Sunni Islam’s Strategy In The On-Going ‘Clash Of Civilizations’

Posted on: May 5, 2016

Clash of civilizations

It Is A Mixture Of Stealth And Kinetic Jihad

By Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.), Right Side News

Islam Is Pursuing A Clash Of Civilizations, The West, Not So Much

In 1993 Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington first introduced the concept of ‘The Clash of Civilizations,’ which pointed out that Islam in is conflict with all other politico-ethic-geocultural-economic-religious societal groupings (Western, Slavic-Orthodox, Hindu, etc.). In response U.S. and international academic elites dismissed Huntington’s thesis on the basis that ‘civilizations’ certainly warred in the past, but modern sovereign nationhood and economics had rendered civilizational warfare archaic. Once the Western intellectual judgment ruled out civilizational warfare on the part of Islam, it became the consensus position of every major Western nation, even after 9/11 and what became known as the Global War on Terror (GWOT).  GWOT is a politically correct evasion of truth — the accurate designation should have been ‘Global War on Islamic Jihad.’

The glaring problem with this Western intellectual judgment was that it was based on the cognitive ‘mirror-imaging’ fallacy that assumes non-Westerners think, act, and have exactly the same social values as people of Western (U.S.-European) heritage, such as a desire for democracy, equality before the law, gender, minority and homosexual equality, and all manner of ‘social fairness.’ Obviously the believer in this mirror-imaging fallacy never investigated Islamic scripture, theology, and jurisprudence. In fact, the holders of such a fact-free concept of Islam, not only were totally wrong, they willfully and purposefully refused to learn the truth. Nothing tells the story of this politically correct foolishness more graphically than the ordeal of Maj. Stephen Coughlin (USAR) who was working in the Pentagon in the capacity of civilian contractor in the J-2 (Intelligence) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as detailed in his book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America In The Face Of Jihad.

Political Correctness, The Determining Force In U.S. Reaction To Jihad

Mr. Coughlin was brought on to the JCS Intelligence staff as a full time civilian consultant because of his demonstrated technical competence in analyzing Islamic doctrine and his legal background in international law. Naturally when he began his duties on the Joint Staff, Mr. Coughlin believed that Sun Tzu’s dictum, “know your enemy,” would be the guiding principle in analyzing Islamic jihad. But he quickly learned that he was wrong; that the senior leadership in the U.S. Government was adamantly opposed to changing the accepted, politically correct narrative that “Islam is peace” and that Islam has been hijacked and perverted by a small percentage of misguided, extremist Muslims.

Stephen Coughlin concentrated his analysis of America’s avowed Islamic enemy’s doctrinal motivations as revealed in the Islamic Quran, Sunna, Sira, and Sharia, while the standard and preferred method of others was to use social science modeling and dubious academic constructs. Coughlin’s evidentiary analysis greatly surpassed the competing analyses, resulting in increasing demand for Coughlin to present his conclusions in briefings, which he labeled ‘Red Pill Briefings.’ This characterization was in reference to ‘the Red Pill’ given in the science fiction movie, The Matrix, that enabled seeing the enemy as he really is. In other words, Coughlin’s analysis briefing permitted distinctly seeing and understanding the actual Islamic jihadists and their motivations in the GWOT, instead of being presented the allegedly misguided, extremist Muslims that had hijacked the Islamic religion and their academically-manufactured, politically correct motives. Coughlin’s underlying belief that inspired his analysis and briefings was ‘ignorance kills.’ Unfortunately, willful ignorance is just what the U.S. Government chose in formulating national security policy in responding to Islamic jihad under both presidents George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama’s administrations.

Immediately following 9/11, in order to develop a U.S. military, law enforcement, and government strategy that is ‘politically correct’ and ‘Islam-ignorant,’ Bush established the false planning premise that “Islam is peace.” Bush’s false planning premise underpinned the futile and expensive U.S. actions like counterinsurgency and ‘nation-building’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the Bush Defense Department declared and enforced an ‘Islamic-jihad-knowledge-free-zone’ in the Pentagon through the prohibition of study and analysis of the enemy’s strategic war doctrine by firing Stephen Coughlin from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Next, in order to continue on the irresponsible course of being ‘Islam-ignorant,’ Obama’s National Security Council removed terms like “militant Islamic radicalism” from the 2010 National Security Strategy and substituted terms like “violent extremism” and (undefined) “terrorism.” From there the Obama administration’s obstructive effort became even more debilitating when Islamist and militant Arabic groups, representing the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups, plus the jihadist Hamas terror organization, demanded that the FBI purge its training materials of all information which the Islamists found offensive to their ‘religious sensibilities.’ Such offensive materials included verbatim jihadist mandates in Islamic scripture. Unsurprisingly, Obama ordered that this Muslim request be carried out. The same purge of Islam-associated terminology was conducted with military training materials.

But, not only has Obama banned the use of words that accurately describe the inherent imperialist aggression of Islam, e.g., “militant Islamic radicalism,” “jihad,” “Shari’a,” “Islamic terrorism,” etc., in the National Security Strategy and in official correspondence and discourse – he has also attempted to conceal the barbarity of Islam by refusing to acknowledge acts of Islamic jihad for what they actually are as he did at Ft. Hood.

The Clash Of Civilizations

The first order of business is to establish that there is in fact a ‘clash of civilizations’ and demolish the myth of the jihad-deniers. The foundation setting up the ‘clash of civilizations’ is found in basic Islamic doctrine requiring the division of the world be codified as “Dar al-Harb” (domain of unbelievers in which Muslims make jihadist war) versus “Dar al-Islam” (Islamic domain where Sharia is the law). According to Oxford Islamic Studies Online:

Dar al-Harb: Territory of war. Denotes the territories bordering on Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam), whose leaders are called upon to convert to Islam. Jurists trace the concept to Muhammad, whose messages to the Persian, Abyssinian, and Byzantine emperors demanded that they choose between conversion and war.

Dar al-Islam: Territory of Islam. Region of Muslim sovereignty where Islamic law prevails.


When this division of the globe into the ‘world of jihad’ and ‘world of Sharia’ is considered along with Mohammad’s declaration of unending jihad until Islam conquers the world, the on-going ‘clash of civilizations’ is undeniable and irrefutable.

Bukhari (2:24) – “Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle’.”

Although Bush and Obama contend that ‘we are not at war with Islam,’ Islam is at war with us. Furthermore, the jihadists believe they have been at war with the ‘infidel forces’ we represent to them since the founding of Islam. It is impossible and illogical to assert that only one side is at war. It would be as if we had tried to pretend that only the Japanese were at war with us, but we were not at war with them after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. However, in the 21st century, Bush and Obama have actually tried to elude reality and pretend that we are not at war with the Islamic jihadists who attacked us on 9/11 (and numerous times before and since), thereby defying the logic that there cannot be a war only waged by one side.

The purported reason given by Bush and Obama for denying we are at war with Islam is that they don’t want to give cause for the jihadists to inflame the Islamic world ‘umma’ (world Islamic community) into believing that the U.S. is engaged in a religious war against Islam. But the simple truth is that such a belief is ingrained in the Muslim religion worldwide, irrespective of whether U.S. presidents say it or not. The perennial enemy ‘other’ concept is baked into Islam.

There is another reason why Islam is at war with us that is also built into the very fabric of the religion of Islam. Mohammad’s genius was to unite feuding Bedouin tribes into a cohesive polity by instilling a shared tribal mentality through creating a tribal religion that had the imprimatur of the God that Mohammad appropriated from Judaism and Christianity. Mohammad’s genius is explained by the Middle East Quarterly:

Building on the tribal system, Muhammad framed an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. This imbued the tribes with a common interest and common project. But unification was only possible by extending the basic tribal principle of balanced opposition. This Muhammad did by opposing the Muslim to the infidel, and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, to the dar al-harb, the land of the infidels and conflict. He raised balanced opposition to a higher structural level as the new Muslim tribes unified in the face of the infidel enemy. Bedouin raiding became sanctified as an act of religious duty. With every successful battle against unbelievers, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, which some academics today say means only struggle but which, in the context of early Islamic writing and theological debates, was understood as holy war.

Tribal identity coalesces in opposition to the “other.” Common Muslim attitudes toward non-Muslims reflect the influence of these tribal values. The historical evidence for the degradation of Christian and Jewish dhimmi [subjugated religious minority] in Muslim lands is overwhelming, both in quantity and near unanimity in substance.

Tribes cannot exist without enemies, and Islam cannot exist without the ‘clash of civilizations.’

Islam’s Organizing Principle

During Mr. Coughlin’s in-depth study of Islam, he found that the primary organizing principle of Islam is the implementation of Islamic Sharia law as the sole jurisprudence in territory of Dar al-Harb. The logic behind that strategic doctrine is to establish the legal framework and authority to remove any and all obstacles, human, legal, and cultural, to the eventual installation of Islam. Once the Sharia is ‘the law of the land,’ then the choices of the Quranic suras 9:5 and 9:29 can be dictated to unbelievers: 1) convert to Islam; 2) surrender and pay a yearly extortion tax to buy their life; or 3) resist and die. If an unbeliever chooses 2), he becomes a ‘dhimmi’ under the ‘Pact of Umar’ that puts heavy restrictions on him, making him a second class citizen. Should a dhimmi violate the Pact of Umar restrictions, he reverts to prisoner of war status, that is, he can be freed, ransomed, exchanged for Muslim prisoners, enslaved, or executed. Therefore, being a dhimmi means being ‘a prisoner of war in abeyance.’

It is the jihadists’ initial imposition of Sharia law in conquered territory and the Quran option to become a dhimmi that permit the Islamic claim that they do not forcibly convert non-believers to Islam.

Sunni Islam’s Strategy Against America In Accordance With Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones

Employ the following agents of Islamic jihad:


  1. Office of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) represents the ‘umma’ and serves as the de facto caliphate being the inter-governmental body composed of the 57 Muslim states in the UN; acts to infiltrate international organizations in order to blind non-believers to the truth of jihad and sabotage all non-Islamic organizations.
  2. Muslim Brotherhood (stealth jihadists), their innumerable spin-off front groups, and like-organizations perform “Dawa” (proselytizing/preaching Islam), while clandestinely functioning to place political agents of influence in the U.S. Government to obfuscate the true jihadist nature of Islam, and also to conduct “lawfare,” which is to stealthily introduce Sharia piecemeal into U.S. jurisprudence. It is these ‘Dawa jihadists’ that the naïve and ignorant Western public mistakenly and dangerously misidentifies as ‘moderate Muslims.’ Another clandestine function the stealth jihadists perform during the Dawa phase is to use the shaming of ‘Islamophobia’ to shut down all public analysis of Islam, and if that shaming tactic doesn’t work, then to employ physical intimidation as in the attempted attack of the ‘Mohammad cartoon event’ at Garland, TX.
  3. Kinetic jihadists (e.g., Al-Qaeda, Al-Nustra, Taliban, the Islamic State, Hamas, etc.) that attack after the Dawa organizations have undermined the enemy spiritually by sowing uncertainty, confusion, and terror, ultimately resulting in psychological and physical dislocation. Depleting the enemy’s physical and spiritual stamina before the attack are considered more important to successful jihad than the active war. The Islamic strategy is that kinetic jihad is not undertaken until the necessary Dawa preparation has been accomplished.

Dawa Preparation Phase:


  • Dominate the information battlespace by confusing the U.S. government and public about the true jihadist nature of Islam, thus creating a ‘pseudoreality’ that Islam is too ‘complicated’ for non-Muslims to understand; consequently, only foreign Islamic advisors can supply an accurate picture of ‘the real non-jihadist Islam.’ Bush and Obama have been very willing to comply with their misleading characterizations of Islam as peace and transforming Islam into ‘violent extremism’ to perpetuate the fiction that ‘Islam has nothing to do with jihadist terror.’ Gullible and ignorant government, media, academic, and religious ‘useful idiots’ eagerly assist the jihadists by spreading their mischaracterizations of Islam throughout American society. The objective of Dawa is to drain enemy’s moral reserve and shatter the public’s confidence in their leadership.

Kinetic Jihad Phase:


  • Attacking to spread mayhem, doubt, confusion, and psychological terror. In the first two Arab (632-750 AD) and Turkish (1071-1683 AD) jihads the objectives were to defeat enemy armies in pitched battle; however, in present day jihad, engaging and defeating Western armies is beyond the capability of jihadists. Consequently, today’s Islamic jihadists have taken a page from the North Vietnamese war plan to fight ‘the long war’ in order to psychologically wear down and demoralize the superior Western forces. In the jihadists’ view, implementation of Sharia installation will perhaps require generations to achieve, but Islamic jihadists think in terms of centuries since they believe this war began in the 7th century.


Just about everything the U.S. has attempted since 9/11 in the GWOT to stem the Islamic jihad has been ineffective or inconclusive (aside from killing bin Laden and ‘droning’ some jihadist leaders). Without a doubt the policies of both Bush and Obama have actually impeded American acquisition of knowledge of the enemy and, therefore, thwart effective strategy development by insisting that the U.S. rely on foreign Muslims as the primary sources of our information about Islam and jihad. This inexplicably wrong-headed policy has played right into the jihadist strategy of dominating the information battlespace and confusing the U.S. government and public about the true aggressive jihadist nature of Islam. The strategically sought-after ‘pseudoreality’ has been achieved.

Further, two very wrong-headed strategies followed by both presidents that have played into the jihadists’ ‘long war strategy.’ The first was Bush’s pursuing counterinsurgency and nation-building (endeavors that typically require decades) and second was Obama’s ‘degrade and ultimately destroy’ jihadism in Syria and Iraq strategy. By such an open-ended and nebulous policy Obama is approving ‘war without end.’ Since the jihadists see their path to victory through wearing down Americans psychologically and morally through unending war, Bush and Obama could not have served up more jihad-friendly strategies.

Everything about Islam is diametrically opposed to Western philosophical and political beliefs in regard to democracy, equality before the law, gender equality, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. It makes no sense to believe that Islam with its ‘Dar al-Harb’ destroy-the-West doctrine and its intolerant Sharia jurisprudence can coexist in or with free Western societies. The facts of this reality demand a sea-change in Western strategy that openly admits and publicizes the truth about Islamic jihad’s imperialistic objectives and implements war-fighting that does not accommodate the jihadists’ ‘long war strategy.’ The World War II strategy of decisively destroying the enemy’s will and capability to make war is a must, since the Islamic jihadists are every bit as fanatical as the German Nazis and Japanese Shinto-Bushido worshippers.

See the Colonel’s Archive

How Thomas Jefferson’s Day of Prayer Changed American history

Posted on:

JeffersonBy Bryan Fischer
Follow Bryan on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”

Today is the National Day of Prayer, SEE MORE HERE and EVENTS HERE

Note: this column was first published in July, 2015. It’s appropriate to reprint it in light of this Thursday’s national day of prayer.

Official days of prayer called by elected officials are in the best tradition of the Founding Fathers. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe and James Madison all called for national days of prayer during the early years of the Republic.

In fact, secular icon Jefferson, while a member of the House of Burgesses in 1774, called for a day of prayer in response to the effort of the British to close Boston Harbor after the infamous Boston Tea Party of late 1773.

The Crown issued the Boston Port Act on March 7, 1774, designed to destroy the economy of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay colony. Jefferson, in nearby Virginia, believed this dictatorial act required a response.

His response was to personally draft a resolution for a “Day of Fasting & Prayer,” to be held on June 1, the day the blockade of the harbor was scheduled to begin. The resolution was introduced  on May 24 and adopted unanimously.

Among its supporters: Patrick Henry, of “Give me liberty or give me death” fame, Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights.

Here is how Jefferson’s resolution read (emphasis mine):

“This House, being deeply impressed with apprehension…deem it highly necessary that the said first day of June be set apart, by the members of this House, as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, devoutly to implore the Divine interposition, for averting the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our civil rights…

Ordered, therefore, that the Members of this House do attend…with the Speaker, and the mace, to the Church in this City, for the purposes aforesaid; and that the Reverend Mr. Price be appointed to read prayers, and the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin, to preach a sermon.”

Note this was “ordered,” not simply recommend or urged. And it was the actual legislators themselves, every one of them, who went to church to participate in this day of prayer. This wasn’t just for the churches or the preachers or the people in the pews. No, the lawmakers themselves sensed the urgency of pleading with God for his favor and intervention.

George Washington participated in this day of prayer, writing in his diary, “Went to church, fasted all day.”

Now Jefferson’s day of prayer had its fierce and angry opponents. British Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, was so incensed that two days after the event he disbanded the House of Burgesses altogether, leaving Virginians with no representative government.

The response of the Virginians? They didn’t quit in the face of opposition. The elected leaders of Virginia went down the street to the Raleigh Tavern, where they made the momentous decision to convene a Continental Congress. It met for the first time three months later, and two years after that produced the Declaration of Independence which brought the United States into being.

Bottom line: No Jefferson day of prayer, no Continental Congress. No Continental Congress, no Declaration of Independence. No Declaration of Independence, no United States of America.

Thus America owes an infinite debt of gratitude to Thomas Jefferson for declaring a day of prayer and fasting. If we follow the example of the Founders in our day, perhaps God will hear our prayers too.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Migrant Rape Epidemic Reaches Austria

Posted on:

Soeren Kern | Gatestone Institute

  • A 20-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq confessed to raping a 10-year-old boy at a public swimming pool in Vienna. The Iraqi said the rape was a “sexual emergency” resulting from “excess sexual energy.”
  • Those who dare to link spiraling crime to Muslim mass migration are being silenced by the guardians of Austrian multiculturalism.
  • According to data compiled by the Austrian Interior Ministry, nearly one out of three asylum seekers in Vienna was accused of committing crimes in 2015. North African gangs fighting for control over drug trafficking were responsible for roughly half of the 15,828 violent crimes — rapes, robberies, stabbings and assaults — reported in the city during 2015.
  • Austria received 90,000 asylum requests in 2015, the second-highest number in the EU on a per capita basis, but this pales in comparison to what may lie ahead. Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka warned last month that up to one million migrants are poised to cross the Mediterranean from Libya to Europe.

The brutal gang rape of a woman by three Afghan asylum seekers in central Vienna on April 22 has shocked the Austrian public and drawn attention to a spike in migrant-related rapes, sexual assaults and other crimes across the country.

The migrant crime wave comes as the anti-immigrant Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) has surged in opinion polls. The party’s candidate, Norbert Hofer, won the first round of Austria’s presidential elections on April 24, and is on track to win the presidency in the second round, run-off election scheduled for May 22.

The three Afghans — two 16-year-olds and one 17-year-old — followed the woman, a 21-year-old exchange student, into a public restroom at the Praterstern train station, one of the main transportation hubs in Vienna. One of the migrants held the woman down while the other two took turns raping her.

A passerby called the police after she heard the woman screaming. By the time police arrived, the men had gone. The suspects, who were arrested as they were attempting to flee the station, do not speak German. Through an interpreter, the migrants told police they were drunk and do not remember carrying out the crime.

If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of seven-and-a-half years in prison. Due to the lenient nature of the Austrian judicial system, however, they may end up spending only two years behind bars, according to local observers.

It is also unlikely that the migrants will be deported: according to European law, sending them back to Afghanistan would be a violation of their human rights. Instead, observers say, the Afghans will qualify for Austrian social welfare benefits — €830 ($950) per month plus free healthcare — and probably for the rest of their lives become wards of Austrian state.

The assault in Praterstern is one of a growing number of migrant sex crimes in Austria (other migrant rapes and sexual assaults are included in the appendix below):

  • A 20-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq confessed to raping a 10-year-old boy at a public swimming pool in Vienna. The Iraqi said the rape was a “sexual emergency” resulting from “excess sexual energy.” The man, who left his wife and child behind in Iraq, said he had been unable to control his libido because he had not had sexual relations since arriving in Austria in September.
  • An 18-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan was sentenced to 20 months in prison for raping a 72-year-old woman in Traiskirchen. “First he beat the woman black and blue, then he raped her, and then he took her underwear as a trophy,” local police said. In addition to a lenient sentence, the man will be allowed to remain in Austria and, after he leaves prison, collect social welfare benefits.
  • A 20-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan was arrested after he coerced 13-year-old girl from the town of Korneuburg repeatedly to have sex with him. The man, who was living in an asylum shelter in Hollabrunn, first established contact with the girl over the Internet. Each time they met in person, he verbally threatened her until she agreed to have sex. The man was arrested after the girl told her parents about the relationship, which had been going on for more than three months.
  • Mobs of Arab migrants sexually assaulted dozens of women in Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck on New Year’s Eve. The sex attacks, known in Arabic as taharrush (“harassment”), were similar to those carried out that day by North African migrants in Cologne, Germany and other cities. Police initially denied that the attacks had taken place, but later admitted to lying, purportedly to protect the privacy of the victims.

Those who dare to link spiraling crime to Muslim mass migration are being silenced by the guardians of Austrian multiculturalism.

In April, for example, the Austrian Press Council (Presserat) — a group that enforces a politically correct “code of ethics” to ensure that Austrian media outlets toe the line of state-sanctioned multiculturalism — censured the left-leaning magazine, Falter, for “blanket discrimination” against Muslims.

The magazine’s editors — otherwise faithful proponents of European multiculturalism — appear to have had enough of migrants raping their way through Europe with virtual impunity. For the January-February 2016 edition, Falter’s cover featured a black and white drawing of five “light skinned” European women surrounded by large numbers of “dark skinned” Arab males. The image evoked images of the taharrush assaults in Cologne.

In a three-page “decision,” the Presserat ruled that the image violates the “code of ethics” because it amounts to “blanket slander and discrimination” against Arab men:

“The men are all portrayed with the same fierce-looking facial expression, dark hair and noticeably dark eyebrows. In this way — in the context of the attacks in Cologne — the artist is constructing a prototype of men from North Africa, i.e., the Arab world. The uniformity of the image suggests that, rather than portraying individuals, it depicts a homogenous group whose members all behave in the same way.

“Therefore, readers could be left with the impression that the sexual assaults in Cologne were not the acts of individual persons or person groups, but that such conduct is typical for men from North Africa, i.e., the Arab world. The image could leave the impression that all North Africa men who are here in Europe fail to conduct themselves correctly vis-à-vis women.”

The editors of Falter defended themselves against accusations of racism:

“The fact is that North Africans were overwhelmingly responsible for the assaults in Cologne. This is what took place and we should be allowed to represent it as such.”

Vienna is the epicenter of migrant crime in Austria. According to data compiled by the Austrian Interior Ministry, nearly one out of three asylum seekers in Vienna was accused of crimes in 2015. Of the nearly 21,000 officially approved asylum seekers in the capital, 6,503 were known to have committed crimes in 2015, a jump of nearly 50% over 2014. The data shows that 2,270 of the criminals were under the age of 20, a 72% jump over 2014. Seven were under age nine, while 31 were under age 13.

According to Vienna Police Chief Gerhard Pürstl, North African gangs fighting for control over drug trafficking were responsible for roughly half of the 15,828 violent crimes — rapes, robberies, stabbings and assaults — reported in the city during 2015.

Praterstern train station

The area around the Praterstern station, the exchange student was raped, has become overrun by shiftless migrants from Afghanistan and North Africa who are selling drugs, fighting turf battles and assaulting female passersby. Police were dispatched to the area a total of 6,265 times in 2015, or an average of 17 times a day, according to local media. But local authorities appear unable or unwilling to restore order to the area.

The head of the Austrian Police Union, Hermann Greylinger, estimates that Vienna needs around 1,200 more police officers in order to establish order in the capital:

“If we are allowing in our country 111,000 migrants, few of whom have had background checks, then clearly the police must be massively increased. Almost all asylum claimants are moving to Vienna. We now have more migrants than the population of the city of Salzburg, the fourth-largest city in Austria.”

Austria’s migrant crime problem is being exacerbated by an extremely lenient criminal justice system. On May 4, for example, a 21-year-old migrant from Kenya randomly killed a 54-year-old woman on a busy street in Vienna by hitting her over the head with an iron bar. It soon emerged that the Kenyan was well known to city police: since arriving in Austria in 2008, he has committed at least 18 crimes — including dealing drugs, attacking police officers and hitting someone over the head with an iron bar — but he has repeatedly been set free.

Given the growing insecurity, it comes as no surprise that Austrian voters are looking for a change in political direction.

In what amounts to a political earthquake, Freedom Party (FPÖ) candidate Norbert Hofer won 36% of the vote in the first round of Austria’s presidential election on April 24. Hofer — who has campaigned on a platform calling for strict limits on immigration and tough rules for asylum seekers — defeated all of the other candidates, including those from the two governing parties, the Social Democrats and the Austrian People’s Party, which have dominated Austrian politics since the end of World War II.

Hofer, who says that as president he will be the “protector of Austria,” is now on track to defeat the Green Party’s Alexander Van der Bellen, a 72-year-old economist who is opposed to limits on immigration, in a run-off ballot to be held on May 22.

Hofer’s meteoric rise is focusing the minds of the establishment parties. On April 27, just three days after Hofer’s electoral victory, the Austrian Parliament adopted what may be one of the toughest asylum laws in Europe.

Under the new law, Austria will declare a “state of emergency” on the migration crisis. This will allow Austrian authorities to assess asylum claims directly at the border. Only asylum seekers with immediate family members already in Austria, or those who can prove they are in danger in neighboring transit countries, will be allowed to enter the country. Other migrants will be turned away. The new law also limits any successful asylum claim to three years.

Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said the new law is needed to stem the flow of migrants and refugees: “We cannot shoulder the whole world’s burden.”

Austria received 90,000 asylum requests in 2015, the second-highest number in the European Union on a per capita basis, but this pales in comparison to what may lie ahead. In a radio interview on April 28, Sobotka warned that up to one million migrants are poised to cross the Mediterranean Sea from Libya to Europe.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.


Sexual Assaults and Rapes by Migrants in Austria, January-April 2016.

Gatestone Institute has reported about the migrant rape epidemic in Germany and Sweden. The problem has now spread to Austria. Following are a few cases from the first four months of 2016:

April 29. A 35-year-old migrant from Algeria attempted to rape a woman at a bus stop in Linz. The man beat the woman unconscious, but not before she broke his nose. He was arrested after he went to a local hospital seeking medical attention. It later emerged that the Algerian has a long criminal record, including other attempted rapes, but cannot be deported because Algeria will not take him back.

On April 25, Kronen Zeitung, the largest newspaper in Austria, reported that an “Arabic-looking man” attempted to rape a 27-year-old woman at a bus stop in Vienna. “All he could say was sex, sex, sex,” the woman said. The man pulled a condom out of his pants pocket and then dropped his trousers. “I screamed as loud as I could,” the woman said, “until the man ran away.” She said that city police have been wholly uninterested in her case: “They have not even asked me for my name.” After local media reported on her case, police issued an apology and blamed their failure to take her seriously on a “regrettable misunderstanding.”

April 24. An unidentified migrant raped a 19-year-old woman in Eisenstadt.

April 22. Three asylum seekers from Afghanistan gang-raped a 21-year-old woman at a train station in Vienna.

April 22. A 17-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan attempted to rape a 20-year-old woman in Graz.

April 21. A 17-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman on a train in Grieskirchen. The train’s conductor intervened after he heard the woman scream. The Afghan told police that the woman was lying and demanded an apology.

April 20. Two North African migrants sexually assaulted a woman in front of the main train station in Salzburg. When a 26-year-old passerby attempted to intervene, the migrants punched and kicked him so hard that he was rushed to a nearby hospital. One of the attackers is a 31-year-old asylum seeker from Morocco. The other suspect remains at large.

April 15. A 42-year-old migrant from Slovenia was arrested for attempting to sexually assault two 18-year-old women in Leibnitz.

April 13. An “Arab looking” man sexually assaulted three women at a bus stop in Vienna.

March 24. Two Afghan migrants were arrested for raping a 20-year-old woman in Wels.

March 21. A migrant from North Africa assaulted a 27-year-old woman on a packed subway train in Vienna. The man began touching the woman on her hands. When she got up to find another seat, the man grabbed her and began kissing her on the mouth. Police told the woman there was nothing they could do because kissing does not qualify as sexual assault.

March 12. A 16-year-old asylum seeker from Libya attempted to kidnap and rape two women in Vienna. After the three met on a subway train, the Libyan promised to take the women to a nightclub. He took them instead to an apartment where he attempted to lock the women in the basement and rape them. One of the women escaped and called the police.

March 8. A 20-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan was observed pointing to his genitals in front of a seven-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Vienna. The pool director and a swimming instructor held the man until police arrived. The police let him go.

March 6. A “foreign looking” man sexually assaulted a 37-year-old woman at a public swimming pool in Klagenfurt after she intervened to prevent him from molesting her four-year-old boy.

February 25. A “southerner” sexually assaulted two teenage girls at a shopping mall in Innsbruck.

February 22. An 18-year-old migrant from Afghanistan was arrested for raping a 52-year-old woman in Innsbruck.

February 14. Six migrants sexually assaulted a 49-year-old woman on a subway in Vienna. Two of the men, an 18-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan and a 23-year-old asylum seeker from Iraq, were arrested as they tried to exit the station. The other four remain at large.

February 11. A 33-year-old migrant from Iran masturbated in front of female patrons at a public swimming pool in Linz.

February 8. A 22-year-old migrant from Macedonia identified only as Ibrahim J. was arrested in Vienna for sexually assaulting more than 20 women in Vienna and other parts of Austria. Among other crimes, the man is accused of raping a 15-year-old girl.

February 6. A group of 28 male asylum seekers sexually harassed female patrons at an outdoor ice skating rink in Stockerau. The migrants then attacked security guards who tried to intervene. Police were needed to restore order.

February 4. Six “southerners” assaulted a 53-year-old woman in front of a grocery store in Spittal after she refused to give them money.

February 3. Three migrants sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl at a streetcar stop in Leonding. One of the men held the girl down while the other two took turns assaulting her.

January 26. A 24-year-old asylum seeker from Gambia raped and murdered a 25-year-old American woman in Vienna. The woman from Colorado, who was working as an au pair, had given the man, Abdou I., shelter in her apartment. He had fled his asylum shelter because his asylum request was denied and he feared being deported. After the murder, the man fled to Switzerland, where he was arrested after police traced his cellphone. It later emerged that he was wanted in Germany for sexually assaulting an underaged girl.

January 23. A migrant from Macedonia attempted to rape a 21-year-old woman in Vienna. The man made eye contact with the woman on a subway and followed her after she got off the train.

January 16. A 21-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan raped an 18-year-old woman at the Prater, a large public park in Vienna.

January 10. A 29-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan tried to molest a six-year-old boy at a public swimming pool in Linz. The mother of the child said: “I noticed six migrants enter the building. Two of them sat down at the edge of the pool for children. One of them began stimulating his genitals while flirting with my youngest child.”

January 1. Mobs of Arab men sexually assaulted at least 24 women in Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck.


Pepsi Doubles-Down on LGBT and Transgender and Restroom-Access Activism

Posted on:
PepsiCo Headquarters, photo by Peter Bond Philadelphia, USA - IMG_3987, CC BY-SA 2.0,

View of PepsiCo’s Global headquarters building on the Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens in Purchase, New York (Photo Credit: Peter Bond)…public domain link here)

Shows No Interest in Alternative, More Constructive, Approach to the Issue, Preferring Party Line of LGBT Activist Groups to the Position Held by a Majority of the Public in Opinion Polls

Pepsi Previously Declined an Activist Role on Another Issue that Would Have Helped the Poor in the Developing World and Helped Pepsi’s Bottom Line, But Has Jumped in With Both Feet on Controversial Issue That Risks Angering Half of Its Customer Base

New Bern, NC / Washington, D.C. – Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi doubled-down on the company’s commitment to LGBT activism at the company’s shareholder meeting today.

Ms. Nooyi made it clear that activism on the LGBT issue is a priority for the company.

National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. spoke directly with Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi at the meeting, which was held today in New Bern, NC.

Ms. Nooyi has called on North Carolina to repeal a state law known as HB2 that itself repealed a Charlotte ordinance that said bathroom use in Charlotte cannot be designated by biological sex, and made harsh statements about the law.

The law is highly controversial, in part because business executives such as Pepsi’s Nooyi, entertainers such as Bruce Springsteen, and even foreign businesses such as Ontario’s Cirque du Soleil have made firm statements against the law that appear to question the morality of anyone holding a contrary opinion.

Yet the public, while divided about the law, has certainly not reached a consensus that the law should be repealed, let alone that its backers are immoral. A Time-Warner Cable News poll taken in April showed 51 percent of North Carolinians support the law’s provisions regarding restroom use, while 40 percent oppose it. Nationally, a CBS News poll about transgender restroom access policies generally, and not the North Carolina law specifically, found 59 percent preferred limiting restroom and locker room access to people of the same biological sex while 26 percent advocating letting people use the restroom or locker room of their choice.

“Ms. Nooyi appears to be comfortable casting her Justin Danhofstatements on the law as representative of Pepsi as a corporation, and likewise appears to be committed to continuing the company’s LGBT activism, but she has in the past turned down requests to involve the company in policy activism that has a more direct impact on Pepsi, is less controversial, and literally could save lives,” Justin Danhof said. “In 2014, I asked Ms. Nooyi if Pepsi would increase its educational activities about the life- and eyesight-saving benefits of genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs, in the Third World. Pepsi uses GMOs extensively, so making sure the public knows the truth is important to Pepsi’s bottom line, but this also is a huge humanitarian issue. Ms. Nooyi was very courteous when she spoke to me, but she made it clear that she thought it was more important for the federal government through agencies such as the FDA and think-tanks like the National Center for Public Policy Research to do most of the heavy lifting on GMO education. Proving the point further with real-life evidence, since 2014, we have not seen Pepsi take a strong lead on GMO education or policy, but Pepsi is all over the news on LGBT and bathroom-access issues.”

“So we see the priorities,” said Danhof. “When involvement in an issue can save lives and help Pepsi’s revenue stream, Pepsi has a little bit of interest in speaking out, but not very much. When another issue, one that at present is very important to the left, does not prevent premature death, reduce malnutrition and blindness in the developing world, does not involve Pepsi products, and has at least the potential of angering 51 percent of Pepsi’s customers, Pepsi is firmly committed to speaking out.”

“This is the picture of a company that has made the decision to Amy Ridenourput activism over profits, and LGBT activism over anti-poverty activism,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, “and it is clear it is Pepsi that is making the statements here, not its CEO speaking as an individual, which she has every right to do, and which is far less likely to anger Pepsi customers.”

“A clue to the strength of the company’s commitment to being part of the LGBT activist coalition can be found in Ms. Nooyi’s response when I offered the company a framework for promoting the company’s values in a constructive way, instead of driving them apart, as implying that people who hold a different view lack moral fiber quite predictably will tend to do,” said Danhof. “We suggested that Pepsi bring the different sides together to identify the areas of common ground, so action can be taken immediately in those areas, and to identify areas of discord, so a specific search for innovative solutions can immediately be undertaken. In the restroom case, for example, the most contentious issue – locker room access – might find a solution if big corporations donated money so the public schools could build private shower facilities, to name just one possible solution that seems doable yet does not drive Americans apart.”

“This is a far more productive approach than casting aspersions on 51 percent of the community, and far better for Pepsi, but I might as well have been talking to a brick wall,” Danhof continued. “A very courteous brick wall, and I do commend Ms. Nooyi for being willing to speak to me, as she has been willing to do on many occasions, and that is very much appreciated, but a brick wall nonetheless.”

Remarks made by Mr. Danhof publicly at the meeting, as prepared for delivery, are available here.

In part, Danhof said:

Liberal activists pressured Pepsi to denounce the [HB2] law. And you obliged. We suggest this was a missed opportunity to bring folks together and elevate Pepsi’s brand. Your decision to speak out so forcefully against the law pleased one contingency but angered another. And that anger is palpable. In reaction to HB2, Target announced that it would open its bathrooms to any and all-comers. Over a million Americans now claim to be boycotting the chain in protest. Pepsi does not want to be the next Target.

When approached to take a position on an issue, many companies see only a few options: say nothing, or choose one side or the other. I propose there is an alternative: bring people together.

When you denounced the law, you made Pepsi just another one of the many companies that jumped on a bandwagon. You weren’t leading on the issue. If instead, Pepsi had worked to bring both sides together, you would be viewed as a leader in the community, the state and indeed the nation. Pepsi holds a prominent role here in North Carolina. Why use that position to divide citizens against each other? Or, for that matter, some customers against the company?

I have with me today a one-page framework companies can use to approach contentious issues like this. It does this by focusing on solutions and can be applied to literally every issue. I’m hopeful the company will take a look at it. I think you will find it helps the company stand up for its values in a way that brings people together and increases the public’s appreciation for Pepsi as a company and as a brand.

The next time you are approached by a group of activists demanding that Pepsi sign a letter or denounce this or that, we simply suggest that you ask yourself, Ms. Nooyi, is there a way that I can bring both sides together and lead the community to solutions the public – and Pepsi’s customers – can get behind? Can I suggest to you that the paradigm I have suggested would help Pepsi be the community leader it clearly wants to be without making itself another Target?

“We hope Pepsi will reconsider,” concluded Ridenour. “And choose instead a path that brings people together.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Pepsi meeting marks its 8th shareholder meeting of 2016.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

Posted on:

Hillary Clinton Human Abedin Cheryl MillsCourt: ‘Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted “discovery” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email system.  The order allows Judicial Watch to take testimony of former top Clinton State Department aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Bryan Pagliano.  The Court also notes that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.”  The discovery will take place over the next eight weeks.

The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

In a Memorandum and Order issued today, Judge Sullivan found that “Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faith in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.  Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.”  Judge Sullivan also questions, citing Supreme Court precedent, whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton “purposefully routed…document[s] out of agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request.”

Sullivan ruled that the scope of discovery includes:

The creation and operation of for State Department business, as well as the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.

Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton may have to testify:

Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary. If Plaintiff believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time. [Emphasis in original]

The Court also authorized Judicial Watch to seek the testimony of the following witnesses:

  1. Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests);
  2. Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for Mrs. Clinton to check her email account);
  3. Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since 2007 and the Secretary of State’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services);
  4. 30(b)(6) deposition(s) of Defendant regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and after;
  5. Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State);
  6. Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on;
  7. Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “” system during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State);

During a court hearing on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years.  Judicial Watch then filed a proposed discovery plan onMarch 15 and then filed a joint, proposed discovery plan with the State Department on April 15.

In a separate FOIA lawsuit concerning Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi terrorist attack, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Judicial Watch can conduct discovery into the Clinton and her top aides email practices.  Judge Lamberth ordered Judicial Watch to follow up with his court once Judge Sullivan issued his discovery order:

When Judge Sullivan issues a discovery order, the plaintiff shall — within ten days thereafter–file its specific proposed order detailing what additional proposed discovery, tailored to this case, it seeks to have this Court order.  Defendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff’s submission.

“This is a significant victory for transparency and accountability,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  “Judicial Watch will use this discovery to get all of the facts behind Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama State Department’s thwarting of FOIA so that the public can be sure that all of the emails from her illicit email system are reviewed and released to the public as the law requires.”

Islamic State May Want Northern Ireland As A Base Of Operations For U.K. Attack

Posted on: May 4, 2016

Northern Ireland ISIS

Ryan Healy | Center for Security Policy

United Kingdom (U.K.) security forces are concerned that Northern Ireland could become a ‘back door’ for Islamic State (IS) terror attacks directed at the U.K. Northern Ireland’s long history of conflict with the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland) towards British rule and long war with the Irish Republic Army (IRA) may give IS not just a logistical base but also a support system to strike at the U.K.

U.K. authorities note that Northern Ireland is not obligated to the British Prevent Anti-Terror Strategy, which is designed to prevent violent extremism. British officials are also concerned that IS members could easily slip across the border into the U.K. which is not closely monitored.

Last month, a whistle blower within the U.K. Home Office claimed that the country’s Border Forces lacked the power to deter or detain potential terrorists from entering the U.K. There were also reports that the agency was hit hard by budget cuts and lacked additional training and resources.

A parliamentary report from earlier in 2016 showed that individuals arriving to the U.K. from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland would be exempted from checks by Border Security computers.

Unsurprisingly, Northern Ireland’s police force is more oriented towards dealing with the historical domestic terrorism the region faced as opposed to jihadists. Social unrest and violence plagued Northern Ireland from 1968-1998 as the pro-British Royal Ulster Constalbury (RUC) and British Army clashed with Irish loyalists known as the Irish Republic Army (IRA).

As late as 2012 a report by the Belfast Telegraph indicated that the Police Services of Northern Ireland (PSNI) faced “No-Go Zones” including the Short Strand section of Belfast, where Irish Nationalist sentiment predominated. The PSNI denied being unable to enter the area.

The Irish Times reported, The Gardai or Guard of the Police Force of Ireland, which serve the Republic of Ireland admitted their first line response teams lacks training and experience in responding appropriately to a terrorist attack.

David McNarry, the leader of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), expressed concern earlier in the year that IS members could work with IRA loyalists or former members.

The Islamic State publication Black Flags over Rome discusses operations in Europe, including the possibility of forging cooperation with “left wing” activists. While Black Flags does reference the history of Britain’s campaign against the IRA, it does not explicitly call for allying with the group.

Ireland has been noted as home to jihadist sentiments, and the Gardai has said the threat of Islamic terrorism surpasses the domestic “Republican” threat.

Ireland has been home to some of the most important European Islamist networks, including the Muslim Brotherhood-linked European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) founded by Hamas supporter Yusuf Al Qaradawi in 1997. Qaradawi has long endorsed terrorism attacks against Israel and against Americans in Iraq in 2004.

The ECFR affiliated Islamic Cultural Center of Ireland (ICCI)’s imam Ali Selim has praised “martyrdom” for those who fight jihad. ICCI members have reportedly cheered for the kidnapping of an Irish aid worker and publicly mourned the death of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi successors would eventually separate from Al Qaeda in order to establish Islamic State, and Zarqawi remains a popular figure among IS supporters.

Ireland’s tolerance of Islamist networks is bearing poisonous fruit, and Ireland has already contributes seven times as many jihadist foreign fighters, per capita, as the United States. While obviously the history of conflict between Irish Republicans and Loyalists colors the experience of Irish counterterrorism, authorities shouldn’t allow historical examples with domestic terrorism to shade their view of dealing with the wider jihadist threat.