Sleepless in Midland

Ross Perot's heroic rescue of employees from Iran

Ross Perot died the other day. He was a very accomplished man and a genuine hero. He is being remembered in the MSM today for his independent run for the presidency. But there's another story that should be remembered, and that's how Perot masterminded an escape from Iran of two of his employees following the Iranian revolution.

Here's the short hand version. Perot terminated a contract he had with Iran and removed all but two of his employees. Those two were put into a prison. Perot's escape plan involved his hand picked crew helping instigate a riot which stormed the prison and released all the prisoners. The two employees hooked up with Perot's crew and managed to escape beyond the Iranian border.

To read Perot's own account of the story see An Iran Rescue That Worked in WaPo. Alternate link.

------
2:16 PM 7/10/2019

Junior Jihadists in Philly -- maybe Islamophobia is a realistic attitude afterall

We've been hearing for years that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamophobia was reactionary and politically incorrect. Yet the ancient Islamic teachings are anything but peaceful toward those who don't accept those teachings.

So here come these children being taught to sing a call to battle the infidels. Shocking video of children in Philadelphia Muslim Society: 'We will chop off their heads' for Allah. Excerpt:

Disturbing footage of Muslim kids saying they would sacrifice themselves and kill for the "army of Allah" surfaced from an Islamic center in Philadelphia.

The Muslim American Society (MAS) Islamic Center in Philadelphia posted the video to its Facebook page celebrating "Ummah Day" in which young children wearing Palestinian scarves sang and read poetry about killing for Allah and the mosque in Jerusalem.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a watchdog group, alerted Fox News to the video.

"These are not isolated incidents; they are happening in major centers of the country – including in Pennsylvania," MEMRI said in a statement.

In the video, translated by MEMRI, kids can be heard singing: "The land of the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey is calling us. Our Palestine must return to us."

It's a chilling reminder of what James Mitchell disclosed about Islam's true believers in his book "Enhanced Interrogation."

He [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ] said the terror attacks were good, but the practical way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non- Muslims' He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the united states, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message. They will wrap themselves in America's rights and laws for protection, ratchet up acceptance of Sharia law, and then, only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently impose sharia from within. He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people eventually would become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end. "Eventually," KSM said, "America will expose her neck to us for slaughter."

Happy Ramadan.

------

1:25 PM 5/5/2019

What if Ilhan Omar is part of Islam's grand plan?

The tolerance Democrats have for the recent antisemitic remarks of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) sounds very wrong to most Americans. We've had "diversity is our strength" drilled into our skulls so long that it's numbing. So maybe that's why Democrats seem deaf to intolerance by those who seek to discriminate against Jews.

If one watches enough of the confirmation hearings when the appointee under consideration is a Christian one comes away with the feeling that there's a high degree of Christian-phobia out there. Now we can add Jew-phobia to that list, too. But when it comes to Islam, it's as if their minds are so open their brains fell out.

Anyway, to the point. Maybe Ilhan Omar is part of Islam's grand plan. Let's revisit James Mitchell's book, "Enhanced Interrogation" where he recounted some of his conversations with Jihad mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Here's an excerpt (bold added for emphasis):

"It would be nice," he said, if al Q'ida or like-minded Islamists could bring America to its knees with catastrophic attacks, but that was unlikely to happen; "not practical" is the wording he used. From his perspective, the long war for Islamic domination wasn't going to be won in the streets with bombs and bullets and bloodshed. No, it would be won in the minds of the American people.

He said the terror attacks were good, but the practical, way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non- Muslims. He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the united states, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message. They will wrap themselves in America's rights and laws for protection, ratchet up acceptance of sharia law, and then, only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently impose sharia from within. He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people eventually would become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.

"Eventually," KSM said, "America will expose her neck to us for slaughter."

Ilhan Omar and a few others are leading the attack on the American system. The long plan would have American citizens and non-citizens adopting Sharia law voluntarily. However, the only uncertainty at this point is which alternate system will ultimately prevail.

------

3:17 PM 3/8/2019

Our strength is not diversity -- our strength is our willingness to work together

That old saw, "out strength is in our diversity" is a phony bromide that gets proven wrong almost every day. The most recent example is the NYC Halloween killer who came into the U.S. under a visa lottery program that should have been terminated. Oh, it's probably true that only a tiny minority of those allowed in under that program have turned into mass murderers. But how many should it take?

Ironically, these attacks tend to bring out the best in the rest of us. During the Las Vegas massacre the real heroes were the civilians who stayed behind to help the injured while the first responders held back. There haven't been reports of this from NYC, but the citizens on the streets probably helped the injured, too. They are the heroes that bring us together. And there are millions of them out there.

Meanwhile, Democrats are doubling down on identity politics with Elizabeth Warren leading the charge. And that culture-killing recipe will keep us divided.

------

12:44 PM 11/1/2017

Pew asks -- is it OK to kill civilians to further political, social or religious cause?

The questions were targeted at the youngest mail or female in a household who was over 18. Here's the question:

ASK ALL:
Q.F3
Some people think targeting and killing civilians can be justified in order to further a political, social or religious cause. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence can never be justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?

1 Can often be justified
2 Can sometimes be justified
3 Can rarely be justified
4 Can never be justified
9 Don’t know/Refused (VOL.)

The summation of answers wants us to believe Muslims are slightly less likely to select "often" or "sometimes" than the U.S. general public. Maybe this is my own flavor of Islamophobia talking, but anecdotal evidence from the high profile Allah Akbar killings suggest killing for religious reasons is something the Muslim communities tolerate quite readily.

Contrast that with Texans who, for the most part, believe killing is justified to protect against a serious threat. To kill for political, social or religious causes would seem to be completely unjustified, short of a full on war.

------

1:12 PM 8/2/2017

P.S. Will this post ever come up in a Google search? Unlikely, because Google Manipulates Search Results to Conceal Criticism of Islam and Jihad.

We should take Linda Sarsour at her word as she calls for jihad

She's got a right in the U.S. to say whatever she wants. And we should pay attention, because although some might try to say she's on the extreme edge, she probably speaks for a lot of Muslims. See Linda Sarsour Calls for ‘Jihad’ Against Trump Administration. She said this in an address to the Islamic Society of North America, “the largest umbrella group of Muslims in North America.”

We would do well to remember some passages from James Mitchell's book, "Enhanced Interrogation" in which he recounted some of his conversations with detained terrorists. Beginning on page 180 he describes the four types of jihad, to wit:

They [KSM, Abu Zubaydah, and the other detainees] told me there are four kinds of jihad: jihad by the heart, jihad by the tongue, jihad by the hand, and jihad by the sword. ...

They said that each True Muslim man was obliged to take up the sword to defend Islam and that deception to distract one's enemies or put them off guard or gain some other fighting advantage was permissible.

They said that those who cannot take up the sword are obliged to promote Allah's will through jihad by the hand. Usually this refers to acts other than fighting. Again deception is acceptable. One could, for example, conduct jihad by the hand by using money collected for charity to fund jihadist terror attacks or by establishing outreach programs that are intended to promote Islam but also radicalize fighters. A third example would be establishing mosques that promote their brand of Islam in infidel territory.

Deception in jihad by the tongue can entail pretending to promote acculturation into Western democracies while behind the scenes promoting the establishment of Sharia law. KSM told me he could see Muslim brothers after 9/11, condemning the terror attacks in the media while celebrating in their hearts.

Finally, KSM said, deception also has a place in jihad of the heart. Individuals who because of adverse circumstances must say and do things that are contrary to their true beliefs and cannot engage in any of the other forms of jihad can practice jihad of the heart by struggling to keep faith with Allah while surrounded by enemies of faith.

That chapter ended on this terrifying note:

He said the terror attacks were good, but the practical way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non- Muslims' He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the united states, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message. They will wrap themselves in America's rights and laws for protection, ratchet up acceptance of Sharia law, and then, only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently impose sharia from within. He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people eventually would become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end. "Eventually," KSM said, "America will expose her neck to us for slaughter."

Linda Sarsour was calling out to the troops. And while she appeared to target Donald Trump, she's probably merely hoping to take advantage of the anti-Trump mania we're seeing in the media. More likely, she would wage that jihad against the whole of the United States. We should appreciate her honesty, after all, deception is an acceptable jihadi tactic. But we should also be mindful of her warning and endeavor to guard against the Sharia oppression she would so happily inflict on us.

------

2:28 PM 7/7/2017

Religion of peace? Not so much

John Ellis lays out the dilemma Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Let’s ask the OIC.

There are seemingly two distinct wings of modern Islam. One wants to exist peacefully with non-Muslims while the other wants to annihilate or subjugate non-believers. The two seem to co-exist, but there's the sneaking suspicion among many that if the peaceful Muslims had to choose, they would side with the radicals.

Mr. Ellis suggests that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which holds itself out as "the collective voice of the Muslim world," should be called on to tell us whether the radical wing with its emphasis on the early Islamic teachings is doing it right or whether the peaceful wing is the present day embodiment of the Muslim religion. If they can't answer, then that may as well be interpreted as a vote for the radical wing.

(I would have included some excerpts from Mr. Ellis' enlightening article, but Americanthinker.com is down for some reason. Hopefully, it will be back up by the time this post goes online.)

2:16 PM 2/28/2017

Michael Flynn -- whether he's in or out of the admin, his ideas are worth considering

Basically, he says we need to use psychological warfare against radical Islam. That's easy to say but hard to implement. NYPost.com has looked at what he says. See Flynn’s plan to beat radical Islam starts with schools and social media. Here's an excerpt:

Dealing with the global Islamist threat on a tactical level through drone strikes and arrests hasn’t worked, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn argues, according to his largely overlooked 2016 book, “The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies.” He wants to combat it more broadly, using informational warfare, among other things, on a scale not seen since World War II.

But first, he writes, the government has to overcome the political taboo of tying Islamic violence to the religion of Islam, including its sacred texts, which he says the enemy is using as a manual of warfare.

That last part is important. With scriptures that preach of world domination, Islam isn't the religion of peace. Then there's this:

Advance details of the plan can be gleaned from Flynn’s book. In it, the 33-year Army veteran proposes discrediting the “evil (religious) doctrines” motivating jihadists — namely the Islamic rewards for martyrdom (or suicidal terrorism) and the totalitarian tenets of Sharia law — using psy-ops and counter-propaganda, not just through federal government channels but also through “our schools, media and social networks.”

“If we can’t tackle enemy doctrines that call for our domination or extinction,” Flynn writes, “we aren’t going to destroy their jihadis.”

He says in the book that the government may have to draft digital media giants to help “wage ideological warfare” against radical Islam: “We can’t possibly have an effective campaign against Radical Islamic ideology without the cooperation of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter.”

Getting those internet giants on board is a tall order, given their political leanings, but we can hope.

Meanwhile, maybe this is a good time to enjoy re-watching this hilarious video from the BBC directed at those poor lasses who think they want to join ISIS: the Real Housewives of Isis.

3:45 PM 2/13/2017

Let's take a breath before repealing the Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment, according to Wikipedia, is this:

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas.

Some are celebrating Donald Trump's proclamation to church groups that he intends to abolish it. For example, see Trump Is Right. Churches Should Be Free To Express Themselves Politically.

That's probably the right thing to do -- free speech should be available to everyone. The focus now is on Christian churches. However, it's useful to remember that it would to apply to all religious groups.

Jihadists take the long view toward taking over the U.S. The visionaries among them realize that terror attacks by themselves won't do it. But think they will weaken our will, and eventually with enough pressure from all directions, our government will capitulate with the people's consent.

Imagine this scenario. An oil rich middle eastern country donates large amounts of money to Mosques around the U.S. That money gets channeled into political campaigns. Eventually they can get enough Islamic sympathizers in the government to bend the law toward Sharia.

So am I being Islamophobic? Well, if Islamophobic means the fear of being subjected to Sharia law, then yes, I'm Islamophobic.

4:14 PM 2/6/2017

Who you calling xenophobic, stranger?

So what are we to make of this new word of the year, xenophobia? Anointed as such by Dictionary.com, it was put into the popular lexicon by none other than President Barack Obama.

It was politically inspired through and through. Obama never missed an opportunity to diss his political opponents. And as an advocate of open borders and inviting residents all countries, nations rife with Islamic radicalism in particular, he laid out the bait. Calling them "xenophobic" makes him sound so much more sophisticated than simply calling them racist.

But is it really so wrong to fear Islamic terrorism? We have terrorists popping up all across the U.S. who have fooled a lot of people until the moment they plowed down innocent people with a vehicle, knife or gun. Only then do we discover the murderous spirit that lurked beneath the veneer of a peace loving Muslim.

Most Muslims may love peace. And immigrants probably appreciate most of the freedoms they have in the U.S.

But is it really unreasonable for average Americans to be a little bit wary? Rattle snake bites are rare, but anyone who strolls through weedy areas known to be home to rattle snakes is going to be very careful. That's not a phobia, that's common sense.

Meanwhile, anyone determined to be non-phobicly politically correct will exhibit compassion for terrorists and look like a real idiot to rational people.

Church bells ring, children sing, and loud Muslim prayer calls blare out 3 times a day

There are millions of Muslims who probably don't hold any ill will toward non-Muslims. But there seems to be a lot of in-your-face about the Islamic religion. There are the costumes, the beards, and the be-headings. But before calling me Islamophobic, recognize that many ordinary Americans enjoy life just fine without a reminder three times a day that the sword of Sharia law hangs over our heads.

What brings this up today is the piece at Express.co.uk titled Major push for UK mosques to make loud call to prayer THREE TIMES a day. Apparently, a national petition to the UK government received over 25,000 signatures, to wit:

The petition has asked the Government to allow loud call for prayer at least three times a day in highly Muslim populated areas.

It says: “I believe it is the right time to experiment and allow highly Muslim populated areas with a loud call for prayer at least three times a day, not during anti-social hours.”

"Loud." Yeah, that's what you want in a quiet neighborhood. President Obama told us he thought the Muslim prayer call was the most beautiful sound he has ever heard. He would no doubt approve of this measure in his own neighborhood, although here in the U.S. about all he could do to the rest of us is try to shame us into accepting it. No thanks. Most of us would like to hang onto whatever peace and quiet we have.

So what exactly are we supposed to do with these "known wolves?"

Conservative writers are quick to point out occasions in which these "lone wolf" terrorists turned out to be "known wolves." Cue the outrage.

But what exactly are we supposed to do with these "known wolves?" Thought crimes are not illegal -- that's a fundamental concept of American jurisprudence.

Criminal conspiracies don't always require the actual commission of a crime, merely the planning process. But the acts of people like that Ahmad Khan Rahami guy may not have involved any conspiracies that law enforcement agencies could prove or were even aware of. So there was nothing anyone could have done until he actually started building his bombs. Even then, if he had a plausible explanation for his pressure cooker devices then a conviction is unlikely, e.g., see the Dallas clock boy who is now suing his old school. And are we really capable of surveillance of every individual in the country who hates America?

While it's fun to knock Obama, et al, for coddling terrorists, we have to be realistic about what the police can do without obliterating our constitutional safeguards. Heaven knows some of our presidential candidates would like to whittle down citizens' rights. But it doesn't serve the public by carving up the Bill of Rights permanently to satisfy immediate concerns.

Footnote: Mr. Rahami was said to be a "naturalized citizen." If treason could be proved his citizenship status could be revoked. But it would seem that treason would be harder to prove than criminal conspiracy. So we're back where we started.

Huma and Anthony, divorce Islamic style

Islamists are nothing if not flexible. While some preach strict adherence to the Prophet and the Qur'an, they are quite nimble when it helps achieve an important goal.

Thus, Huma Abedin with her proximity to power can get away with marrying a man who claims to be a Jew, although there is some speculation that Anthony Weiner may have converted to Islam to placate Huma's parents.

Weiner pops up in the news from time to time after he gets caught with his pants up or down after snapping a selfie for a gal pal. Following the latest episode, Huma, in a very public announcement, says they are separating.

Will they divorce? We don't know the answer to that. But if they do, how will that work under Islamic law?

Further, is she Shia or Sunni? We can make an educated guess that she's Sunni due to her connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni organization.

It's easier for a Sunni man to get the divorce than the woman. In either event, there are three stages to the marriage dissolution: Initiation, Reconciliation, and Completion. The man initiates the divorce with talaq utterances -- saying "I divorce thee" or words to that effect, three times. Then there's a waiting period. When the required time has passed, the divorce is officially finalized. Here's what wikipedia says about it:

According to some Sunni schools of jurisprudence, each talaq utterance should be followed by a waiting period of three menstrual periods for women or three month (iddah or iddat), when the couple are supposed to try to reconcile with the help of mediators from each family, until the third and final ṭalāq. Some Sunnis who believe the practice of triple talaq in one is wrong; nonetheless accept it as final, especially the Hanafi schools of jurisprudence. ...

Women can initiate talaq through delegation (tafwid), which can be made conditionally or unconditionally in the marriage contract or during the marriage.[3] Most modern Muslim-majority countries permit this type of divorce in some form.[3]

It is also possible for a woman to petition a qadi or qazi (judge of Muslim jurisprudence) for a divorce under certain conditions. This type of divorce is known as khula. The circumstances which are regarded as acceptable vary amongst the four Sunni groups of Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

For all we know, Huma may have already initiated the talaq and is in the waiting period. But as we do know, Islamists are very flexible when it comes to people in power, so she may decide to skip the whole complicated process altogether and go for the typical American no-fault divorce.

Or more likely, she'll be "separated" for the duration of the election period. After that, Hillary might free her from her indentured servitude.