Dept. of Education Propaganda Drive

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Total Conservative

Amid all the textbook controversy in our schools (mostly 7th grade) that are teaching our kids a sugar-coated presentation of Islam, we now know that President Obama's Department of Education is feeding our schools material on what to teach. Total Conservative has a reaction.


Here  is more  from the Parent Herald regarding  the concerns of DOE.


Going to the source, I went to the DOE web site. The below link (after entering the search word, "Islam") brought up this page.


I also found this page interesting.


"This simulation allows students to learn about the history and culture of Islam and the Islamic world by "becoming" Muslims. There are five phases of the unit. Students are assigned to a city, choose an Arabic name, and become familiar with their group and responsibilities outlined in the Student Guide. In the introduction section, students take a pretest, read a short history of Islam, and learn about Muslim dress and customs. In the Caravan Days section, cities compete to answer quiz cards and collect Arabic money. Oasis Days gives time for students to complete several tasks required of every group in the simulation. In Festival Days each group presents its own festival project. The Islamic Bowl culminates the unit with each city providing contestants for a "college-bowl" type of activity. (EH)"

Fousesquawk comment: I don't want to see any kids bullied in school, and that includes Muslim kids. Yet, I am unconvinced that this is a problem. All these so-called hate crimes that CAIR is always talking about are greatly exaggerated in my view. FBI crime statistics bear that out.

As for schools "educating" parents about their kids' bullying, this has been an issue ever since the days of the little red schoolhouse, one that transcends ethnicity or religion. Full disclosure: When I was a kid, I was bullied (until I learned to fight), and I was guilty of bullying myself with one particular student who was obese. (If I could ever find that person, I would beg his forgiveness.) Suffice to say, my kids know that bullying is wrong.

Our schools have a duty to teach facts-not misinformation. From the textbook controversy we already know that 7th grade kids all over the country are getting a distorted, politically correct version of Islam, one that is so misleading as to be false. I am not asking that schools trash Islam in the classroom. That would be grossly injurious to Muslim kids. But if they cannot present it accurately, they should leave it alone altogether.

And the Department of Education should stay out of it altogether as well. Local schools don't need federal guidance in this area.

Obama's Latest Betrayal

In August 1941, Winston Churchill, the wartime Prime Minister of Great Britain, sailed across the Atlantic in HMS Prince of Wales to meet Franklin Roosevelt,1 who was at that time President of what Churchill called 'the most powerful state and community in the world',2 the United States of America.

The President's 'special advisor' Harry Hopkins3 was aboard HMS Prince of Wales during the voyage across the Atlantic. Hopkins had been visiting the United Kingdom in July 1941. According to the Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky, Hopkins had 'entered the room'4 while Churchill was reading a 'personal message'5 from Josef Stalin, in which the Soviet leader had asked Britain for military assistance following the initial success of the German invasion of the Soviet Union.6

On 25th July, just a few days later, Harry Hopkins and the American ambassador to Great Britain, John 'Gil' Winant, met with Ivan Maisky at the American embassy. At the meeting, Hopkins asked Maisky what could be done to bring Roosevelt and Stalin closer together.7 On 27th July, Winant contacted Maisky and asked him to provide a visa so that Hopkins could visit the Soviet Union. Maisky wrote a personal instruction inside Hopkins' passport which said that he should be allowed into the Soviet Union and attached an official embassy seal.8 Sumner Welles, the acting Secretary of State, wrote to Laurence Steinhardt, the American ambassador to the Soviet Union the same day, 27th July, to let him know that Hopkins was travelling to Moscow and that, 'The objective of his [Hopkins'] mission is to investigate how best to furnish the Soviet Union with military assistance at this time.'9

Hopkins arrived in Moscow on the 29th of July10, and met with Stalin twice. Hopkins told Stalin that America intended to provide materiel to the Soviet Union,11 and Stalin asked Hopkins of it would be possible for American troops to be sent to fight on Russian soil.12 On 1st August, Hopkins reported back to the States that he felt 'ever so confident' about the Russian front, adding, 'The morale of the population is exceptionally good. There is an unbounded determination to win.'13 Once he completed his 'mission', Hopkins flew back to Great Britain.

So it was that when Winston Churchill arrived at Scapa Flow to board HMS Prince of Wales, he found Hopkins waiting for him, in a state of exhaustion following his marathon journey to the Soviet Union and back again.14 It is an interesting historical fact that Harry Hopkins met Josef Stalin in Moscow before Roosevelt and Churchill met as leaders of their two nations during World War II.

In Newfoundland, the President suggested that a document be drawn up which would establish 'certain broad principles which should guide our policies along the same road'.15 An initial draft was drawn up by Alexander Cadogan of the Foreign Office,16 and after some discussion and relatively minor alterations, the declaration was deemed acceptable by both Americans and Britons.17 This document came to be known as the Atlantic Charter.18

Churchill made the most of this meeting with Roosevelt, speaking in a radio broadcast on 24th August 1941 of 'the deep underlying unities' shared by their two countries, and claiming that their meeting symbolised the coming together of 'the good forces of the world against the evil forces which are now so formidable and triumphant and which have case their cruel spell over the whole of Europe and a large part of Asia.'19 And on the Sunday morning of 10th, when President Roosevelt came aboard HMS Prince of Wales together with hundreds of US Navy personnel to attend Divine Service, who would have disagreed with him? Here are Churchill's words:

'This service was felt by us all to be a deeply moving expression of the unity of faith of our two peoples, and none who took part in it will forget the spectacle presented that sunlit morning on the crowded quarterdeck - the symbolism of the Union Jack and Stars and Stripes draped side by side on the pulpit; the American and British chaplains sharing in the reading of prayers; the highest naval, military, and air officers of Britain and the United States grouped in one body behind the President and me; the close-packed ranks of British and American sailors, completely inter-mingled, sharing the same books and joining fervently together in the prayers and hymns familiar to both.'20

It is not difficult for a Briton living in the 21st century to see the United States of America as our natural allies in any military conflict. Unlike the alliance with the Soviet Union during the war, which was born of necessity and was tainted by the duplicity and barbarism of the Soviets,21 the Americans have shown that they are our true brothers in arms and that they are willing to fight with us to preserve our way of life.

What are those 'common principles', those 'deep underlying unities' which our two countries share, and for which so many good men and women gave their lives during the war? Let us look at point three of the Atlantic Charter, that joint declaration made by the leaders of our two countries in 1941:

'Third, they [the United States of America and the United Kingdom] respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.'22

How disappointing then, to see an American President visit the United Kingdom in order to threaten British citizens because they might peacefully choose a form of government which that President disapproves of for his own ideological reasons. How disgraceful it is to see an American President say that if British citizens choose to have their sovereign rights and self-government restored to them, then he will make them suffer through prejudicial trade agreements that will favour areas of the world where the indigenous peoples are already under the iron heel of European super-governance.23

The number of fatalities during World War 2 is almost incomprehensible. In his history of the Second World War, Max Hastings estimated that approximately 46 million (4.6 x 107) human beings died between the German attack on Poland in September 1939 and the Japanese capitulation in August 1945.24 More recent research has estimated that the total number of fatalities could be significantly higher than that. Everyone in Britain knows that many Americans died while sailing merchant ships across the Atlantic during the Battle of the Atlantic (especially during Operation Drumbeat in early 1942),25 and many more died alongside British and Canadian troops during the execution of one of the largest and most daring military operations in history, Operation Overlord, in 1944. These military endeavours are embedded within the consciousness of every Briton of my generation, and we are all aware that America paid a steep price to make certain that those operations were ultimately successful.

Apparently, none of this matters to America's latest President. Obama has ignored the 'common principles' and 'deep underlying unities' shared by our two nations and has spoken out publicly against the explicitly stated ideals in the Atlantic Charter. By so doing, Obama has betrayed the memory of the Americans who gave their lives during World War 2 so that future generations of people living in Britain, like everyone else in the world, would have the right to be able to 'choose the form of government under which they will live'.

The war may have been over for 70 years, but the principles of the Atlantic Charter are still relevant, because they provide us with a yardstick with which to measure the intellectual and moral integrity of the politicians in office today. By properly understanding our own history, we can see that President Obama does not, as it said in the Atlantic Charter, respect the right of the British people to choose the form of government under which they will live. If the British people choose to leave Europe, then that is the right decision, by definition. Instead of accepting that, Obama has threatened British citizens because he would prefer it if they gave away their sovereign rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and renounced their hard-won claim to self-government. The possibility which Obama prefers is for the Britons of today, and their children, and their grandchildren, to be ruled by a European superstate headed by an all-powerful Germany. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Of course, Barack Obama is not British, and he does not share our history, or our understanding of the war, any more than he shares anything else with us. The only principles that Obama has consistently sought to advance, and has acted in accordance with since the day he came into power, are those of the false religion of Islam. And if we really know our history, then we already know what Winston Spencer Churchill had to say about that.


1. Hastings, M. Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord 1940-1945, Harper Press, pp. 191-192.
2. Churchill, W. The Atlantic Charter [radio broadcast], 24th August 1941. Available in: Never Give In! Winston Churchill's Speeches, Bloomsbury, p. 247.
3. Maisky, I. The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St. James's 1932-1943, Yale University Press, p. 374.
4. ibid., p. 374.
5. ibid., p. 373.
6. Churchill, W. The Second World War Volume III: The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeild & Nicolson, pp. 309-310.
7. Maisky, I. The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St. James's 1932-1943, Yale University Press, p. 375.
8. ibid., p. 376;
Fenby, J. Alliance: The Inside Story of How Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill Won One War and Began Another, Simon and Schuster, Kindle location 942.
9. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers (FRUS) 1941. General, The Soviet Union, pp. 797-798 [online]. Available at: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1941v01.p0809&id=FRUS.FRUS1941v01&isize=M [accessed 24th April 2016].
10. Maisky, I. The Maisky Diaries: Red Ambassador to the Court of St. James's 1932-1943, Yale University Press, p. 375.
11. Fenby, J Alliance: The Inside Story of How Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill Won One War and Began Another, Simon and Schuster, Kindle location 986.
12. ibid., Kindle location 995.
13. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers (FRUS), 1941. General, The Soviet Union, p. 814 [online]. Available at: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1941v01.p0826&id=FRUS.FRUS1941v01&isize=M [accessed 24th April 2016].
14. Hastings, M. Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord 1940-1945, Harper Press, p. 191;
Fenby, J.  Alliance: The Inside Story of How Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill Won One War and Began Another, Simon and Schuster, Kindle location 1012.
15. Churchill, W. The Second World War Volume III: The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 346.
16. ibid., p. 342;
Hastings, M. Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord 1940-1945, Harper Press, p. 197.
17. Churchill, W. The Second World War Volume III: The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 352.
18. ibid., pp. 346-347.
19. Churchill, W. The Atlantic Charter [radio broadcast], 24th August 1941. Available in: Never Give In! Winston Churchill's Speeches, Bloomsbury, p. 247.
20. Churchill, W. The Second World War Volume III: The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 345.
21. Excerpts: Beria letter to Stalin on Katyn, BBC News, 28th April 2010 [online]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8649435.stm [accessed 23d April 2016];
Anglo-Soviet Treaty (1942), British Pathe, youtube channel [online]. Available at: https://youtu.be/NXIokR79uAk [accessed 23d April 2016].
22. Churchill, W. The Second World War Volume III: The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 352.
23. Obama warns UK it will be at 'back of the queue' for US trade if it votes to leave EU, euronews, 23d April 2016 [online]. Available at: http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/23/obama-warns-uk-it-will-be-at-back-of-the-queue-for-us-trade-if-it-votes-to/ [accessed 23d April 2016].
24. Gilbert, M. The Second World War: A Complete History, Phoenix, p. 1.
25. Dimbleby, J. The Battle of the Atlantic: How the Allies Won the War, Viking, pp. 247-250;
Chronology of attacks off the US East coast, wikipedia [online]. Available at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time#Chronology_of_attacks_off_the_U.S._East_Coast [accessed 23d April 2016].

Tags: Winston Churchill, FDR, Atlantic Charter, Barack Obama, Boris Johnson To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

At UCLA, Intimidators Say They Are Being Intimidated

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Daily Bruin

It looks like the chickens are coming home to roost at UCLA, where posters have been put up around campus singling out faculty and students who support BDS and push the pro-Palestinian cause. One UCLA official, Jerry Kang, who is the official in charge of equity, modesty, inclusion and fuzzy feelings, put out a missive condemning the apparent source of the posters, David Horowitz. Unfortunately, Kang, who I understand is a lawyer, failed to accurately read the posters before making charges against Horowitz.


All I can say to those who are intimidated by the posters is this:

How does it feel?

Here is Horowitz's rebuttal in Frontpage Magazine: I have placed my own comments in both articles.

This guy Kang is a poster boy for why the position he holds is a useless one. His statement that SJP, in particular, is a member group in good standing with UCLA is a doozie. UCLA has a poor track record in recent years in tolerating the brown shirt tactics of SJP, which have directly intimidated Jewish students on campus. Where has Kang and his office been during all that?

What Is Hillary Hiding Re: Her $250,000 Speech to Goldman Sachs?

Gary Fouse

"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail,"
-Hillary Clinton in January 17, 2016 debate
(And repeated last night)

I watched about half of the (replay) of CNN's debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. To me, it was like watching a debate between Stalin and Lenin as to who is the more communist. At any rate, there was one part that I thought was most important. Moderator Dana Bash tried three times-three times- to ask Hillary Clinton if she would consent to having the transcripts of her $250,000 speech to Goldman Sachs made public. Three times, Hillary dodged the question talking about other people releasing transcripts of their speeches to Wall Street firms (Sanders has none to release) and Sanders releasing his tax returns. This was in the midst of the two debating about who would be toughest in breaking up banks.

Over the past 25 years there have so many things that Hillary Clinton has fought to keep hidden, so this is just one more. How transparently dishonest and conniving can one person be?

After the (UC) Resolution, Now What?

Gary Fouse

In the wake of the recent and important statement of principles on intolerance by the University of California regents, which specifically addressed anti-Semitism, AMCHA Initiative co-founder and UC Santa Cruz Professor Tammi Rossman-Benjamin cautions us that there is still work to be done. The below article appears in the LA Jewish Journal.


Ultimately, I agree wholeheartedly that it is now up to the UC chancellors to ensure that anti-Semitism on their campuses is met with the same strong reaction as incidents and/or speech targeting blacks, Latinos, Asians or any other group.

In spite of this recent victory, there has been yet another unfortunate incident at UC Davis, where an Israeli's speech was disrupted by pro-Palestinian students. This is all too typical of what happens when Israelis or pro-Israel speakers come to speak on college campuses. Of course, I have reiterated many times that mere opposition to Israel or its policies does not automatically constitute anti-Semitism, but the pattern sometimes becomes all too obvious.

Is ISIS Right on Islam?

Gary Fouse

Every time ISIS commits another heinous atrocity in the name of Allah, we hear the Western apologists tell us that they are not true Muslims because Islam forbids such acts. I am talking about people like CAIR,  the numerous Western-based imams, and even President Obama himself. Of course, those of us who have taken the time to study the teachings of the Koran, the hadith, and the life of Mohammad often come to a different conclusion.

This is not to suggest that all or even most Muslims approve of ISIS or agree with their ideas. Most Muslims do not engage in violent jihad. Yet we in the non-Muslim world must come to grips with this phenomenon because we are all threatened by it. Thus, we have the right to openly discuss it, and we should without having to worry about being called Islamophobes or bigots.

But in discussing ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah and other Islamic terror groups, there are certain questions that keep popping up in my mind. Let me focus on ISIS in particular.

We already know that literally thousands of Muslims residing in Western countries have traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS. My question is how many Western Muslims have we documented that have gone to Iraq or Syria to fight against ISIS? I am unaware of any. I am only aware of a few non-Muslim Westerners who have gone to join forces with fighters such as the Iraqi-Kurdish Peshmerga.

It is true that ISIS has killed many more Muslims than Christians or other minority religions. One reason is that ISIS is made up of Sunni Muslims, and they have an age-old hatred of Shi'ite Muslims, witness the Sunni-Shi'ite split in Iraq or the Sunni-Alawite split in Syria. Among the Alawites, a division of Shia Islam, is the Assad ruling family.

Then there are the various Muslim armies fighting against ISIS. Here I include the Syrian army, the Iraqi army, and the Iranian army, the latter of whom are Shia. Of course, these soldiers are not fighting to take back Islam from those who have "hijacked" it. They are fighting because their rulers have sent them to fight in order to maintain their political power, or in the case of Iran, to exert hegemony in the region.

In addition, there are the Kurds, who are fighting for their independence. The Peshmerga is the fighting force of Iraqi Kurdistan. They are engaged in battle against ISIS and badly need our weaponry. Instead, Obama prefers to supply the Iraqi army, but that is another topic.

So my question returns to the point: If ISIS is made up largely of previously non-military types who have joined the jihad fighting under no national banner, where are their civilian Muslim adversaries? Where are the armies of Mohammad who have banded together to rescue Islam from this evil force that has given it such a bad name? If jihad is such a positive concept in Islam, where are the anti-ISIS jihadis? If one definition of jihad is defending Islam, where are the jihadis defending Islam against the "perversions" of ISIS, perversions that are doing so much damage to Islam's reputation in the world?

Or does ISIS really represent the pure teachings of Islam?

Relativism and the Swastika

The political elite in Britain may have decided to implement a radical social engineering project in secret years ago, but once it was under way, it was inevitable that its effects would become known to the British public. In order to forestall any objections to the idea of a multicultural utopia, the political elite and their ideological enforcers, who are embedded in positions of influence throughout British society, have promoted the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong because all morality is subjective and personal. According to this nihilistic world view, moral beliefs are nothing more than thoughts about morality that occur within someone's mind.

According to the relativists' theory, the source of an individual's beliefs about morality are not objective moral values, but whatever beliefs have been passed on to that individual by other members of their culture. But if an individual's beliefs about morality can only be what other people from their culture say they are and nothing else, then that is what they would inevitably be. In any given society, there would be no non-conformists.

In Germany, the National Socialists ruthlessly implemented a policy of Gleichschaltung, which meant bringing everyone under their control into line with Adolf Hitler's twisted beliefs. But even then, there were non-conformists. Hans Scholl served on the Eastern Front, and the reality he experienced there refuted what his culture claimed was true. His younger sister Sophie was a practising Christian, whose religious beliefs were entirely contrary to the values preached by the National Socialists. The Scholls formed a protest group called the White Rose, which peacefully released a series of pamphlets criticizing the National Socialist regime. The siblings were arrested and executed by the Nazis in February 1943.

The White Rose stands today for values that are superior to relativism, a theory with no moral foundation whatsoever, which cannot provide the means to either condemn the Nazis or to praise Sophie Scholl.

Anyone who has visited the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London understands that the moral term 'evil' is meaningful and it can be correctly applied to what the National Socialists did at Auschwitz. But if a relativist tries to condemn the Nazis and, in accordance with the principles of relativism, insists that his condemnation is an assertion based on nothing more than what he was taught to believe in by other members of his culture, then the problem he faces is that an SS guard stationed at Auschwitz would have had an entirely different system of beliefs about morality, based on what he was taught to believe by other members of his culture. And if the SS guard praised what the relativist now condemns, then the relativist cannot say that one view is better than the other.

The relativist may try to give the pronouncements of relativism more weight by resting them upon the claim that it is good to refuse to condemn other cultures and what is more, this is an ultimate good. But the relativist cannot base any assertion they make on objective moral values, because they deny the existence of any such values. The assertion that it is good to refuse to condemn the practices or beliefs of other cultures is nothing more than a cultural belief that has arisen in late 20th century Western Europe. Such a notion does not exist elsewhere in the world, and it certainly did not exist in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s when men like Winston Churchill condemned the Nazis and as a nation, we stood against them.

If the relativist cannot condemn the practices of other cultures, and that includes what the Nazis did, in a meaningful way, but instead, places himself on an equal moral footing with the beasts who attended the Wannsee Conference in 1942 and the SS guards who operated the death camps, then there is something badly wrong with his thinking.

Not only does the theory of relativism fail to provide the means to condemn what every morally sane person regards as evil, it is internally incoherent. Relativism claims that different people believe in different things about morality, and they are all equally true. However, the proposition 'The belief that an assertion is true is the same thing as the assertion being true' is not sensible.

If someone was to assert that everything a relativist believes is false, the relativist would have to say that the other person's assertion is true, therefore the proposition that made them say that: 'The belief that an assertion is true is the same thing as the assertion being true' is false. So relativism entails its own refutation.

What is more, if believing that an assertion is true is not the same thing as that assertion being true, then the relativist has no reason to even use the word because all he is saying is that different people believe different things, and there is no such thing as morality at all. This leads the relativism into the state of nature, where might is right, nothing is unjust, and life for the weak (and that includes the relativist) will be nasty, brutal and short.

The failings of the theory of relativism are clear for anyone to see. Nevertheless, this doctrine has been used to camouflage the actions of the political elite and hide the truth about what they have done from the people they were elected to represent.

Tags: relativism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

This Is Not Who We Are

An innocent man has just been murdered in the most horrific fashion in the streets of Glasgow, and the Scottish police say that a suspect has been arrested. According to the national press, the suspect is a Muslim.1

This latest murder should act as a reminder that Mohammed B murdered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam back in November 2004,2 and that two men who self-identified as devout Muslims, Mujahid Abu Hamza and Ismael Ibn Abdullah,3 murdered Lee Rigby in a similarly brutal manner in London on 23d May 2013.

In response to the murder of Asad Shah, a public demonstration took place in Glasgow which was attended by Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish Nationalist Party. At this event, some people began to use the slogan: This is not who we are.4  It is likely that at least some of the attendees were unaware that the suspect arrested by the police appears to be a Muslim who drove from Bradford to Glasgow in order to kill an innocent shopkeeper who liked living in 'a Christian country'.

As it turns out, it is correct to say that committing acts of murder and terrorism in the name of Islam is 'not who we are'. Our forefathers fought against evil and barbarity during the war, so that their children and grandchildren never had to face it. And yet, in 2016, here we all are, facing it once again.

It's important to understand that it doesn't matter if not all Muslims are terrorists. That didn't stop Asad Shah from being murdered. Not all Germans were Nazis, but that didn't stop Hans and Sophie Scholl from being beheaded by true believers.

If we look at this logically, then we can all agree that, where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is terrorists, the A proposition (All S are P) is false. A universal affirmative proposition can be refuted by a single counterexample, and Asad Shah is one such example. However, we need to understand that this does not mean that the corresponding I proposition (Some S are P) is false. As a matter of fact, in the 13 plus years since Mohammed B murdered Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, the truth of that I proposition (Some S are P) has been demonstrated many times.6

British politicans have shown themselves to be incapable of addressing this problem. On 16th December 2011, in front of an audience in Oxford, David Cameron said, 'In making this speech I claim no religious authority whatsoever.'7 On 8th October 2014, Cameron stated, 'I am not a scholar of any religion.'8 Therefore, when Cameron said, 'There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act' following the murder of Lee Rigby, there was no reason for anyone to believe that was true. As Cameron admitted, both before and after 23d May 2013, he has not studied Islam and is not an authority on the subject.9

In fact, one of the killers was caught red-handed on camera at the scene of his crime. This individual, who had just executed an unarmed British soldier on the streets of the nation's capital, actually cited surah at-taubah, the ninth surah of the Koran but one of the last to be written, as the source of his murderous motivations.10

It is no longer a secret that the political elite in the so-called United Kingdom embarked on a social engineering program years ago. The goal of that program was to change the social fabric in our country in order to artificially create a 'multicultural' society.11 The proper function of a state is to provide a secure and reasonably safe environment for its citizens, so that they can live their own lives according to their own lights. If agents of the state go beyond that, then they have no authority to do so and their actions are illegitimate. The people of Britain do not need an intellectual nanny state deciding to fundamentally transform the nature of our country for us, because agents of the state always know best. And if we disagree with what they are doing to our country, then we certainly don't need to be made to sit on the naughty step. We are not little children, and we don't need to be force-fed a bowl of multi-coloured smarties by an ersatz parent who insists that eating lots and lots of smarties will be good for us.

Especially when some of the green ones turn out to be poisonous.



1. Clements, C. Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah posted heartfelt Easter message to 'beloved Christian nation' hours before he was brutally murdered, Daily Record, 25th March 2016;

Oliphant, V. Muslim charged after fellow Muslim who wished Christians 'happy Easter' brutally murdered, Express, 26th March 2016.

2. Theo van Gogh, Wikiislam, last modified 15th July 2013.

3. Shaw, A. Lee Rigby murder trial: Attack was like a butcher attacking a joint of meat, court told, Mirror, 30th November 2013.

4. Wheastsone, R. Nicola Sturgeon joins crowds at poignant vigil for Glasgow shopkeeper found dead after 'religiously prejudiced' attack, Mirror, 25th March 2016.

5. White Rose, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, last updated 29th January 2016.

6. www.thereligionofpeace.com

7. Prime Minister's King James Bible speech, 16th December 2011.

8. David Cameron's 2014 Eid Al-Adha reception speech, 8th October 2014.

9. Morris, N. Murder of soldier in Woolwich was a 'betrayal of Islam' says Cameron as he insists Britain will stand resolute against terror, Independent, 23d May 2013.

10. Spencer, R. Full video and transcript of UK jihad murderer: “We are forced by the Qur’an”, jihadwatch, 23d May 2013;

Aftermath Video of the Woolwich Butchers - FULL, youtube (accessed 28th March 2016).

11. Slack, J. How Labour threw open doors to mass migration in secret plot to make a multicultural UK, Daily Mail, 10th February 2010;

Migration and a Legacy of Deceit, Daily Mail, 10th February 2010;

Murray, D. The 2011 census proves why politicians are distrusted, The Spectator, 12th December 2012;

So the Left lied and lied again about immigration, Express, 2nd May 2013;

Hitchens, P. A Rough Guide to 2112: the Abolition of Britain complete, Daily Mail, 16th December 2012;

 Hastings, M. Broken borders, broken promises and the anger of a public betrayed, Daily Mail, 9th November 2011;

Goodhart, D. Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration, 22nd March 2013.

Tags: Islam, immigration, Cameron, jihad, Glasgow To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

trunews 26th

Tags: Soetoro, Obama, Scotland, Islam, murder To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Brussels: The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again

Gary Fouse

Image result for belgian flag at half mast

The latest attack has taken place in Brussels. Just days after the Paris attack ringleader was arrested in Brussels, ISIS has struck again. Between 30-34 people are dead at the Zavandam Airport and a metro station downtown, and ISIS is taking credit.


Of course, we know that there will be more attacks. What we don't know is when our leaders will finally conclude the obvious: That ISIS must be exterminated. That will not stop terror altogether, of course, because the ideology that drives ISIS will live on. It is an ideology with a veneer of religion.

Yes, it is the very ideology of militant Islam that is the ultimate root behind all this. Not radical Islam because the  agents of this inhumanity are following the dictates of the Prophet Mohammad and the Koran. "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them". "Strike terror into their hearts". "Cut off their limbs..." It's all there in front of us, but too many of us refuse to believe their our  lying eyes.

This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists. There are millions of Muslims who are secular. A few are reformists. Most just want to get on with their lives. As always, we must resist the impulse to retaliate against them. But we cannot allow their feelings to silence us.

But first and foremost, we must defend ourselves, our lives and our liberties. We must face the truth about Islam. It is not a religion of peace. It is a political ideology built on violence and hate. It believes in conquest. It does not recognize a separation between religion and the State.

We must speak openly and without fear about this scourge. We must proclaim that we will never submit to Islam.

Secondly, we must face the reality that we have to defeat ISIS where it is. We must combine with NATO and our Arab allies to go in and root it out in Syria, Iraq and Libya.

And finally, we must realize that these animals cannot kill us if they are not in our countries, This continued immigration of Muslims into the West must cease. That includes these so-called refugees and migrants who are streaming into Europe.

When will we say that enough is enough?