5 Stories the Media Refused to Tell You

Visit us at: Website: https://www.oann.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OneAmericaNe… Twitter: https://twitter.com/OANN

Category

News & Politics

Advertisements

America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad

America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad

By Raymond Ibrahim

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).

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5jRAs8Ijy
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Colorado AG: Sheriffs Who Will Not Enforce Gun Confiscation ‘Should Resign’

Colorado AG: Sheriffs Who Will Not Enforce Gun Confiscation ‘Should Resign’4

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser speaks about the plan to have a former federal prosecutor review the sexual abuse files of Colorado's Roman Catholic dioceses at a news conference Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019, in Denver. The church will pay reparations to victims under a voluntary joint effort with the state …
AP Photo/David Zalubowski

AWR HAWKINS20 Mar 20193,4871:51

Colorado Attorney General (AG) Phil Weiser (D) said sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun confiscation laws “should resign” their posts.

Democrat lawmakers are pushing a red flag law that will allow a court to issue confiscatory order empowering police to go to a gun owner’s home and take away his firearms. As of March 12, 2019, ten Colorado counties had declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” to signal that they would support their sheriffs in refusing to enforce the confiscation law.

Numerous sheriffs have subsequently taken a stand against the red flag law, and the Colorado Sun quotes AG Weiser saying those sheriffs “should resign.”Breitbart TV

Sheriff Clarke Delivers Brutal Response to Media’s Love for McCain

Weiser said he expects the law to be challenged in court, where he believes it will be upheld. Once upheld, he said sheriffs will be obligated to enforce it.

But Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams sees it differently. He told Fox News, “If you pass an unconstitutional law, our oaths as commissioners or myself as the sheriff — we’re going to follow our constitutional oath first.”

Logan County Sheriff Brett Powell said, “It’s time we quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and start funding our mental health facilities, instead of trying to take the rights from our people.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Pro-Islam CAIR’s Public School Propaganda Scheme In San Diego Was Just Permanently Shut Down

Pro-Islam CAIR’s Public School Propaganda Scheme In San Diego Was Just Permanently Shut Down

By Mack Cogburn –  March 20, 2019  Defiant America

Nihad Awad
Nihad Awad

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was trying to implement a pro-Islamic brainwashing scheme on public school children in San Diego, however parents sued the school district and put a stop to it.

CAIR, who was named by the government as co-conspirator of the largest terrorist funding case in US history, worked their way into influencing the the San Diego School District late 2016 and then in 2017 introduced their “Anti-Islamophobia Inistiative,” as a vehicle to push their religion on Sand Diego school children.

As reported by the Middle East Forum:

The Council on American-Islamic Relation’s (CAIR) ubiquitous presence in the San Diego Unified School District is over, thanks in part to the Middle East Forum. Ads by Revcontent

settlement in the federal lawsuit against the District, substantially funded by MEF, ends the District’s “anti-Islamophobia initiative,” which: (i) singled out Muslim students for special protections; and (ii) empowered Islamist CAIR to change the District’s curriculum to portray Islam more favorably.

The District enacted its initiative in 2017 at the behest of CAIR, which claimed that “Islamophobia” was sweeping through schools after the November 2016 elections. According to the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund – which brought the lawsuit on behalf of five San Diego families – CAIR activists were teaching schoolchildren “how to become allies to Muslim students” and conducting Islamic education workshops for teachers, among other inequities.

Under the terms of the court settlement:

  • “Educators should treat each religion with equal respect, with the time and attention spent discussing each religion being proportionate to its impact on history.”
  • “Educational material on religious subjects must be neutral and may not be presented in a manner that promotes one religion over another.”
  • “Educators or other staff sponsoring guest speakers at District events must ask them not to use their position or influence on students to forward their own religious, political, economic or social views and shall take active steps to neutralize whatever bias has been presented.”
  • “Guest speakers from religious organizations are not permitted to present to students on religious topics.”

[]

Watch one of the parents address the School District about the matter in 2017:

👍Dad Christopher Wyrick,Finds Out School Is FORCING #Islam #ReligionBeliefs Down His Son’s Throat!His #PATRIOTIC Reply Goes VIRAL!#BanSharia pic.twitter.com/8yKcFvOiRk— TRUMP ANOMALY® (@ANOMALY1) May 4, 2017

This is a big victory since CAIR planned on using this as a pilot program to launch a propaganda assault on our children nationwide.

Now we can be certain schools will remain neutral in their treatment of various religions.


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.

Scroll down to leave a comment below.

Previous articleVisions of Jesus: ISIS Sickened Muslims in Iraq, Now They’re Turning to Christ (Video)Next articleReport – A Senior Ukrainian Official Opens Investigation Into Alleged Plot To Boost Hillary In 2016 Election

The Democratic Party’s “Progress” into Antisemitism (Part Two)

The Democratic Party’s “Progress” into Antisemitism (Part Two)

MAR 21, 2019 7:30 AM BY ANDREW HARRODLEAVE A COMMENT

“The halls of power bowed to the pulse of the street. This moment marks a new future for American Muslims,” crowed a recent mass email from the Hamas-derived Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, had every reason to rejoice, for Democratic representatives had just transformed a congressional censure of antisemitism into a resolution that actually protected pro-jihad Muslim anti-Semites like him.

The CAIR email condemned the original intention of the resolution that Congress passed on March 8. In a “twisted logic, Democratic leadership planned to release a resolution condemning anti-Semitism as a public rebuke of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar,” who has consistently made anti-Semitic statements, as previously discussed. Adopting hackneyed arguments that Omar and others, including her Democratic colleague Rashida Tlaib, are merely legitimate critics of Israeli policies, the email celebrated an end to the “silencing of criticism of Israeli apartheid.”

While the resolution had its origins in national outrage over Omar’s years-long recidivist string of anti-Semitic remarks, the ultimate text did not mention her and buried antisemitism. As the prominent orthodox Rabbi Dov Fischer observed, in the resolution the “Democrats will not name the Jew-hater,” but “condemn everything except for apple pie” in what the New York Post called a “meaningless…Pablum.” Yet his fellow rabbinical luminary, Shmuley Boteachnoted that this “milquetoast resolution condemning nearly every form of bigotry (anti-Christian prejudice was notably missing)” passed 407-23, including with her support. Condemnation of white supremacists like the Ku Klux Klan had a prominent textual place, while rampant antisemitismamong her Muslim coreligionists worldwide received no mention.

Instead, the text condemned “Islamophobia,” a late twentieth-century neologism that has consistently served its totalitarian purpose of suppressing any critical inquiry into the beliefs and behaviors of Muslims. Accordingly, the resolution cavalierly dismisses “unfair allegations that they sympathize with individuals who engage in violence or terror or support the oppression of women, Jews, and other vulnerable communities.” While Omar and Tlaib’s insinuations about divided Jewish loyalties had angered many, the resolution’s statement that “imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy” could equally encompass concerns about illiberal Islamic ideologies.

Unsurprisingly, CAIR celebrated the fact that the resolution “is the first piece of legislation mentioning Islamophobia to pass either chamber of Congress.” CAIR’s allies in the fight to change the resolution’s contents also touted their successful efforts. These included the anti-Semitic Muslim-American political activist Linda Sarsour and the anti-Israel US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, a supporter of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

Thus the Democrats “hijacked a condemnation of Jew-hatred and twisted it to make Muslims, not Jews, the victims,” noted this author’s colleague and anti-sharia activist, Deborah Weiss. Correspondingly, Mehdi Hasan, a BDS-whitewashing reporter for the Qatar-based television channel and fount of antisemitism Al Jazeeradecried the “Islamophobic and racist attacks” upon Omar in an interview with her. Tlaib likewise blamed “Islamophobia” for Omar’s public troubles.

Such statements reflected how Muslims such as Omar used religious identity to deflect criticism. “Many on the left believe that as a woman of color, a Muslim, and an immigrant, Omar cannot, by definition, be a purveyor of hate and prejudice,” conservative Jewish commentator Jonathan Tobin explaineed. Such “identity politics” means that “those who are considered oppressed receive immunity to do things that those considered more privileged cannot do.”

As one anonymous Democrat critic of Omar told Breitbart, “Islamophobia has become the knee jerk reaction to anyone who dares criticize her.” An online open letter from Sarour’s Mpowerchange organization in support of Omar rejected any worries about Islamic antisemitism as an “Islamophobic stereotype that Muslims are inherently antisemitic.” Correspondingly, the anti-Semitic writer CJ Werleman denounced the “phony and scurrilous charges of anti-Semitism” that” targeted “two Muslim women representatives,” Omar and Tlaib, “moral leaders in their party.” Conservative commentators such as FrontPage contributor Daniel Greenfield therefore noted Omar’s status as a “member of the Democrat’s protected victim class.”

Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi observed the dangerous implications of such ideological untouchables. A week before the resolution’s passage, a political poster appeared in the West Virginia capitol building that juxtaposed Omar’s picture with an image of the September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda attacks upon New York’s World Trade Center. Contrary to the claims that this was a slanderous association of her with 9/11, Qudosi accurately saw thereby that with Omar and her allies the “ideology that goes ‘tick tick boom’ went from crashing into the Twin Towers to walking the halls of Congress.”

March 6 confrontation outside of Tlaib’s congressional office between Qudosi’s fellow Muslim reformer Asra Nomani and Omar supporters following their Capitol Hill rally proved Qudosi’s point. As Nomani and others videoed, rally participants including Sarsour, CAIR national outreach manager Jinan Shbat, and former CAIR Connecticut chapter leader Mongi Dhaouadi conferred with Tlaib and/or prevented Nomani from entering Tlaib’s office. Her choice of consulting anti-Semitic, Israel-hating, pro-jihad individuals over Nomani clearly showed the political influencesthat so devastatingly distorted the congressional reaction to Omar.

As Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer has explained, the ability of the Democrats’ emerging radical political base to squash censure of Omar shows that she “stands victorious as the new master of the Democratic Party.” Especially the freshman congresswoman’s coveted position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee reveals that “open anti-Semitism has become mainstream and normalized on the Left today” and it is “not just mainstream, either: it’s the future.” On this committee she will have a “sort of bully pulpit that Israel-haters have lacked up until now,” Tobin has warned.

Spencer’s aghast summation is that Omar “has achieved the normalization of a paranoid Jew-hatred not seen in the political mainstream since the Third Reich.” “I don’t believe that anyone in the history of Congress has so openly and vilely attacked Jews and Israel,” Boteach has concurred, an assessment supported by factual evaluation of her many falsehoods. The congressional resolution has worked merely to “cement Omar’s criticism as on the kosher side of the line when it comes to what may constitute antisemitism,” analyzed Jerusalem Post editor Seth Frantzman. Moreover, she showed little willingness to reform during a March 5 meeting of congressional Democrats where, among other things, she refused to endorse Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish national homeland.

Democrat leaders will most likely want to continue to ignore any of Omar’s offenses, as she has proven her undivided loyalty to the new red-green political alliance of Leftists and sharia supremacists. She has particularly offered no objection to “Pelvic Left” agendas so central to the modern Democratic Party’s “Sexual State,” even as individuals like Judge Jeanine Pirro speculateabout the significance of Omar’s hijab and Islamic modesty cultureEspecially incongruous is the Left’s embrace of homosexuality while Muslims such as Siraj Wahhaj, her ally Sarsour’s mentor, espouse brutal Islamic orthodoxy towards gays.

Omar notably has recommended legal action against athletic organizations for not allowing “transgendered” biological males to compete against women. Thereby she absurdly argued that the “myth that trans women have a ‘direct competitive advantage’ is not supported by medical science.” Additionally, she evinces no concern about how “transgenderism” threatens females’ most intimate privacy, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Thus anti-Semites such as Omar will remained ensconced in the Democratic Party. Her haughtiness towards the media likewise reflects that the press has previously shown little interest in substantial evidence that The Democratic Party’s “Progress” into Antisemitism (Part Two)she engaged in marriage fraud with her immigrant brother. This dire political arrangement raise critical questions for Jews, traditionally a stalwart Democratic constituency, as the last article in this series will examine.

Illegal Immigrant Arrested After Having Sex with Cow, Say Police

Illegal Immigrant Arrested After Having Sex with Cow, Say Police1

Dairy cows wait to be milked in this April 25, 2017 file photo. Authorities have opened a criminal investigation after an animal rights group released a video showing workers at a Florida dairy beating, kicking and stabbing cows

ILDEFONSO ORTIZ AND BRANDON DARBY19 Mar 2019

Authorities say they arrested a Mexican national illegally in the country who was spotted having sex with a cow in rural Starr County, Texas.

Man You can’t make stuff like this up. Well I guess you could but this is a real news story.

U.S. Border Patrol agents observed a man who appeared to be having sex with a cow near the Hidalgo County line, the Starr County Sheriff’s Office revealed. The story was first reported by the local newspaper El Tejano, noting that when deputies arrived at the scene, Border Patrol agents provided additional information and the location where the suspect was reportedly seen with the cow.

Breitbart TV

Supreme Court Rules Makes Shock Ruling in Illegal Immigration Case

At the scene, deputies interviewed 28-year-old Jose Nino, a Mexican national who was in the country illegally. Sheriff’s deputies arrested Nino and took him to the Starr County jail. Nino went before Starr County Justice of the Peace Ramiro Guillen, who formally charged him with one count of bestiality, a state jail felony, and set his bond at $1,500 personal recognizance. Deputies then turned Nino over to U.S. Border Patrol.

Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com. 

Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.

Border / Cartel ChroniclesImmigrationPre-Viral