We hear a lot of chatter trying to separate the two — violent and non-violent jihad. But they are never mutually exclusive. The non-violent jihad is called dawa, the aggressive proselytism of Islam. Dawa is leveraged by the threat of violence. The atmosphere of intimidation is what makes non-violent jihad so effective. It is what allows Islamist organizations to exercise such outsize influence on our policymakers even though Muslims barely register one percent of our population.
The threat is very real, very aggressive, and much broader than terrorism. That is because the underlying threat is not terrorism but the rationale for terrorism: which is the gradual imposition of classical sharia — by both violence and non-violence.
Watch the entire video. It highlights the infiltration in DC and questions how anyone with Huma Abedin’s family background could get security clearance.
However, if you follow McCarthy’s logic and how he classifies Muslims into two broad categories you come to a major stopping point: There is no discernible way to identify what he calls Islamists from Muslims he doesn’t classify as such.
With no way to identify them (what Islamist wouldn’t lie?), there is no way to stop “Islamists” from entering the United States and that leaves only two options: let all Muslims in or don’t let any Muslims in.
One of those options would significantly limit the threat and spread of sharia in the U.S. The other, our current immigration approach, allows sharia to flourish and wreak havoc as it has across Europe, Africa, Asia and elsewhere throughout Islam’s 1400-year history of conquest.
Update: Apparently the media lapdogs were quick to defend the Muslim Brotherhood links although they were again slapped down by reality: Educating Dana Milbank About the Abedin Family Journal
Impenetrable by fact, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank has written a predictably dishonest and uninformed attack on McCarthy’s briefing. Consistent with his crude pun on McCarthy’s name in the title, Milbank’s vicious blog just sprays defamatory charges of conspiracism at McCarthy. While Milbank’s essential sin is a crude, willful omission of the voluminous evidence McCarthy adduced, the Washington Post columnist also disingenuously (and /or out of distressingly lazy ignorance) misrepresents the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (and its journal) — a defining enterprise of Hillary Clinton aide Human Abedin’s family .
Read the entire piece that logically concludes:
The Abedin family “academic” journal is a thinly veiled mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Sharia-supremacist agenda. One can now add this conclusive, public record evidence to a host of other bona fide justifications for the Congressional inquiry demanded by Representative Bachmann, and her four intrepid colleagues. Evidence apologists for this odious and threatening ideology such as Dana Milbank would prefer to ignore.
McCarthy himself pointed out Milbank’s contradictions by referencing none other than…Milbank’s own employer: Maybe Dana Milbank Ought to Start Reading the Washington Post:
As I noted earlier, Dana Milbank’s Washington Post column today belittles Huma Abedin’s job at the State Department, as if she were merely Secretary Clinton’s lady’s maid, just “helping the boss with suits and handbags and logistics.” A friend alerts me, however, that Milbank’s newspaper doesn’t quite see it that way. As the Post reported last year in a flattering profile of Ms. Abedin, she is “one of the few Clintonites to remain an insider from the [Clinton] White House to the State Department.” The Post added, “While her official title is deputy chief of staff, Abedin is personally close to Clinton, an ever-present assistant and gatekeeper. She oversees planning and scheduling and advises on politics and policy, especially the Middle East.”
One has to wonder why so many are so quick to defend the Muslim Brotherhood.