Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.
Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams — then ambassadors to France and England respectively — met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise
One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors — who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” — thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.
It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa — specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis — had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe — including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.
The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”
The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”
As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.
After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).
Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).
Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” — including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”
But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.
Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.
When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments — which took up 16 percent of the federal budget — began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released — how many died or disappeared is unclear — and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.
One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag — one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag — in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.
That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 — respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)
Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks — the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.
Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.
The trek was arduous — not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)
Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.
Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” — a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today — the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.
Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).
The weapon that leftist leaders have used for years is now turned against them. My latest in FrontPage:
When Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), one of the Democratic Party’s three new stars, was asked in an interview on Showtime’s aptly named “Circus” about why some Democrats were unhappy with the anti-Semitic remarks of her fellow rising star Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), she gave the answer that we will hear again and again as long as she and Omar are in Congress: the problem is “Islamophobia.”
“Circus” host Alex Wagner asked Tlaib: “Rep. Omar…Why do you think people in your own party reacted so strongly to what she said?”
Tlaib responded: “You know, I’m trying to figure it out. This past week I feel, and I know this would be somewhat shocking for some, but I think Islamophobia is very much among the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party. And I know that’s hard for people to hear, but here’s only been four members of Congress that are of Muslim faith. Three of them currently serve in this institution. More of us need to get elected but more of us need to understand as we come into this institution that I have a lot of work to do with my colleagues. ”
Wagner was sympathetic (of course): “So, you think Democrats have some Islamophobia, and that’s at the root of some of this consternation?”
Tlaib was certain: “I think our country’s struggling with it.”
This was a revealing exchange. The idea that anyone might be troubled by allegations that supporters of Israel have a higher loyalty to another country besides the U.S., and are being bribed by moneyed Jewish organizations, is absurd to Rashida Tlaib — after all, she likely believes both of those things. So to her, the uproar over Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks, even though the Democrats capitulated so spectacularly to Omar, is all because of “Islamophobia.” And she says she has a lot of work to do — i.e., work to make sure that no one dares oppose anything a Muslim says or does, for fear of being tarred with this smear term.
The message is clear: from now on Democrats (and everyone else) must accept Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic remarks (and make no mistake, more are sure to come), and anything else that she and Tlaib say or do, because otherwise they will be tarred as “Islamophobes” and accused of bigotry against Muslims.
Well, the Democrats have been making this bed for a long time, and so it is fitting that they now have to lie in it. For years they have foreclosed upon any and all honest discussion of the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism, dismissing it all as “Islamophobia” and, even more irrationally, as “racism,” and eagerly signing on to and validating forces such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in their efforts to stigmatize and silence opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others as “hatred.”
Through their pet media outlets, they placed the idea that it was “bigoted” to speak about Islam as having anything to do with violence and terror, despite 34,000 jihad terror attacks worldwide carried out in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since 9/11, into the American mainstream. Their propaganda portrayed honest counter-terror analysts as a sinister cabal of “Islamophobes” bent on slandering Muslims to make money.
They never proved those “Islamophobes” false. They never showed flaws in their analyses. They just smeared them relentlessly and made their names poisonous, without ever showing the slightest concern about the evil they were enabling by stigmatizing all opposition to it. The mechanisms by which they did this are still in place, well-heeled, and still energetically operating.
But now the same thing is being done against them, if they dare suggest that the monster they themselves created is going too far. And so those who for years have demonized and vilified their political foes instead of engaging them civilly and rationally are confronted with a force that is even more radical than they are, that has learned their methods well and doesn’t hesitate to use them against their teachers and instructors.
Pelosi and her cohorts have been given notice: toe the line or you will be destroyed. They will get in line.
“This is not about antisemitism, because they didn’t say anything anti-Semitic,” stated the former Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) executive Ahmed Bedier concerning the new Muslim congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. His remarks at a March 6 rally before the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, indicated how these anti-Semitic legislators are effectively immune from rebuke among increasingly radical Democrats.
By contrast, Omar’s “anti-Semitism has been obvious to any honest observer ever since she became a public figure,” Washington Examiner editor Philip Klein has correctly assessed. She has referred to slang for $100 bills (“Benjamins”) in a 1997 Puff Daddy song to smear groups including the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as nefarious influencers of American Israeli policy. She has repeatedly intimated that Jews have dual loyalties to Israel, as she did at a February 27 event in Washington, DC’s Busboys and Poets cafe. Befitting Busboys and Poets’ history of hosting radical organizations including 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the packed audience warmly embraced her and joked about her “Benjamins” tweet.
Omar has also tweeted that “Israel has hypnotized the world” to its “evil doings,” while the “apartheid Israeli regime” makes her “almost chuckle” in dismissal of Israel’s status as a “democracy in the Middle East.” During her 2018 congressional campaign, she claimed to oppose the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, even though she had voted in the Minnesota legislature against a strong bipartisan majority for an anti-BDS law. She then reversed herself after her election victory, declaring her support for BDS.
Omar has established a record as an “apologist for Islamic terrorism,” as in her tweet against funding the Department of Homeland Security. In the Minnesota legislature, she was one of two representatives who voted against a bill that would deny life insurance payments to terrorists killed while attacking Americans. She likewise argued there for leniency towards fellow Somali-Americans from Minnesota who had been convicted of attempting to join Islamic State terrorists. She once claimed that jihadist attacks “are byproducts of the actions of our involvement in other people’s affairs,” not the result of dangerous Islamic doctrines. Her soft spot for sharia also once appeared in her reservations about a bill that would increase penalties for female genital mutilation, although she later voted for the bill.
Like the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), President Donald Trump condemned Omar’s various statements. He called for her resignation from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Echoing these appeals, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton Klein denounced Omar’s “pure, unadulterated, evil, frighteningly dangerous anti-Semitism.”
Yet Omar and Tlaib reflect a wider global trend of anti-Israel/anti-Semitic views gaining ascendance among the political Left, with Democrats following anti-Semitic precedents in the British Labour Party. The duo’s fellow Democratic progressive congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has expressed her opposition to any “special relationship” with Israel, while the leftist newscaster Chris Hayes has tweeted that the Democratic establishment and AIPAC “have lost wide swaths of the Democratic party base.” Meanwhile, numerous members of the Congressional Black Caucus have longstanding ties with Farrakhan, as a recently uncovered 2005 photo of him with then-Senator Barack Obama revealed.
Conservative American-Israeli commentator Caroline Glick has observed that former President Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett “is an outspoken supporter of Omar,” as well as of Tlaib. Democratic presidential candidates are also “aligning themselves with the anti-Israel voices in their party.” “Three of the party’s leading presidential candidates—Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris—all issued statements in support of Omar,” noted the conservative Jewish commentator Jonathon Tobin.
One of Omar’s first Washington, DC, appearances occurred on February 5 at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP), a leftist think tank that has its own antisemitism history. In 2011, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the prominent legal authority Alan Dershowitz all condemned CAP for staffers who had made anti-Semitic “Israel-firster” dual loyalty accusations. At CAP, policy analyst Matt Duss also drew an analogy between Israel’s self-defense against Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the “moral abomination” of “segregation in the American South.” Along with other anti-Semitic CAP alumni who have joined the senior staff of Democratic senator and presidential candidate Sanders, Duss is currently Sanders’ foreign policy adviser.
Accordingly, as media noted, CAP allowed Omar to dodge any serious scrutiny of her antisemitism during her brief 40-minute appearance, without any press questioning before the over 90 people filling CAP’s events room to capacity. CAP Executive Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg in her event moderation euphemistically claimed that Omar’s statements “had inadvertently echoed stereotypes against Jews.” Omar responded with blathered generalizations about the “kind of journey we could all be on in fighting against discrimination collectively.” Far more condemnatory was her address, in which she denounced Trump’s “hate-filled policies,” including the falsely described “Muslim Ban,” and reiterated the canard that he had called neo-Nazis “very fine people.”
Omar continued to deny any intentional antisemitism in a February 11 half-hearted apology. She wrote that her associates “are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes.” Yet only in early February before her renewed anti-Semitic slanders at Busboys and Poets did she quietly delete her offensive “Benjamins,” “AIPAC,” and Israeli “hypnosis” tweets.
Omar’s claims of innocence exasperated local Jewish leaders from Omar’s congressional district. They had already discussed antisemitism concerns with her during her 2018 congressional campaign, unavailingly. Perhaps these leaders began to suspect what extensive ADL studies of global antisemitism from 2014 and 2015 had documented, namely that Muslims such as Omar come from a worldwide religious community rife with antisemitism.
Correspondingly, Commentary senior editor Abe Greenwald concluded that it was “ludicrous to think that she didn’t know what she was saying.” In the greater Middle Eastern countries such as Omar’s ancestral Somalia, “conspiracy theory is the coin of the realm, and much self-inflicted grief is blamed on dark Jewish magic.” This would explain her “six years of remorseless bigotry” in her 2012 tweet claiming Israeli “hypnosis,” which she defended as late as January 2018.
Although Omar’s anti-Semitic statements contained no objective critique of Israel, she asserted in her apology that she had attempted to address the “problematic role of lobbyists in our politics” from groups such as AIPAC. Bedier reiterated this analysis at the March 6 rally in the company of individuals including CAIR executive director Nihad Awad and Sarsour, who proclaimed “unequivocal solidarity” with Omar. Omar and Tlaib’s outlook on Israel “has to do with certain countries’ influence in Washington and certain lobbyists, not much different than what we say about the NRA,” Bedier said.
Conservative commentator Scott Johnson at Powerline thus summarized that Omar always claims “to distinguish between the Jewish state and the Jewish people” while expressing political views, not prejudice. Accordingly, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour reflected Omar’s typical fawning media coverage with a softball media interview in which Amanpour said that Omar had rejected a political “rite of passage…to profess sort of fealty” to AIPAC. Rather, she “is part of a new wave of Democrats not afraid to be critical of the government of Israel.”
George Mason University Professor Noura Erakat, a later participant in the March 6 rally, had similarly stated that Omar and Tlaib disrupt a “status quo of bipartisan, uncritical support of Israel.” Likewise the leftist Jewish political activist Peter Feld found an “inconvenient truth” of political influence in Omar’s “Benjamins” tweet. Meanwhile considerations of Omar prompted the ailing Jewish leftist political organizer Ady Barkan to express his disappointment that he did “not expect to live to see the liberation of the Palestinian people.”
Having sanitized the antisemitism of individuals such as Omar and Tlaib as critical political commentary, Democrats and their political supporters could turn the tables on the legislators’ outraged accusers. As a forthcoming article will demonstrate, Democrats answered the national outcry over Omar in particular by emphasizing her supposed victimization by bigotry while paying mere lip service to antisemitism concerns. This new accommodation of antisemitism has particularly left Jews, long a reliable Democratic constituency, confronting a shocking political reality.
As Jihadi brides from western countries who joined the Islamic State make news for attempting to return home, it’s been revealed that a New York man who traveled to Syria to join the bloodthirsty group is now working for the Department for Justice.
30-year old Mohimanul Alam Bhuiya left New York City to join with the terrorist organization in 2014, having become radicalized by Islamist propaganda and seeking to pitch a plan to destroy civilian aircraft to the group.
Bhuiya admitted to recieving military training with ISIS and worked in various low-level capacities at what was the height of the caliphate’s existence.
Bhuiya eventually became disillusioned with ISIS, and was able to return to the United States on his own initiative after contacting the FBI and requesting “extraction.” He faced criminal charges that could’ve landed him with 25 years in prison upon returning, but got off easy in part because of cooperation with the FBI, only receiving supervised release.
In a bizarre twist of fate, reporting from the Wall Street Journal now has confirmed that he’s employed by the U.S District Attorney’s office in Brooklyn. This development leaves many critics of prosecutorial misconduct alarmed, as it would normally be assumed that someone who joined the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization would be blacklisted from sensitive government positions.
Bhuiya’s employment for the Department of Justice is emblematic of the dominance of cultural elite progressives within America’s primary federal legal institution. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was described in a recent book by Deep State leaker Andrew McCabe as having bemoaned the employee force of the DOJ, calling them “new people with nose rings and tattoos.”
It’s uncertain how a department credibly accused of systemic political corruption and bias against right-of-center Americans aims to retain credibility among the broader public, especially with a hiring policy that allows former ISIS terrorist wannabes to secure employment within its ranks.
Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?
Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to firstname.lastname@example.org. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.
Beto O’Rourke raised a record amount for a U.S. Senate race in 2018 he is one of the “rising stars” of the Democratic party.
He even announced his run for a President, but the latest revelation could turn his dream to become President into dust!
Reuters reported “it’s unclear whether the United States is ready for a presidential contender who, as a teenager, stole long-distance phone service for his dial-up modem, wrote a murder fantasy in which the narrator drives over children on the street, and mused about a society without money.”
O’Rourke reportedly fantasized about “toppling the government,” but doubted that “the masses would support such a radical move at this time.” Ads by Revcontent
He wrote about murdering children by running them over with a car.
“One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street,” O’Rourke wrote. “They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles …This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams.”
“As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two,” O’Rourke continued. “I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”
If he had fantasies like this as a teen, imagine his dark thoughts today. Hope this turns every American away from him.
Imagine the media coverage if Trump had written such terrible things.
I’m just so thankful to God that the lies are being exposed. I can’t imagine a path forward for the leftist media to have any credibility with moderates and right leaning folks.
Social media censorship is suppressing the truth about the dangers of globalism and brutal cultures infiltrating the west. Please share this article wherever you can. It is the only way we can work around their censorship and ensure people receive news about issues that Democrats and the mainstream media suppress.
A 15-year-old Beto O’Rourke once wrote a “murder fantasy” short story about running over two children with a car, according to a new report that also revealed the now-presidential candidate was a member of a famous hacking group.
The details were uncovered in a Reuters report on the “Cult of the Dead Cow,” a famous group of hackers credited with inventing the term “hacktivism.” Reuters revealed that O’Rourke, who joined the Democratic presidential primary race on Thursday, was a member, while reporting, “there is no indication that O’Rourke ever engaged in the edgiest sorts of hacking activity, such as breaking into computers.”
But the report also revealed that teenage Beto, in connection with the group, wrote stories under the name “Psychedelic Warlord” — writings that remain online.
One piece in particular detailed the narrator’s murder spree, as part of his goal seeking “the termination of everything that was free and loving.” The piece described the first kill as the murder of two children crossing the street.
It reads: “Then one day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. I knew, however, that this happiness and sense of freedom were much too overwhelming for them.
As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two— A 15-year-old Beto O’Rourke’s fictional fantasy piece
“This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams. As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.
“My dream was abruptly ended when I heard a loud banging on the front window. It was an old man, who was using his cane to awaken me. He might have been a witness to my act of love. I was not sure, nor did I care. It was simply ecstasy. As I drove home, I envisioned myself committing more of these ‘acts of love,’ and after a while, I had no trouble carrying them out. The more people I killed, the longer my dreams were. … I had killed nearly 38 people by the time of my twenty-third birthday, and each one was more fulfilling than the last.”
In another piece, he challenged the perspective of a neo-Nazi who was defending Hitler’s actions.
The Reuters report reads: “In another piece, he took on a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi who maintained that Hitler was misunderstood and didn’t personally want Jews killed. O’Rourke and a Jewish friend questioned the man about his theories and let him ramble about Jews and African Americans, an attempt to let him hang himself with his own words.
“We were trying to see what made him think the horrible things that he did,” he wrote in the piece.
It’s unclear whether the piece reflected a real interview, or was fictional.
The Reuters report included quotes from members of the hacker group, many of whom kept O’Rourke’s secret for decades.
The news agency spoke to more than a dozen people who were part of the group for a book from the same reporter titled, “Cult of the Dead Cow: How the Original Hacking Supergroup Might Just Save the World.”
Asked about the potential impact on his 2020 campaign, he had this to say: “I can’t control anything I did in the past. All I can do is control what I do going forward, and what I plan to do is give this my best; bring as many people together around the solution we face. That’s what I hear the people of Iowa saying as well.”
Fox News’ Charles Watson contributed to this report.
UTTDenton, Texas was ranked the Number 1 “Best Small Town in America” by Rand McNally and USA Today in 2012.
Today, Denton and Denton County are home to several terrorist front organizations, including the Islamic Society of Denton.
The Islamic Society of Denton was formed in 1980 and opened its doors in the summer of 1981 as a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
The By-Laws of the Muslim Brotherhood state they were created to “establish Allah’s law (sharia) in the land” and “fight the tyrants and enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic State.”
In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood has the same objective as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
In this section, the Islamic Society of Denton states, “It is important to point out here that enforcement of the laws about human rights in a Muslim society is linked inextricably with the sincere commitment to the implementation of Islamic laws and principles in letter and spirit. Some people take only what serves their own interests. Others may just pretend that they are implementing some Islamic teachings and principles but, in reality, are trying to destroy or distort and manipulate Islam from within, and hamper just implementation of Islamic laws. They are not examples of the defense of the human rights in Islam.”
In other words, the Islamic Society of Denton defines “human rights” as the implementation of sharia (Islamic Law), which is contrary to the International Declaration of Human Rights, the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Federal Code, and Texas state laws.
Furthermore, under the section “The Judicial System in Islam” the Islamic Society of Denton publishes the entire Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, in which “human rights” is also defined as the implementation of sharia (Islamic Law).
The last two articles of the Cairo Declaration read:
“Article Twenty-Four: All rights and freedoms listed in this Declaration are comprehensible within the framework of Shari’ah laws and principles.Article Twenty-five: Shari’ah laws and principles are the only source for the interpretation or clarification for any article of this Declaration.”
The Islamic Society of Denton is making clear to muslims that human rights is only viewed through the lens of sharia (Islamic Law).
With this in mind, here are a few of the items directly from authoritative Islamic Law:
“Jihad means to war against non-muslims…jihad is a communal obligation (o9.1)…jihad is personally obligatory (09.2)…” [Reliance of the Traveller, Islamic Sacred Law, o9.0, published in Beltsville, MD]
“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” [Reliance of the Traveller, o8.0]
“Beheading. This is execution by decapitation and is applied in hudud to persons convicted of apostasy.” [Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud, p220, Malaysia, Sidahmad]
“The following are not subject to retaliation (4) a father or mother for killing their offspring or offspring’s offspring.” [Reliance of the Traveller, o1.2]
“Crucifixion. This is to put to death by nailing or binding the offender’s hands and feet to a cross.” [Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud, p225, Malaysia, Sidahmad]
“Permissible Lying…it is permissible to lie if the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.” [Reliance of the Traveller, r8.2]
The Islamic Society of Denton, like the thousands of other Muslim Brotherhood organizations around America teaches sharia is obligatory for all muslims to follow, including the command that war must be waged against the non-muslim community until sharia is the law of the land.
Like many Muslim Brotherhood organizations around America, some muslims who receive this message act on it.
The Boston Marathon Bombers were supported by the Islamic Society of Boston as well as the Muslim American Society.
Nidal Hasan, who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others at Fort Hood, Texas, was supported by the Dar al Hijra Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Dar al Hijra also served as home base for two of the 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour.
The Islamic Society of Chattanooga produced Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who killed four (4) Marines and one (1) Navy sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee on an attack at recruiting depots there.
The Muslim Students Association has produced numerous terrorists not the least of which is its former National President Abdurahman Alamoudi who now sits in federal prison as a former financier for Al Qaeda.
All of these terrorists (“jihadis” in Islam) all believed they were commanded by allah to wage war against non-muslims, which is exactly what Muslim Brotherhood organizations teach.
The Islamic Society of Denton is no exception.
In 2016, one of its trainees, Peshwaz Azad Waise, made “terroristic threats” at a local hospital and courthouse in Denton, Texas.
While the long-standing leader of the Islamic Society of Denton, Imam Mohamed Fouad, tried to distance himself and the mosque from Waise’s terrorism, Fouad did say that “unlike Christianity, Islam does not allow just anyone to preach scripture. Those who teach Islam are supposed to be scholars trained extensively in the religion.”
So Fouad knows sharia and knows it is obligatory to lie if it advances Islam. Fouad also knows jihad is obligatory and, therefore, what Waise did was lawful in Islam.
About JGJohn Guandolo is a US Naval Academy graduate, served as an Infantry/Reconnaissance officer in the United States Marines and is a combat veteran, served as a Special Agent in the FBI from 1996-2008, and was recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense to conduct strategic analysis of the Islamic threat. He is the President and Founder of Understanding the Threat (UTT).