I contributed to the Glazov Gang this week; you can watch my first Brian of London Moment:
A little background: this piece grew out of my original analysis of the first Immigration Executive Order, which was published here on JihadWatch. I was reminded of this by the comments Sally Yates made while being cross examined by Ted Cruz.
Just yesterday, Robert published a post about the worrying comments McMaster made at the White House briefing, talking about what Trump would be doing on his upcoming trip to Israel and the Middle East. In my opinion, somewhat unsurprisingly, all the things McMaster thinks Trump will do or say in Israel are what McMaster would do or say here if he were President. It is clear that McMaster and Trump are not on the same page regarding Islam, so it remains to be seen if Trump does what McMaster thinks he ought to do, or Trump sticks to the kind of messaging on Israel that I highlight in my video.
That’s not to say I don’t have some trepidation about what’s coming up when Trump lands here in Israel next week: but all through the last year of speculation and prognostication, I’ve found Trump doing what Trump wants more often than not. And I haven’t seen enough (or really any) direct evidence that Trump’s views of Islam have changed or softened. How that translates into the realpolitik necessary for grown-up diplomacy, we can only wait and see. I still believe Trump’s negotiating principles can work when facing Islam if one is absolutely honest about how Islam makes its adherents see the world.
One way or another, I’m confident that Trump will do less damage than what came before, and he might even force Islamic leaders back into a state of fearing the West and being quiet: the classic “hudna” position, which is about as good as we can ever hope for.
Here’s the script of the video:
Hello, this is the Brian of London Moment brought to you by The Glazov Gang.
I’m Brian of London, now permanently relocated to the shores of the Mediterranean and bringing you these thoughts from my bomb shelter in the sky in Tel Aviv, Israel. I really should have used this to talk about my trip to Hebron this week, but this alternate American subject was just burning me.
Do you remember where this comes from?1
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
That is what I considered to be the most important section of the Trump Administration’s January executive order designed to protect Americans.
There was no mention of Islam, or Muslims or even religion. Just hostile ideologies which do not share our common western notions of freedom and tolerance. When questioned by Ted Cruz in the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism about her actions to block Trump’s executive order, acting attorney general Sally Yates said this2:
[20 seconds]
Even if there is a protection in the US constitution to practice a religion which fundamentally conflicts with other people’s rights (like the right to not be blown up or shot in the street), why is Yates so determined to apply the Constitution to foreigners? I’m not a US citizen; the US Constitution doesn’t apply to me outside the US.
Sally Yates is adamant that the executive order she didn’t like politically only seeks to ban Muslims from entering America. She thinks this will infringe on the “religious freedom” of foreign aliens. She was about to expand on this point at the end when Cruz cut her off; she wanted to talk about the intent behind the legislation, which she had inferred from listening to Donald Trump’s stump speeches. Or, more likely than not, the Clinton News Network’s hysterical reporting on Trump’s speeches.
Yates was trying to say that because Trump spoke honestly about the problem with Islam seeming to show a lot of hate toward non-Muslims, he should be forever banned from protecting the American people from ideological terrorists bent on bringing their mayhem and murder to America.
So back to the original Executive Order. Instead of looking at the document which said this:
The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.
Sally Yates refusal to support the administration she was part of rested on things Trump had said while running for election.
But here’s the rub: everything stated in Trump’s original executive order was directed at political actions, a political ideology. A violent, extreme and nakedly hostile political ideology that drives its followers to call for the overthrow of the US Constitution and its replacement with an alternative system: Sharia.
That these dreadful political goals and actions arise from the texts of Islam is the heart of the problem we face in dealing with Islam in the west today.
“I have been ordered to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” – that is not a religious pronouncement. That is a political goal: forcing your ideology on others, hiding behind a facade of what we call religion in the west.
And people like Sally Yates, when they buy this deception, and afford these political goals of Islam the same protections we have developed for private observance of religion, when people like Sally Yates do this, they tear down all our defences.
For those of us who watched Trump very carefully on Islam, and his refusal to use newly invented terms like Islamism, we know what he’s trying to do. We also know the gigantic task he faces to turn around the last 16 years of confused and incorrect thinking.
Remember when the leader of the free world said this?
[George Bush Islam is peace]
That’s a long way from the man who says this.
[Trump intro to Snake]
And a man who fires Sally Yates when she tries to bring her misunderstanding of Islam to the office.
Thanks for listening, I’m Brian of London, follow @brianoflondon on twitter and thanks for listening.
Please support the Glazov Gang at JamieGlazov.com and make sure you are subscribed to this Glazov Gang YouTube Channel.
2 https://www.c-span.org/video/?427577-1/white-house-warned-general-flynn-compromised
mortimer says
Western Leftards believe that they know more about Islam INTUITIVELY, EMPATHICALLY and SPONTANEOUSLY than any person who has spent the hours upon hours READING, STUDYING and DIGESTING the primary Islamic source texts, canonical commentaries and Islamic history and making sense of them using critical thought.
No! The Leftards have something BETTER than facts, figures and critical thought. The Leftards have SPONTANEOUS INTUITION!
SPONTANEOUS INTUITION is similar to painting MODERN ART! Take some paint, throw it at a canvas and then smear it around INTUITIVELY… SPONTANEOUSLY! That is their approach to Islam and they CLAIM that they can INTERPRET Islam for Muslims! YES!
The Leftards claim that no matter how many years the Grand Imam of Al Azhar has studied Islam and memorized its texts, no matter how many degrees in ISLAMIC STUDIES these mullahs have… the LEFTARDS KNOW MORE about Islam than ANYONE who has studied Islam.
How do they do that?
carpediadem says
They don’t believe any of that rubbish. They just say that to deceive the people they want the Muslims help them to overthrow – their opponents in their countries.
herb planter says
wow well put mort gg, keep em comin
Robert says
In order to protect Americans and Europeans alike, the United States and the EU must ensure that those admitted to their countries do not bear hostile attitudes towards them and their founding principles. The United States and the EU cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution and the Bill of Human Rights, or those who would place violent ideologies over American and European law. In addition, both the EU and the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress democracy-obeying citizens of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Ethel Red says
Nothing could be truer, if the practices they do in their native countries are not of the welcoming countries practices, then don’t come here. The same as in Canada, we don’t want to have to solve the problem when it is on our shores, no Sharia absolutely not. If the people who want to live in our great countries they must realize our Fathers and Grandfathers, Uncles, Aunts, ,Sons and Daughters died in 2 great wars to let us continue on and create the great countries that they want to enter. We don’t want to fight the same crap that they leave in their native countries in our streets but it will happen if our Govts. don’t protect what we have. What could be more clearer than that. As the great John Haggee says, Better to stand and die on your feet, than kneel in submission.
pdxnag says
Nice condensed argument. It is Islam itself, the practice of Islam, that singles out Islam as hostile to American ideals. I would just state the obvious, that it is Islam alone among all “religions” that is uniquely hostile.
If Islam were indeed peace then the brilliantly-worded, quoted section of the Executive Order would not be a reference – or implied reference – to Islam alone. Did Sally Yates say that Islam alone, albeit indirectly, violates the core concern in the Executive Order? I say yes – she thus called Islam evil.
mortimer says
Yes, Islam is uniquely sadomasochistic. The inner emotional logic of Islam is that there is a dominant and a submissive, a perpetrator and a target, a torturer and a victim, a master and a slave.
Islam (meaning slavery) has the commission to hunt and enslave all of humanity.
simpleton1 says
A great contrast, thanks Mortimer.
Islam (meaning slavery) has the commission to hunt and enslave all of humanity.
Compared to the “Great Commission”.
King James 2000 Bible
“And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet”.
boakai ngombu says
the mosque is porous … all are there from out of fear. so, there are occasional times where a Good Word will be heard, for: perfect love casts out all fear
Michael Copeland says
“….it is Islam alone among all “religions” that is uniquely hostile”.
Be careful not to mention that if traveling to the UK.
Theresa May blocked Robert Spencer for saying that Islam mandates violence towards all other religions.
mortimer says
Sally Yates denies that there is an existential threat posed by Islam the ideology because ALL Muslims are not conducting violent jihad.
ALL Muslims are not presently conducting jihad, but one Islamic country IS CONDUCTING JIHAD… ISIS is conducting jihad and it is financed and supplied by Turkey and the Gulf states.
Image if several Islamic states TOGETHER conducted jihad. It would be much greater than what we see now.
Rob says
Religious freedom to a Muslim means something vastly different to a Christian or Jew.
To a non-Muslim it is a personal freedom of thought and practice.
To a Muslim is is freedom to threaten coerce and seek to overturn by terror or political action the structures of the Infidel.
Islam is political, legal, military and religious all rolled into one.
If legal documents be they Executive Orders from the President or the title deeds to your house, can be interpreted OUTSIDE the four corners of the paper they are written on, chaos ensues.
Imagine someone going to Court seeking to overturn your legal ownership of you house on the basis that 6m before buying you posted on fb something like:
‘Private house ownership sucks. I’m not getting into it’.
Frank Anderson says
When Sally Yates spoke her mind: What mind? The statements of a collaborator in full form showing her hatred of the United States and its Constitution. Good Riddance; and like the “50,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean” a good start at cleaning house in the Dept of Injustice.
Joeyn says
Wow! that is what I call a fantastic video. America please share it with all your friends and relatives. We need this message to be heard by everyone who is sincerely seeking the truth. Brian of London it was a joy listening to you. Gives me some hope for the world. THANK YOU.
Aton says
As I have said many times, Islam is not a religion it is a Giant Protection Racket. It is exactly the same as Al Capone’s protection racket. Would anyone venerate Al Capone, if he said he got his ideas and mandate from god?
Islam slaughters those who: disagree with it, disrespect it, or oppose it. It feeds and grows on fear. It is a Giant Protection Racket.
Aton
Gordon Miller says
What has happened? How did so many seemingly intelligent people become blind to the fact that Islam itself propagates and embraces a hatred for the fundamental values of America?
It’s like some nightmare that we cannot rid ourselves of.
At this point, it is only President Trump who can save us. Will he stick to his guns? Only time will tell.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “I still believe Trump’s negotiating principles can work when facing Islam if one is absolutely honest about how Islam makes its adherents see the world.”
Anyone who tries to reconcile muslims with their non-muslim “infidel enemies” will lose every time, simply because of the structure of islam itself.
…
Islam itself is all about subjective double-standards or “dual ethics” aka hypocrisy, which makes it a declared threat against everyone else. Threats are extortion and extortion writ large is terrorism. Perpetual extortion is slavery. These are all crimes.
A single universally objective moral standard is “everyone has a right to self defense.”
Everyone has a right to impose defensive double standards, discriminating friend from foe, but criminally offensive double standards are “We have a right to attack you first!”