Jan 8 2017

The left’s Russia narrative has no legs

American Thinker

January 5, 2017

The left’s Russia narrative has no legs
By Marc Weisman

WikiLeaks released all the DNC, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta emails that were in play during the 2016 presidential election. Julian Assange claims he did not receive any of these emails from Russia, Russia-related individuals, or Russian agents. He received them all from a “private, non-state party.” Assange was not provided any similar data regarding Trump and the RNC, so he had none to release. In the last election cycle, let’s not forget, he released Sarah Palin’s emails, which backs up his claim that he is non-partisan in his promulgation of political leaks.

Whether you view Assange as heroic or treacherous, the veracity of his releases is not contested. Therefore, if these revelations did impact the election results, it is the deplorable actions of Hillary Clinton and DNC that show who is responsible – the message, if you will, not the messenger we ought to blame. This does not advance the narrative of the left, however, who must find a more palatable explanation for the Clinton loss. Hence the Russians.

Whatever the Russians may or may not have hacked – and we attempt to breach each other’s security daily – it was certainly not the Clinton and DNC emails. Even if they did, they never released them. Therefore, the entire argument that the Russians ostensibly “rigged the election” by releasing private stolen emails to favor a Trump win is utterly false. Obviously, we all want to protect American public and private entities from hacking, but what does that have to do with the price of salt? Nothing.

This false narrative is ridiculous on two counts. First, the Russians do not want Trump. Trump is a wild card. He is pro-military and is not a guy who likes sand kicked in his face. President Obama has utterly failed to contain Russia – they have taken Crimea and injected themselves into the Middle East after being shut out by previous U.S. presidents for 40 years. Consider Syria, the shameful Iran deal, and the fact that Egypt is again buying Russian weapons after Obama shunned President El-Sisi. Russia is also not so surreptitiously trying to take Ukraine by force. Obama has done nothing to stop any of this. Trump is a tough guy, and it is hard to imagine the Russians believing they will do better with him in the White House.

The second reason is that there is a much better explanation for the liberal’s false narrative. The left must explain how Hillary lost in a way that does not add insult to injury. Blaming her embarrassing loss on voter fraud failed when Trump was awarded even more votes in the Wisconsin recount. The “angry white men argument” failed. Blaming FBI director James B. Comey for his efforts to vet all of the Clinton emails also failed to bear fruit.

The Democratic Party simply cannot accept that many of the so-called blue states (Mich., Ohio, Penn., Wis.) are again in play in future elections. The corollary of this is simple: their votes must now be earned by Democrats, not just automatically awarded to them.

This is precisely why the press, the left, and the Dems are promoting an obviously false storyline. This corruption perfectly exemplifies why they lost so many governorships, so many congressional seats (both state and federal), and the White House.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/the_lefts_russia_narrative_has_no_legs.html#ixzz4VCqJx4f5
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Aug 11 2016

The summer of 1787 revisited

American Thinker

The summer of 1787 revisited

As our founding fathers grappled with the prodigious task of forming the Constitution for the United States, the climate was hot – temperature-wise (William Paterson from nearby New Jersey described Philadelphia that summer as “the warmest place I’ve ever been“) and politically.  The parallels between that summer in 1787 and this summer of 2016 are legion.  A record heat is scorching the U.S. this summer, much like in 1787, but now, as then, a much hotter political battle is underway.

The hottest topic the founders wrestled with was central (federal) versus regional (state) power.  It is this same issue, which last week drove the Brits to vote for Brexit, that also fuels Donald Trump’s battle against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.  Thankfully, Great Britain chose correctly by ending the abrogation of its sovereignty to the faceless EU bureaucrats in Brussels.

Our battle is ongoing, as Trump and conservatives plead our case to the American people.  The case is simple: our bloated federal government in D.C. is usurping states’ rights to an unacceptable degree.  It is no accident that British slogans such as “Make Britain Great Again” mimic Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.”  This starts by the states recapturing greater control over their destiny.  Be it immigration, abortion rights, gun laws, etc., the states must reclaim their dominion.

I and many others believe that the primary driver for Britain’s separation from the EU was immigration and a fear that the British culture itself is endangered by the failed and misguided march toward multiculturalism.  Immigration is also the primary driver that motivates Trump supporters.

Ironically, this issue of local versus central control was also the primary impetus for the American Revolution itself eleven years prior to the ratification of the Constitution – Great Britain being the central power versus the regional colonies.  Even more ironically, Britons find the shoe on the other foot presently, having crafted their own “Declaration of Independence” by voting to separate from the EU for basically the same reasons the Founding Fathers espoused 240 years ago.

What lessons can we draw from all of this?  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so the corollary of centralized power is ever increasing central governance over regional rights.  For Britain, it is the EU, and for America, it is Washington, D.C.

Much of the long and hot summer in 1787 was dedicated to crafting a Constitution that combated this very tendency.  If centralized power is unchecked, eventually, resentment will grow until the people decide they have finally had enough.  It was so in 1776 and 1787, and it is so in 2016 as Great Britain herself separates from the EU.

Let’s hope we follow Great Britain’s lead, and our own before that, when we display by our votes on November 8 that we too have “had enough.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/the_summer_of_1787_revisited.html#ixzz4H4JzBGkS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Feb 18 2014

Barring terrorists from entering the U.S.? What difference does it make?

February 18, 2014    Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014

at February 18, 2014 – 07:00:23 AM CST

Dr. Marc Weisman



President Obama, unencumbered by re-election worries, is taking full advantage of “executive directives” or “end-runs” around that pesky Republican-controlled Congress.  This past week, the Obama administration has lessened the rules for would-be asylum-seekers and Middle-Eastern immigrants desiring entry into the United States.  A post-Sept. 11 immigrant law basically prohibited anyone considered to have provided any level of support to terror groups from immigrating to America.  Through executive privilege, Obama has now ordered that offering “‘limited’ support to terrorists or terrorist groups” should no longer necessarily preclude entry into these United States of America.

The change is one of President Barack Obama’s first actions on immigration since he pledged during his recent State of the Union address to issue more executive directives.

In a recent statement, the Homeland Security Department said that the rule change, which was not sanctioned by Congress, gives the government discretion, but won’t expose the country to terrorists or their sympathizers.

Many Republican lawmakers claim the administration is flouting rules designed by them (Congress) to protect the country from terrorists.  “President Obama should be protecting U.S. citizens rather than taking a chance on those who are aiding and abetting terrorist activity and putting Americans at greater risk,” said Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

Remember that this is also a president who avoids like the plague labeling a terrorist “a terrorist.”  He is much more likely to rain lawyers upon terrorists than bombs (except, to his credit, when it comes to drones in Afghanistan).  He has removed the term “Islamist” from the federal lexicon.  He has painfully strained relations with Israel to buy favor with the Arabs.  His administration has also promoted the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere.  He has come out in support of the 911 mosque initiative in New York and has confounded Americans with dozens of initiatives and statements of apparent appeasement to Muslims.  By any reasonable measure, this president seems much more concerned with the sensibilities of foreigners than he is with those of Americans.

So one must ask: what terrible wrong is the U.S. now perpetrating upon Muslims to warrant crafting such a potentially far-reaching executive order?  If only one in a hundred of these “terrorist-connected” individuals is actually a terrorist sympathizer, is this ideological declaration of continued appeasement worth it?




Nov 6 2012

Choosing the Right Path

Return to the Article

November 5, 2012

Choosing the Right Path

Marc Weisman

Make no mistake: one of two Americas will emerge on 7 November, and I hope and pray that it is the right America.

The right America will end this president’s crusade to divide us by color, gender, income, and any other appeal to our tribal nature.  Never has an American president been so divisive.  The right America will respect our military and the tenet that peace is attained only through strength — both economic and military.  The right America will unequivocally support our allies and stand up to, and not bow before, our enemies.

The right America will re-establish the nuclear defense umbrella in Eastern Europe and actually support rather than endlessly spar with one of our closest allies, Israel.  The right America will tell Russia’s Medvedev (and his boss Putin) that now that our election is over, we will show them resolve rather than the “flexibility” president Obama was caught, on a live microphone, secretly and shamefully offering them.

The right America will stop prevaricating in an attempt to appease Islam and Islamists.  The right America will actually label terrorism as terrorism, not man-caused disasters (Secretary Napolitano kowtowing to Islamists in a session of Congress) or workplace violence (Secretary Panetta on Fort Hood) or mob violence (President Obama, U.N. ambassador Rice, Jay Carney, and company).

The right America will not ceaselessly apologize to the world for America.  And as it has been said, no, we do not dictate to our friends and allies; we release them from dictators.

The right America will reward and not denigrate successful entrepreneurs and business owners.  The right America will reverse the shameful entitlement trends of the Obama years, including welfare recipients increasing from 32 million to 49 million, those who pay no federal income tax ballooning from 33% to 49.5%, and disability applicants increasing to record highs.  The right America will stop the frenetic spiral of U.S. borrowing and spending under this administration from a $10T to $16T national debt.

The right America will repeal the raid on Medicare coffers to fund ObamaCare.  The right America will, of course, end the obscenity that is ObamaCare — a law unilaterally concocted in Senator Reid’s office, with no Republican or independent in sight.

The right America is a compassionate, charitable, liberty-promoting safe haven that is and has always been the greatest hope for the future of all people.  We have witnessed a president who sees America and the world through foreign eyes.  He is halfway through a grotesque and misguided transformation of our nation.  Shame on the president for pretending to be someone he wasn’t in order to win in 2008.  Shame on us if we do not recognize our error and reject his re-election in 2012.

America as we know it — knew it — simply cannot survive four years of an unrestrained lame-duck Obama term.

Feb 27 2012

‘Hope and Change’ Only for America’s Enemies, Islamic Extremists

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Feb 26th 2012 at 4:03 pm in on BigPeace.com FEATURED ARTICLE FOR 2.27.2012   EgyptEuropeFeatured StoryIran,IslamIslamic extremismIsraelMiddle EastNuclear ProliferationPoliticsStrategy,Syriaground zero mosquesaudi arabiashariaunited statesComments (160)

With the presidential election looming, I thought it wise to revisit president Obama’s 2008 campaign theme. He ran on the adage, “hope and change.” Let’s look into hope and change, Obama style.

Islamism is so pervasive, so zany, so entrenched all over the world that I could throw a dart at the globe any random day and find a story to discuss involving extremism, violence, or oppression from its adherents. And it’s getting worse. Why is it getting worse, you ask? No doubt there are many reasons, but the one that sticks in my craw is that American weakness is largely responsible. Weakness will always invite aggression, and this president’s profound lack of leadership—weakness—has inspired our enemies the way fuel enrages wildfire. I guess we should have taken president Obama at his word and believed his conviction for “hope and change.” But hope for whom? What type of change?

Allow me to share a few examples for whom hope (and change) springs eternal due to the feckless actions of the Obama administration.


Iran is our nemesis. It is also the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism. It is largely Iranian weapons and expertise responsible for killing and maiming our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet in 2009, when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest their totalitarian, anti-America, and anti-Israel government, president Obama did absolutely nothing to help them. This was the perfect chance for strong United States to encourage the Iranian moderates to replace the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad.

What appeared then to be a missed opportunity was actually just the beginning of a pattern of inexplicable direct and indirect support for radical Islam. Just today in the news out of Iran is a story about Youcef Nadarkhani, a 34-year-old father of two, who converted to Christianity in Iran. He has been sentenced to death. What’s his crime? His conversion to Christianity, because Islam does not allow such apostasy under the penalty of death. Another current story on Iran is the IAEA now admitting it cannot allay the world’s fears that Iran is indeed close to creating their first nuclear weapon. The confidential IAEA report said Iran has, since late last year, “tripled output of uranium refined to a level that brings it significantly closer to potential bomb material.”  Yet, the Obama administration has been very measured in its censure and sanctions on Iran, ostensibly because of the effect this would have on oil prices—hint, hint—his reelection.

Obama also refuses to seriously consider military action against Iran, and they know it. Nor will he sell Israel the bunker-busting bombs that could destroy the Iranian nuclear program in an aerial attack. This is the same Obama that naively terminated (for nothing in return from the Russians) the already agreed-to missile defense system that would have protected Eastern Europe from rogue states like Iran.

Translation: Hope for Iran to change the balance of power in the Middle East and perhaps the world.

Muslim Brotherhood

The Obama administration has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of the pro-democracy opposition, to lead Syria after the expected ouster of President Bashar Assad, says a report posted on Jihad Watch. Herbert London from the Hudson Institute, a leading consultant to the Defense Department, asserted that the administration has decided to work with Turkey and the Brotherhood in Syria for a post-Assad government. “It would seem far more desirable to back the democratic influences—the political organizations that require cultivation and support—despite their relative weakness at this moment,” the report said.

This is the same Obama that told us last year that the Muslim Brotherhood is reformed now–not to worry. At the time, other pundits and I presaged that we will soon regret the Arab Spring once it becomes the Arab Fall and Winter. Alas, it is upon us even as 16 Americans working for NGOs (Non-government Organizations) promoting democracy are detained and threatened with trial in Egypt by their ruling Islamists. The Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is also in serious jeopardy.

This is one hell of a “thank you” from these radicals for supporting them over our own US ally, Mubarak. Mubarak was clearly a “son of a bitch,” but as President Roosevelt famously said, “at least he was our son of a bitch.” Tunisia and Libya are also quite clearly expressing their anti-West, anti-infidel rhetoric despite our support in overthrowing their respective regimes. And what is the American response to these third-world nations’ ungrateful insolence? Barely a peep.

Translation: Hope for the Muslim Brotherhood to change the world by imposing Sharia in more nations than imagined in their wildest dreams.


The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation. The FBI will no longer do business with them. CAIR is in the corner of every radical Muslim that tries to force-feed Islamist tradition, law, and custom down the throat of America. Recall Muslim teacher Sefoorah Khan, who was dismissed last year by her Chicago area public school system. She was terminated for abandoning her students when she decided to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj— a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, after just 9 months’ employment. The U.S. Attorney General under Obama joined a suit filed by CAIR on her behalf against the school system. The case settled with Ms. Khan being awarded some $75,000.

It is also CAIR that encourages Muslims traveling in US airports to resist pat-downs and other efforts by TSA because safety takes a back seat—pun intended—to advancing the special rights and privileges of Muslims. CAIR is a major supporter of the Ground Zero Mosque and promotes legal actions against cities and towns across America that resist Muslim centers in the heart of their small, generally Christian towns. The Obama administration is typically in lock-step with CAIR in all of these and other controversies.

Translation: Hope for CAIR to change the American landscape to one more and more accepting of Islamic and Islamist customs and mores .

Apologists for Islamism

Just last week the president added a chapter to his incessant apologies to Islam on behalf of America. Our soldiers properly destroyed desecrated Qurans used by Muslim prisoners to communicate improper messages to each other. Obama’s apology, predictably, further stoked the flames of yet another irrational, violent, angry, and sadly lethal riot; Americans were killed.

Silence would be bad enough from our president when world leaders (Germany, France, Switzerland and Britain) have the courage to decry the danger and failure of Islamist multiculturalism in their lands. They tell us the cultures of their nations are under great strain as a radical brand of Islam grows bolder–so bold that large swaths of many European cities are entirely off-limits to infidels such that even police and fire personnel dare not trespass. But silence isn’t enough for this administration. No, this president goes out of his way to promote acceptance of even the most opprobrious Islamic customs and religious edicts.

In many speeches, president Obama has championed the “religious” rights of Muslims that are incongruent with western culture. These statements include: “It is important that Western countries avoid impeding Muslims from practicing their religion ‘as they see fit’” and “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Why? In reality, of course, it is politicalIslam masquerading as religious Islam that is being offered protections it does not deserve.

Translation: Hope for Islamists everywhere but particularly in Europe where there exists progressive change away from their rich cultures toward the homogeneity of fundamentalist Islam.

The enemies of Israel

Israel lives in a very, very bad neighborhood. No previous U.S. president has distanced himself from Israel. Why? Because weakening the bond between America and Israel would provide a frenetic and renewed hope to all of Israel’s enemies that finally, the destruction of Israel can be imagined.

Obama has publicly humiliated Israel by blaming the lack of peace on Israeli settlements. He has also criticized Israeli demands that Hamas and Hezbollah recognize Israel’s right to exist. The president has recently rebuffed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu even while Congress honored him with an unprecedented seventy standing ovations during his address to the joint chambers. This president fatuously attempts to appease Islam at the expense of Israel.

Translation: Heretofore unimaginable hope has been infused into the global Arab and Muslim psyche that real change(Israel’s destruction) is finally plausible.

So, hope and change are indeed upon us, just as president Obama promised. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of this hope and change are our enemies. We Americans and our allies are the victims.



Feb 27 2012

UN Resolution 16/18 an UN-Wise Capitulation to Anti-Free Speech Fundamentalists

Posted by Dr. Marc Weisman Jan 16th 2012 at 12:09 pm at BigPeace.com FEATURED STORY OF THE DAY JAN 16, 2012   Featured StoryForeign Policy,IslamIslamic extremismObamaTerrorismUnited NationsComments (97)

Last month in Washington, the United States hosted an international conference to advance the implementation of UN resolution 16 / 18.  The resolution was adopted “by consensus”—a disarming term that really means without a vote—at a session of the U.N. Human Rights Council last March. It was endorsed the following month by the UN General Assembly.


UN 16 /18, whose formal title is “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” sounds innocent but is not. To better understand the danger that belies this ostensibly high-minded resolution, let’s look at its genesis.

The 56 member “Organization of Islamic Cooperation” (OIC) began with earlier versions of the resolution. The impetus for it was to curtail the alleged global Islamophobia following the 9/11 attacks. Earlier renditions sought to criminalize “blasphemous speech” and “defamation of religion.” Even President Obama couldn’t reconcile the language in the original drafts due to the freedom of speech guaranty within the Constitution. Fast forward to UN 16 / 18. Out of necessity, the petition was broadened to protect not only Islam but all religions. Of course the OIC and UN have exhibited virtually no predilection to safeguarding Christians, Jews or others. Make no mistake, there is a single purpose for UN 16 / 18: silencing the critics of radical Islam. The OIC worked tirelessly with others to craft language acceptable to the US and eventually found the winning formula. They speciously substituted the word “incitement” for “defamation” and voila; the ever-appeasing Obama administration was now fully behind it. In a world where a simple cartoon can incite millions of Muslims to riot, just exactly who will be the judge of what constitutes “incitement to violence”? The UN? The OIC?

Never mind that the world is chock-full of depraved Islamists who terrorize, kill and strive to advance radical Islam throughout the West. Never mind as Abigail Esman wrote for Forbes.com: “the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia…or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries”. Never mind the desperate flight of Christian minorities from scores of Muslim countries. Never mind the pervasive religious fanatics who will flog if not kill an infidel for merely uttering a word, drawing a cartoon or writing a comedic skit that is uncomplimentary to Mohammad. Never mind that last year the FBI documented at least eight anti-Semitic crimes for every anti-Islamic one in the US. None of these require UN action but so-called “Islamophobia” requires urgent UN intervention. Really?

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, puts it like this: “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one.” Amen. What a shame that the non-radical Muslim majority doesn’t join Dr. Jasser and others in combating the fundamentalist poison that infects Islam.

It is telling that the nations promoting this resolution have populations that are well beyond 90 percent and often 99 percent a single religion—Islam. Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice states: “What is the problem here with the 1 percent speaking out and why is that such an issue that needs to be handled at the international level?”

I’ll tell you why although you already know. UN Resolution 16 / 18 is no more about religious tolerance than MSNBC is about fair and balanced reporting. It is all about religious intolerance. No doubt, some members of the UN actually believe this to be a step toward religious broad-mindedness. However, when the world naively agrees to censure if not criminalize dialog that might lead fanatics to “imminent violence,” we are all in trouble. By agreeing to this ridiculous sophomoric attempt to silence radical Islam’s critics, we are actually accepting responsibility for violence perpetrated by these extremists. This only further decimates our ability to combat them. Tragically, once again, the world has been duped by backwater Islamists who exploit our tolerance to advance their depraved quest for a world rid of Christians, Jews and all infidels.


Nov 16 2011

Two Wrongs Makes a Left: DOJ Handles Muslim Teacher’s Suit with Political Correctness, Not Justice

Posted  at BigPeace.com by Dr. Marc Weisman Nov 13th 2011 at 12:02 pm in IslamJustice/LegalPoliticsComments (55)

You will recall that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit in support of a Muslim public school teacher, Sefoorah Khan. After just 9 months’ employment in a Chicago area school, Ms. Khan chose to take a three week hiatus from her position to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj — a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. She was encouraged, no doubt, by our ever-appeasing President when she demanded the school capitulate to her whim to fulfill this tenet of her religion — during her first year of employment, no less.

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced it settled Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit compelling the district to pay $75,000 in back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Even more insulting than this, the district has agreed to develop a policy “accommodating religions [i.e., Islam]” consistent with the Civil Rights Acts to prevent a similar infringement in the future. To be clear, this unusual action on the part of the Justice Department is perfectly congruent with this President’s record of relentlessly protecting political Islam.

No reasonable American denies the right of this woman to follow the doctrines of her religion. She also had the “right” and, dare I say, the common sense dignity, to resign her position if she was bent on pursuing the Hajj at that time in her life. But this isn’t about common sense any more than it is about religion. It is all about non-violent Jihad or political Islam. Chalk up one more victory for the bad guys.  This is no less than a successful exploitation of our legal system as Islamists cloak political Islam under the guise of religion abetted by our President’s misguided desire to placate and mainstream Islamism-lite.

Two wrongs make a left. The first wrong is the Obama administration’s joining Sefoorah Khan’s suit (rather than criticizing it) as a liberal statement of “American tolerance.” The second wrong is that our legal system hasn’t yet adopted the nearly world-wide policy of “loser pays”. Loser pays is the model whereby plaintiffs’ frivolous law suits are dissuaded by the fact that if unjustifiable suits fail they will be compelled to pay the defendant’s legal fees. In that model, the school system could have fought this unjust suit rather than submit to it (it is apropos that the root definition of Islam is “submission”) under the financial weight of defending itself against the U.S. Department of Justice’s hundreds of lawyers.


Sep 2 2011

True Colors: Shariah Law In Michigan?

Posted at BigPeace.com by Dr. Marc Weisman Aug 22nd 2011 at 11:26 am in IslamIslamic extremismJustice/Legal,Media CriticismNewsPoliticsshariaComments (75)

Every once in a while an issue arises that can leave no doubt as to one’s true colors. Clear examples of this are the congressional bills that unambiguously prevent judges in American courts from citing or using Sharia in their rulings. If you support them, you oppose Islamic law in America; if you oppose them, you don’t. The purity of this issue doesn’t allow for prevarication. Michigan Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, has introduced the newest of these bills. While it doesn’t openly reference Islamic law (Sharia), it clearly intends to prevent judges from including Sharia in their rulings. The bill states that “no foreign law shall supersede federal laws or constitution or state laws or constitution.”  As one would predict, the Islamist and apologist “usual suspects”; CAIR, the ACLU, Muslim activists and apologists who claim to be “loyal Americans”, are oozing from the woodwork to deplore the “bigotry and Islamophobia” these laws represent.


Their reactions are both interesting and revealing. To make my point, I’ll concede that certain arguments against the dangers of radical Islam are at least somewhat controversial. As such, not all who speak out against them support a hidden agenda to advance Islamism. An example might be the Disney employee, Imane Boudlal, who sued Disneyto allow her to wear her hijab rather than Disney garb as a greeter at Disneyland. Although her supporters are misguided and being used as pawns by Islamists, they might truly feel this is her right as an American.  These anti-Sharia bills, however, whose only purpose is to protect the sanctity of our Constitution, leave no room for obfuscation.

State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, the first Muslim woman to serve in the Michigan legislature, has spoken out against the Agema bill.  Victor Begg, a co-founder of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, called the bill “appalling.” “Some in our party find it politically opportune to target my faith by sponsoring an innocuous sounding bill, knowing well that their intent is so-called ‘creeping Sharia,’ Begg said. Many in the mainstream media have also condemned Agema and his bill.

The Center for Security Policy in Washington, a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization  specializing in assessing “threats to American security”, has identified more than fifty instances where Sharia has already been referenced in the application of U.S. law.  The most notorious of these Sharia-friendly rulings occurred in New Jersey last year. Family court judge Joseph Charles decided not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him. Charles’ rationale was “that the  [defendant] was operating under his belief [Islamic law] that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his [religious] practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” In other words: deference to Sharia trumps the U.S. Constitution, common sense and our most basic Judeo-Christian principles. Thankfully, the New Jersey appellate court overruled this preposterous decision. Based upon this case alone it’s clear that laws forbidding Sharia in America are a pretty good idea.

Similar legislation to Agema’s bill has been proposed in almost half of the states. To date, though, only Tennessee and Oklahoma have enacted these into law and in Oklahoma a federal judge has blocked its implementation to consider its potential violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom.

In summary; to repudiate anti-Sharia laws that clarify the inviolability of our constitution is synonymous with supporting the Islamization of America. Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known Latin term for “the thing speaks for itself”. It is aptly applied to these objectors who, in their fervor to attack all opposition to their shrouded march toward American Islamization, reveal their true colors.


Jun 28 2011

Public School Converted To Islamic Center

Posted at BigPeace.com by Dr. Marc Weisman Jun 28th 2011 at 5:17 am in Featured StoryIslamIslamic extremism,PoliticsshariaComments (133)

As you read this, be mindful that it could just as easily be your community—and probably will be, eventually. Farmington, Michigan’s Public School Board of Education voted unanimously to sell their vacant Eagle Elementary School to the Islamic Cultural Association (ICA) for $1.1 million. The transaction was kept secret until the sale was nearly (some say clearly) complete. Many in the community have decried this as an under-handed sale intended to circumvent the largely Christian and Jewish residents of the immediate area. Much of the controversy is the ICA’s association with the HUDA school of Franklin, Michigan—just a few miles away. The HUDA school was ultimately denied their expansion which was the intended site for the ICA two years ago. The HUDA school could not satisfactorily reconcile the charge that they secretly wanted this new structure, in the charming and historic downtown area, to be a mosque. They refuted the charge despite the fact that their website, openly but prematurely, celebrated the soon-to-be new Franklin Village Islamic Center and Mosque. They also failed to explain why cars regularly fill their parking lot until the wee hours of the morning in this “children’s” school, particularly on weekends. Another disturbing issue was their refusal to reveal the source of their funding which many believe to be Saudi-Wahhabi in origin. More recently but equally disturbing is he HUDA school’s recent invitation to the highly controversial and pugnacious anti-Israel Jew, Norman Finkelstein, to speak at their center in this largely Jewish village. So, when the ICA again claims that they simply desire to have a community center in the Farmington school for their children—although few Muslims currently live in this area—many are incredulous and believe this to be just one more example of Al-Taqiyya.

Al-Taqiyya is the Islamic equivalent to using deceit, concealment and “tradecraft” in order to advance the cause of Islam.  The Qur’an (16:106, 3:54, 3:28, 40:28) and the Hadith (49:857, 84:64-65) are replete in spelling out the circumstances when a Muslim can and should deceive infidels for a greater purpose. Al-Taqiyya must be appreciated if one is to understand the nature of nonviolent Jihad. In centuries past, Muslims practiced al-Takiyya as a means of defense and subterfuge against enemies, such as during the Spanish Inquisition. Today, radical Islam uses this as a necessary tool that extremists living in non-Muslim lands (Dar al-Harb) utilize to deceive their unsuspecting compatriots into believing they are assimilating while they are actually engaging in nonviolent Jihad against their host societies. Islamic jurisprudence has sanctioned this deception in modern times as depicted in confiscated al-Qaeda training manuals. It is said that al-Takiyya is “in tongue only, not the heart.”


We must not forget the stated mission of the Muslim Brotherhood which is to penetrate and conquer the infidel lands, most notably, America. That organizations ruling document states that Muslims are compelled to use deception to mask the intended goals;  ”The Ikhwan [Muslim soldier, in this instance a Believer in the unbeliever’s lands] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

It’s a tragic shame that we feel compelled to view our Muslim neighbors with such suspicion. There is plenty of blame to go around for this. We can blame the naysaying liberals whose blind tolerance of the world’s most intolerant people defies logic. Or we can hold the media accountable for their obsession with moral equivalency. Also complicit are the silent “Silent Majority” of Muslims who probably just want to live their lives anonymously but lose the privilege when they utterly fail to combat the Jihadist cancer in their ranks—forcing us to. Their conspicuous absenteeism simply leaves us wanting in terms of understanding their true intentions and their loyalty to America or lack thereof. Mostly, however, we should blame the radical Islamic schemers leading this slow but steady infiltration of our nation as they have so successfully done in Western Europe.

I cannot help but imagine there is a nearby map dotted with pins representing Islamist Trojan horses in cities including those of Franklin, Farmington and West Bloomfield. Maybe it’s just me but it seems ironic that on that same map, just a few miles away, resides the city of Troy.

This may be “coming soon to a theater near you”. For our community, it has already arrived.


May 24 2011

Obama’s Peace Offering

Posted on BigPeace.com by Dr. Marc Weisman May 24th 2011 at 12:55 pm in Foreign PolicyHistoryIslamic extremism,IsraelMiddle EastObamaPoliticsComments (7)

President Obama’s recent Middle East vision statement is highly disturbing—even for this president it stands out. His perfidious demand that Israel recede to 1967 borders is imprudent, callow and dangerously amateurish. Does he actually expect this terminally weakened and militarily indefensible position of 1967 borders to be Israel’s starting point for the remaining negotiations? Obama once again confuses America’s friends with its foes. Ironically, I watched the president’s Middle Eastern policy speech from a London hotel room where two streets over a “free Palestine march” raged on. I say ironically because I had just returned from the Churchill Museum (one of my great hero’s) and was contemplating the far-reaching mistakes of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policies. Once again Obama squanders his political mojo (in this case from killing Bin Laden) by advancing his appeasement policies through pressuring our ally rather than our adversary.


Allow me to provide a little history on Israel. Most (not all but most) of the 800,000 or so Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so voluntarily to avoid the crossfire of five Arab armies that rained upon the tiny nation immediately after its birth. They had every expectation that their Arab brethren would drive the Jews into the sea and they’d be back in their homes within a week or two. Well, a funny thing happened: the Jews won—and they continued to win every war that their tiny country (comprising just 1% of the Middle East) has fought to defend itself from its hostile   neighbors. To forty seven Arab and Muslim nations, Jews occupying even this miniscule, arid and near-empty desert from which modern Israel has burgeoned was and remains unacceptable. Their obsession with Israel is incessant. Let’s also remember that some 800,000 Jews actually were forcibly banished from a number of Arab nations as a punishment for the UN’s creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Unlike Israel that absorbed the 800,000 Jewish refugees, the Arab refugees were stranded because no Arab nation would admit them. Why? Because Arabia wanted these refugees to be a perpetual thorn in the side of the Jewish state. The other reason is that these refugees, later-named “Palestinians “, are considered a second class citizen to most of the Arab world. Let’s also remember that 3,000 years before the first Muslim existed, Jews lived in the land of Israel. This is despite the intentional disinformation that is promulgated by Islamists from London and Paris to American college campuses who daily refute this inconvenient truth of history.

But I digress; back to Obama. It’s incredible when you stop to think about it, that he has been on the wrong side of just about every issue. Here are some examples. From his first ever interview as president with the Muslim television station Al-Arabia he has been shamelessly pandering and inexplicably tolerant of the most intolerant people on earth. As the Iraq war winds down let’s recall that he was fervently opposed to the surge that won that war—I mean he literally campaigned on it. I actually do credit him with overcoming his ideology to continue the chase for Bin Laden. However, he was very quick to take virtually all of the credit when at least part of it is due to the very techniques of coercive interrogation he vehemently opposes. And then there is the ongoing Eric Holder “investigation” of the very CIA operatives who supplied at least some of the necessary information that helped lead us to Bin Laden.  He naïvely believes the “Arab Spring” is some kind of civil rights movement. Not that I blame all of these nations for revolting against their corrupt despots but when those who would be king are the Muslim Brotherhood and their creed I am not so sure. Call me callous but I prefer the oppressive autocrats who at least kept these crazy Islamists at bay. He also failed to support the Western-sympathizing young Iranians in their attempt to overthrow Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs just as he is currently failing to properly support the uprising against Assad in Syria. Assad is a pro-Iranian puppet who is an enemy of peace and of America. Obama’s words and actions on the Syrian uprising are awkward, desultory and weak. Obama has made it clear from the beginning that his strategy in dealing with radical Islam will be one of “balance” and appeasement and he has remained true to his word. His infamous 2009 Cairo speech introduced this policy of placation by ever so blithely reproaching the backwater, misogynistic, intolerant and undemocratic Arab regimes even as he called out the tiny democracy of Israel as the main impediment to Israeli-Palestinian peace. He reinforced this in the newest rendition of his Middle East policy.

President Obama’s petition that Israel surrenders lands it won in defensive wars and needs for its security against rabid enemies is an incredulous betrayal of one of our closest allies. He treats our friends like foes and foes like friends.  Yep, he’s got a real knack for being AWOL when he should be counted and present when he should be mute. This most recent Obama vision for peace (or mirage) is the clearest line yet drawn in the sand that our president’s agenda is not aligned with mainstream America…or reality.