” he continued.

According to the NY Times interview, the final proposal for an interim agreement that became the basis for JCPOA was completed in March 2013, three months before the “moderate” Rouhani took office as president.

Obama told the altered version to the world, including when saying, in a July 14, 2015 speech, “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.”

“The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration,” Samuels writes. “By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.”

Samuels also interviewed Panetta, former head of the CIA and former secretary of defense for the Obama administration for his take on the Iran deal. Panetta admitted that at no point during the contacts with Iran did the CIA assess the Tehran regime as being divided into hard-line and moderate factions.

“There was not much question that the Quds Force [a special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards ] and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, meets with the-then US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in Washington DC, USA, March 06, 2012. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/FLASH90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, meets with then US secretary of defense Leon Panetta in Washington DC on March 6, 2012. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)

In his role as secretary of defense, Panetta was tasked with ensuring that Netanyahu and his then defense minister Ehud Barak didn’t launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. A major point was whether or not Israel could rely on the US resorting to force if necessary to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons. Whereas once it could, now Panetta said he was not so sure.

Netanyahu and Barak “were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ” Panetta said. “And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”

“Would I make that same assessment now?” Panetta continued. “Probably not.”

In Panetta’s opinion, Obama doubted the usefulness of large-scale military force, seeing such action as more likely to produce negative effects.

“I think the whole legacy that he was working on was, ‘I’m the guy who’s going to bring these wars to an end, and the last goddamn thing I need is to start another war,’” he said. “If you ratchet up sanctions, it could cause a war. If you start opposing their interest in Syria, well, that could start a war, too.”

Rhodes admitted the administration still has doubts over the reformative nature of Rouhani and others, such as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was a key negotiator in the hammering out the final nuclear deal.

“Look, with Iran, in a weird way, these are state-to-state issues,” Rhodes said. “They’re agreements between governments. Yes, I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and Zarif are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American. But we are not betting on that.”