Tag Archives: Islamophobia

No terrorism charges for Somali refugee who stabbed policeman, ran down pedestrians

Canada Election 2015: Socialists in red, Communists in Orange, Conservatives in blue
Canada Election 2015: Socialists in red, Communists in Orange, Conservatives in blue

Canada is a country that likes to show the world how generous and compassionate they are by letting in thousands and thousands of refugees, many of whom cannot speak English and do not accept the values of Western Civilization, such as human rights and the rule of law.

The radically-leftist former newspaper New York Times reports:

The Canadian police arrested a refugee from Somalia on suspicion of terrorist acts early Sunday after a police officer in Edmonton was struck with a car and stabbed outside a football game. Four other people were later deliberately hit by a U-Haul truck driven by the same suspect, the authorities said.

[…]The police did not identify the suspect beyond saying he was Somali. CBC News, quoting unidentified sources, said his name was Abdulahi Hasan Sharif.

Rod Knecht, chief of the Edmonton Police Service, said that officers had found an Islamic State flag in the car that hit the police officer. “Currently, we believe this is an individual who acted alone,” Chief Knecht said in a statement released on Sunday morning.

An article from the far-left, government-run CBC reported:

A former co-worker of the Somali refugee CBC News has identified as the man arrested in a weekend attack in Edmonton says Abdulahi Hasan Sharif was an ISIS sympathizer years before Saturday’s violent events, and that he had reported him to police.

[…]”He had major issues with polytheists. He said they need to die. That sort of thing. I only had a handful of conversations with him about it; those only occurred when there were just two of us in the work room.”

Muslims often refer to Christians as polytheists because of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. But these anti-Christian threats of genocide were no concern for the Edmonton police. Police in Canada are carefully trained in political correctness and promoting diversity. They are warned that they will lose their jobs if they have any bias against Canada’s favored Liberal Party voting blocs. When the co-worker warned the police about the refugee, they had to decide whether to take the threat seriously or side with political correctness and diversity. There is even a criminal law against “Islamophobia” in Canada that punishes people who disagree with radical Islam. The politically correct police would not want to lose their jobs and their fat pensions by running afoul of that. So they ignored the red flags raised by the Canadian taxpayer.

This was not the only time he was investigated, though, as the far-left CBC reports:

In 2015, after a complaint was made to the Edmonton Police Service that the man was displaying signs of extremism, members of the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET) launched an investigation, Degrand said.

The suspect was interviewed by members of INSET, but there was “insufficient evidence” to make an arrest and the suspect was deemed “not a threat,” Degrand said.

Again, there is a law against Islamophobia, and all the police are carefully trained not to do anything that could get them into trouble with their politically correct bosses. This is not the first time that Canadian police have turned their backs on victims because of the “diversity” of the criminals. At other times, citizens called the police to protect their property and their safety from First Nations criminals, and the police just turned their backs as the vehicles of the taxpayers were burned. Because of political correctness. Taxpayers are good enough to pay the salaries of the politically correct policemen. But taxpayers are not good enough to have their property and safety protected by policemen.

No charges of terrorism

Now, you might think that all this violence against police and civilians would be prosecuted as an instance of terrorism. But you don’t know Canada.

The radically-leftist, government-owned CBC reports that the government says that they did nothing wrong, and that no government procedures will be changing:

The man accused of stabbing an Edmonton police constable on the weekend and running down four pedestrians on Jasper Avenue has not been charged with terrorism-related offences.

[…]Sharif came to Canada in 2012, and at the time raised no red flags for immigration officials, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said Monday.

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Goodale said Sharif arrived through a “regular port of entry” and obtained refugee status at the time.

The minister said events in Edmonton over the weekend in no way indicate that Canada’s screening process needs to be enhanced, or that the system failed.

“The procedures that are in place, that I have had the opportunity to observe and that Minister [Ahmed] Hussen is vigorously administering, are procedures that place a very high premium on public safety and security,” Goodale said.

Ahmed Hussen is the Liberal Party’s Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

I’m all for ethnic diversity, but not when it means letting some people have exemptions if they break the law. The law should apply equally to everyone, and the police should take all reports equally, regardless of political correctness.

Minneapolis mayor worries that terrorist attack in her city might fuel “Islamophobia”

Democrats think that the real threat to America is not radical Islamic terrorism
Democrats think that the real threat to America is not radical Islamic terrorism

Why do terrorist attacks happen in America? Well, the Democrat party believes in importing vast numbers of unskilled immigrants who don’t speak English from countries who hate us. Why? Because people who can’t earn a living will vote for the Democrats, since the Democrats give them other people’s money in exchange for their votes. And, according to these Democrat Robin Hoods, if the unskilled immigrants engage in a little sex-trafficking, gang raping or terrorist acting, what’s the harm?

The Daily Wire reports on the mayor’s statement following the terrorist attack in her city:

In a Facebook post designed to convey solidarity with the area’s heavily Somali Muslim immigrant population, Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges apologizes for Islam, trumping a line heard at every Hillary Clinton event from multi-million dollar celebrity fundraisers in New York City to subdued rallies in rural Iowa.

“Love is bigger than hate,” she begins her letter, addressing a local audience traumatized by a recent terror attack at a shopping mall in nearby St, Cloud that left several victims injured after a Muslim man armed with a knife stabbed unsuspecting shoppers while shouting “Allahu Akbar” and asking his targets if they were Muslim.

She continues:

At this difficult moment, I also urge every Minneapolitan and every Minnesotan to support and stand firmly with our Muslim, East African, and Somali friends and neighbors. A horrible, violent attack like this should never be exploited to attack a whole community and a whole religion. Yet we have seen Islamophobia rear its ugly head in terrible moments like this far too many times — *and* at a moment when one person in particular is playing to fear and hatred of immigrants on a national scale, I fully understand the worry of the Somali community here that it will happen again.

Forget the terrorists or the poisonous Islamic ideology infecting susceptible Somali men, prompting dozens to leave Minnesota and join terror groups like al-Shabab in their home country of Somalia. Forget the Islamic clerics preaching anti-Western rhetoric, including gender apartheid, Sharia-supremacism, and jihadism. Forget the fact that everyday Americans are being systematically targeted for adopting un-Islamic lifestyles. The real concern is Islamophobia, according to Mayor  Hodges.

Minnesota prides itself on welcoming in unskilled immigrants from Somalia, a country dominated by radical Islam. And now they can take pride in the victims of this terrorist attack, too. They caused it.

The far left Minneapolis Star Tribune was also concerned about the Islamic terrorist attack, but not in the way you might thing. They weren’t concerned about the victims, or protecting the public.

The Daily Wire explains:

Only hours after the multiple stabbings of shoppers at a St. Cloud, Minnesota mall on Saturday, the leading newspaper in Minnesota by far, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, published an article that seemed to excuse the Muslim attacker who attempted multiple murders by insinuating he was responding to local anti-Muslim sentiment.

Pat Pheifer of the Star Tribune wrote an article titled, titled “Anti-Muslim Tension Isn’t New in St. Cloud.” Pheifer wrote, “A cloud of anti-Muslim sentiment and tension has hung over St. Cloud for the past seven years, with incidents ranging from bullying Somali and other East African immigrants at St. Cloud Technical High School, to women being screamed at in grocery stores, pig intestines wrapped around the door handles of a halal grocery store, and offensive billboards and license plates.”

Pheifer continued, “The most physically injurious incident came Saturday evening when a man stabbed nine people at the city’s Crossroads Center before the attacker was killed inside the mall by an off-duty police officer. No one but the attacker was killed.” Finally, Pheifer admits, “Authorities said the man reportedly asked at least one victim whether they were Muslim before assaulting them and referred to Allah during the attacks.”

The article never mentioned that the attacker, who shouted references to Allah before the attack, was Muslim.

As PJ Media notes, “Despite the fact that the attacker’s name was already circulating in the media, Dahir Adan’s name never appears.”

The lady (Pat Pheifer) who wrote the article was apparently more concerned about defending a failed policy of importing unskilled immigrants from countries dominated by radical Islam, rather than the victims of Islamic terrorism.

When I say that mainstream newspapers like the Minneapolis Star Tribune are far left, this is what I am talking about. They conceal information that would make their favorite politicians look bad. Everyone knows that Democrats are soft on crime, and soft on national security. When terrorist attacks happen, Democrats blame America, and then they release the terrorists to try again.

By the way, another detail of this story that you probably did not hear about from the leftist mainstream media. The man who shot the suspect, preventing further loss of life, is a concealed carry instructor:

USPSA Shooter,  3-Gunner, and NRA-certified firearms instructor Jason Falconer has been identified as the man who shot and killed a 22-year-old Somali immigrant who went on a stabbing rampage inside a St. Cloud, (MN) Mall on Saturday.

The apparent terrorist—who apparently asked victims if they were Muslims before stabbing them—was engaged by Falconer inside the mall.

Falconer is the president and owner of Tactical Advantage LLC, a shooting range and tactical training facility with a strong focus on arming concealed carriers.

Naturally, he was carrying that day and since he is an expert marksman, the threat was neutralized.

Can we trust Democrats to take national security and foreign policy seriously?

First part of the clip is here on The Weekly Standard:

Q I just want to go back to your statement about the extremists want to incite a religious war against Islam and they failed. There have been a lot of questions raised about why you have chosen not to associate yourself with the language that was used by the French President when he said we’re at war with radical Islam, and instead you have chosen a formulation where you say you want to capture individuals who commit violence based on their warped view of Islam. Is the reason you don’t want to call it “radical Islam” or use the word “war” because you’re afraid of playing into the extremists’ desires to incite a religious war on Islam? Is that the reason you’ve gone to great lengths to come up with this different formulation?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Mara, there certainly — it does seem clear that these terrorists — let’s call them what they are — these terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion. But based on the fact that the religious leaders of that religion have roundly condemned their actions, those religious leaders have indicated that their actions are entirely inconsistent with Islam. I think the fact that the majority of victims of terror attacks that are carried out by al Qaeda and adherents to their particular brand of violence, that the majority of them are Muslim I think is a pretty clear indication that this is not a matter of the world being at war with Islam. The world and the United States — as we’ve discussed before in the context of ISIL — is at war with these individuals, these violent extremists who carry out these acts of terror and try to justify it by invoking this religion.

Q Right. But the leader of France, your ally in this effort, has put a name on this ideology, which he calls “radical Islam.” You have bent over backwards to not ever say that. There must be a reason.

MR. EARNEST: I think the reason is twofold. One is I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I’m repeating the justification that they have cited that I think is completely illegitimate, right? That they have invoked Islam to try to justify their attacks.

Transcript for the second part of the clip is from Fox News:

MACCALLUM: You know, every time we see this exchange, it seems like the answer is so tortured like it’s so difficult to say what everybody around the world seems to feel so clearly it is and what the leaders have said in Canada and Australia and Paris where they have felt it so potently and personally. They’ve all said quite clearly that the battle is against Islamic extremism. Why is it so hard to say?

HARF: Well, it’s not hard to say, but it’s not the only kind of extremism we face. I would recommend to folks looking at this administration’s counterterrorism record, I would remind people that more terrorists who claim to — to do acts of violence in the name of Islam has been taken off the battlefield in this administration than under any previous one because of our counterterrorism operations and our efforts that we put in place.

But that’s not the only way that you counter this kind of extremism. Much of it Islamic, you’re absolutely right, but some of it not. So we’re gonna focus on all the different kinds of extremism with a heavy focus on people who do this in the name of Islam, we would say falsely in the name of Islam, but there are other forms of extremism.

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: Let me ask you this —

HARF: — that are also important.

MACCALLUM: — tell me, what other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?

HARF: Well, look, there are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes. Of course, Martha, we are most focused on people doing this in the name of Islam. As we’ve talked about with ISIL, part of our strategy to counter this extremism is to have other moderate Muslim voices to stand up and say, they don’t represent our religion. They speak for their religion more than we do certainly, and we need those voices to stand up in addition to all the other efforts we’re undertaking.

MACCALLUM: All right. I just think a lot of other countries probably listen to the way we’re talking about this and scratch their heads and wonder why it’s so hard to spit it out in a lot of these — these conversations.

Mike McCaul — Chairman Mike McCaul said we — we don’t see a lead agency. There’s no line item in the budget. There are no metrics to measure success. I don’t think we have a strategy. We don’t have a common definition for what this is. And, you know, obviously he’s a critic, but there are people even former administration officials who say we’ve been working on this for a long time but we — we’re not sure whether or not we’re getting anywhere.

HARF: Well, I think when you hear the president who’s talked about our counterterrorism operations, as has people liked John Brennan, the director of the CIA,  the director of National Intelligence, they very clearly said that we have had some success against Al Qaeda core, naming specific leaders we’ve taken off the battlefield, against AQAP, naming specific leaders we’ve taken off the battlefield. But more broadly speaking, it’s bigger than that.

So, talking about how you counter this extremist narrative, that’s a tougher challenge but it’s one we’re committed to certainly, and I think other countries around the world look at the U.S. and the success we have had and how aggressive we have been and they know how committed we are to it.

MACCALLUM: But I think the world is looking for a leader, you know, someone in the van of Winston Churchill or FDR who says, “Look, we know what we’re facing here. This is a global war. This is, you know, girls taken by Boko Haram. This is 132 students massacred in Pakistan. This is people who are going out for coffee in Australia. This is people who were come — just showing up for work in Paris.”

And there’s a common thread here of radical Islamic extremism and until President Obama or John Kerry or someone else in their position stands up and says, “Look, we know we’re facing a global threat of radical Islamic extremism. We must band together and we must fight it.” That’s what everybody is longing to hear, it appears, Marie. Where is that message?

HARF: Well, I — I — I think all of these leaders have made very clear the serious threats we face. If you look at the president’s speech at West Point, if you look at the things Secretary Kerry has said. It’s not as easy as — as defining at the way you just did. We have to look at each threat individually. All of those threats you just mentioned are from different groups and different places.

We voted for left-wing ideologues and they are going to get us killed because they are afraid to offend our enemies. God help us all.

Berkeley College Republicans hold affirmative action bake sale

Berkeley College Republicans affirmative action bake sale
Berkeley College Republicans affirmative action bake sale

From the NY Daily News.

Excerpt:

A controversy over cupcakes is heating up at UC Berkeley in California, where campus Republicans are planning to hold an affirmative action bake sale on Tuesday.

At the sale, white men will be charged $2 for a baked good, Asians will pay $1.50, Latinos $1, African-Americans 75 cents and 25 cents for Native Americans, KGO-TV reported.

Women will get a 25 cent discount.

“The pricing structure is there to bring attention, to cause people to get a little upset,” Campus Republican president Shawn Lewis told the TV station. “But it’s really there to cause people to think more critically about what this kind of policy would do in university admissions.”

The Campus Democrats immediately slammed the sale, which Lewis said is meant to take a stand against an affirmative action-like bill for the University of California system that is awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

On Friday, the student newspaper reported that the student government could vote to defund the Republican group over the bake sale. A hearing is scheduled for Sunday on the fiery issue.

So the response of the left is to censor the people who offend their feelings. But that’s not all.

Look at the emotional language from the opposition in this CNN article.

Excerpt:

ASUC President Vishalli Loomba said many students who attended a community meeting Monday night expressed disgust that the bake sale would take place.

As a woman of color, when I first saw the event, I was appalled someone would post something like this on the Internet — not only a different pay structure, but also to rank the races,” she said. “It trivializes the struggles that people have been through and their histories.”

Now, for anyone who wants the research on affirmative action, and why it hurts minorities, I recommend two books by my favorite economist Thomas Sowell. (I also have to mention that he’s black, because otherwise the secular leftist commenters will cry racism, which is all they learn to do in four years of college). The first book is “Inside American Education” and the second book is “Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study“, published by Yale University Press. I only recommend the best to my readers. The first book is better for beginners, the second is more academic. Sowell’s conclusion? Affirmative action certainly doesn’t help minorities, and in many cases it actually hurts minorities. You can read a summary of Sowell’s findings here.

So on the one hand, you have the whiny secular left woman expressing real racism and sexism (“woman of color”), whining, blaming, and being disgusted and appalled. And on the other hand, you have Hoover Institute economist Thomas Sowell and the Yale University Press.

How Vanderbilt persecutes Christian groups on campus

But there’s more! I notice that the secular left is becoming increasingly bold about censoring Christians as well. (H/T Wes from Reason to Stand)

Excerpt:

Is Vanderbilt University flirting with the suppression of religion? Yes, according to Carol Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt’s Law School.

Specifically, Swain is referring to four Christian student groups being placed on “provisional status” after a university review found them to be in non-compliance with the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

Vanderbilt says the student organizations cannot require that leaders share the group’s beliefs, goals and values. Carried to its full extent, it means an atheist could lead a Christian group, a man a woman’s group, a Jew a Muslim group or vice versa.

If they remain in non-compliance, the student organizations risk being shut down.

So what’s behind this? Flashback to last fall. An openly gay undergrad at Vanderbilt complained he was kicked out of a Christian fraternity. The university wouldn’t identify the fraternity, but campus newspaper the “Hustler” reported it was Beta Upsilon Chi. As a result, the school took a look at the constitutions of some 300 student groups and found about a dozen, including five religious groups to be in non-compliance with Vanderbilt’s nondiscrimination policy. All were placed on provisional status.

Among the groups threatened with shut down is the Christian Legal Society. It ran afoul with this language from its constitution. “Each officer is expected to lead Bible studies, prayer and worship at chapter meetings.” CLS President Justin Gunter told me, “We come together to do things that Christians do together. Pray, and have Bible studies.”

[…]Vanderbilt officials refused to be interviewed, and instead released a statement saying in part “We are committed to making our campus a welcoming environment for all of our students.” In regard to the offending student organizations, officials said they “continue to work with them to achieve compliance.”

Some people who are Christians give money to Vanderbilt, and other universities. But they shouldn’t do that. The only two colleges worth giving money to are Hillsdale College and Grove City College.

NPR planned to hide $5 million donation from radical Muslim group from government

(44 minutes)

Story from the left-wing Washington Post.

Excerpt:

An NPR fundraising executive said her organization would be willing to shield a would-be donor from a government audit by keeping the donor’s name anonymous, according to a series of surreptitiously recorded phone calls released on Thursday by a conservative activist.

Betsy Liley, NPR’s senior director of institutional giving, made the comments to a man posing as a trustee of a fictitious Muslim charity, which the man had said had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egypt-based group that has suspected ties to terrorists.

Liley’s conversations with the man were captured as part of a sting operation orchestrated by James O’Keefe, who has targeted the ACORN community group and Planned Parenthood with secret recordings.

O’Keefe secretly videotaped Liley’s boss, Ron Schiller, making demeaning comments about conservatives during a luncheon meeting set up to discuss what the NPR managers believed was a potential $5 million contribution. Liley was also at that meeting and briefly comments in the video.

Ron Schiller resigned from NPR on Tuesday for his role in the video scandal. The video’s release also led to the resignation on Wednesday of his boss, NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller.

In a lengthy follow-up phone call with Liley after the lunch, an O’Keefe associate posing as “Ibrahim Kasaam ” of the Muslim Education Action Center (a fictitious entity) expressed concerns that NPR, which receives government funding, would be subject to government audits or would have to disclose the source of its donations.

Liley responded, “If you were concerned about that, you might want to be an anonymous donor and we would certainly, if that was your interest, we would want to shield you from that.”

At another point, Kasaam asked Liley, “It sounded like you’re saying that NPR would be able to shield us from a government audit, is that correct?”

“I think that is the case, especially if you were anonymous, and I can inquire about that,” Liley said. She later informed Kasaam via e-mail that NPR’s management had cleared an anonymous donation from his group.

NPR had previously said, in the wake of the luncheon video, that it had “repeatedly refused” to accept donations from the organization.

NPR put Liley on administrative leave as a result of the video.

And they get millions of dollars of taxpayer money. It’s got to stop.