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?

What Obama Must Do in Cuba

Gary Fouse

Chesimard 2
Joanna Chesimard aka Assata Shakur

If President Obama accomplishes one important thing in Cuba this week, he should demand the extradition of US terrorists who are wanted and have found refuge in Cuba. That includes cop-killer Joanna Chesimard aka Assata Shakur.


Just recently, one of the men who helped break Chesimard out of prison, Sekou Odinga, aka Nathaniel Burns, spoke at UC Irvine, hosted by the African-American Studies Department and the School of Humanities. Without question, the above entities advertised Sekou as a former "US political prisoner of war" (He served 33 years in prison for attempted murder of police officers.) It also referred to the "liberation" of Shakur.

It appears that the above announcement has now been taken down. I don't know if this had anything to do with my letter of protest to the dean of the School of Humanities.

At any rate, President Obama has a moral duty to press the Cubans for the extradition of these criminals back to US justice. I will be pleasantly surprised if he does.

Operation Fast and Furious Rises Again

Gary Fouse

Eric Holder-2011 Fousesquawk "Jerk of the Year"

Once again the ghost of Operation Fast and Furious comes back to haunt us. Recently, we learned that one of the weapons involved in the scheme was recovered in conjunction with Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman's arrest in Los Mochis. Now we learn that one of the weapons involved in the "Draw Mohammad" event attack in Garland, Texas was-you guessed it- connected to Fast and Furious.


It is amazing how the highest officials in President Obama's cabinet, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, knew nothing about this bizarre operation. It's the same ignorance professed by Clinton when her ambassador in Libya was pleading for more security before he was killed in the attack on our mission in Benghazi.

This is truly a national disgrace.

Europe is Not Free ... And America is Next

Tags: Hungary, immigration, Viktor Orban, Obama, Trump, Islam, jihad, terrorism, tyranny, freedom, liberty To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

BDS and Anti-Semitism on College Campuses

Gary Fouse

For several years now, we have been documenting anecdotal evidence based on incidents on US college campuses that anti-Semitism is a growing problem and there is a direct link between the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement against Israel. We have also been reporting on incidents involving anti-Semitic expressions by Students for Justice in Palestine. Now, thanks to the AMCHA Initiative, we have empirical evidence. What is linked below is the result of a year-long study.


Once again, to my great consternation, the University of California is prominent on the list. Among its campuses. UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and UCLA are all among the leaders. At least, UC Irvine doesn't appear. A few years ago, it would have. I am sure people like former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren and Daniel Pipes are pleasantly surprised that UCI is not among the leaders. Both have had their speeches at UCI disrupted in recent years.

And what accounts for UCI's slipping off the list? No doubt the hacks from Hillel and the Jewish Federation of Orange County will be quick to claim credit. For what? For their stand down orders to Jewish students? Because they attacked Jewish students and community members who stood up and spoke out? Because they tried to get people to put away their US and Israeli flags when the UCI I-Fest was disrupted?

I would rather think it is because the pro-Palestinian crowd and their invited speakers have learned that they will not be met by indifference and submission when they come to UCI. Ask Amir Abdel Malik Ali. Ask Norman Finkelstein. Ask Ysroel Dovid Weiss. Ask William Robinson. Ask Sohail Daulatzai. Ask Omar Barghouti. Ask David Palumbo-Liu. Ask (whatever happened to) Rabab Abdulhadi. (We still don't know if she actually made it down to UCI last May. I have a sneaking suspicion she was hiding behind the curtain on the stage waiting to learn if the Muslim Student Union/SJP would be able to keep me from videotaping.)

All that aside, the AMCHA Initiative has provided an important contribution to the study of Jew hatred on American college campuses. The hack university administrators don't put much stock in anecdotal evidence no matter how egregious it is. They favor empirical evidence. Well, here it is.

Mizzou: The Chickens Come Home to Roost

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Eagle Rising
Image result for children visiting chicken farm

"What happened to the tigers?"

This is an example of what happens when weak college administrators allow student agitators and unruly professors to run amok on campus. The University of Missouri is now forced to cut budget because of dropping student enrollment.


What did they expect after the Black Lives Matter crowd destroyed the school's reputation? What did they expect when administrators dropped to their knees? The university chancellor actually resigned. What did they expect when a journalism professor, no less, showed that not only was she an out of control agitator, but also had no clue about the First Amendment?

Mizzou hasn't seen this drastic reduction in enrollment because certain students decided they were not safe from white racists on campus and lacking of sufficient "safe spaces". Nor was it because current students were outraged at the firing of Melissa Click. They were predominantly new enrollees that the school lost.

So what happened? Students decided that they needed to go somewhere else where they could study in peace without aggressive, obnoxious students getting in their faces and asking if they believed that black lives mattered (and you'd better say yes). Parents decided they didn't need to be paying tuition to a university that had become a national joke and a poster child for all that has gone horribly wrong in academia.

Like my friend, Onan Coca, who wrote the above article, I find it hard to feel sympathy for Mizzou. I can hope, however, that Mizzou will become a teaching moment for university administrators everywhere; if you don't want to see the same thing happen to your school, you'd better get it under control.

More Bad News for Hillary

Gary Fouse

"The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state."

According to this Fox News report, Bryan Pagliano is turning out to be a "devastating witness" in the Hillary Clinton email scandal.


Then there is this:

"Clinton recently told CBS, “I'm delighted that [Pagliano] has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we will be moving toward a resolution of this.” 

Yeah right. 

"Gotti recently told CBS, “I'm delighted that Sammy the Bull has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we will be moving toward a resolution of this.” 

And kudos to Univision's Jorge Ramos for throwing hard questions at Mrs Clinton in the Miami debate this week-questions that others have been unwilling to do. Hillary was clearly upset about the questions about being indicted and the reference to Benghazi showing a video clip of Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the victims of Benghazi.

Rory Gallagher - Irish Tour 74

Tags: Rory Gallgher, Taste, Irish Tour 1974 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

Junior's Wailing (Steamhammer)

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

DOJ Grants Immunity to Key Hillary Email Figure

Gary Fouse

                                                               "What does this mean?"

Things just got a lot more ominous for Hillary Clinton in regards to her email investigation. The Department of Justice has granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the State Dept. employee who set up Clinton's email server. Pagliano had previously invoked the 5th Amendment at his Congressional appearance.


Here is why this is a big development beyond what Pagliano can tell investigators. The FBI does not grant immunity to witnesses. The Department of Justice prosecutors do. Of course, everyone is speculating that even if the FBI recommends criminal charges against Mrs Clinton, that the politically charged Justice Department in the person of Attorney General Loretta Lynch will decline to prosecute for obvious political reasons.  On the other hand, federal prosecutors don't grant immunity to witnesses unless they are serious about prosecuting someone. If Mrs Clinton is counting on political protection from being indicted, the decision of DOJ to grant immunity to this key witness should make her feel a lot less easy.

I consider this a major development.

A war of all against all - no thank you!

In what would become his most well-known book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argued that without a governing power, the world would be a grim place indeed. People would fight against one another, it would be a war of all against all, and for many, life would be nasty, brutish and short.

We see now that our governments are deliberately creating social conditions where people will fight against one another, where it could all too easily become a war of all against all, and for many people, life will be nasty, brutish and short.

The new world order can then arise and say here we are to save the day. The ultimate all-powerful and all-knowing force that will save the poor uneduated masses from themselves. Without us, the earth will descend into chaos! We (so the NWO and its lackeys will claim) are the true saviours of humanity!

There are some serious problems here. First, we can see in the world today how the political elite are not interested in keeping the peace, or enforcing the rule of law equally and fairly, thereby creating a safe environment in which human beings can live their own lives according to their own lights. Instead, we can all see the political elite creating the very conditions they claim to be there to prevent! So the claim that the political elite are the solution to the problem of social disharmony is false - as we can all see perfectly well, the political elite are causing the problems in the first place.

Secondly, it is simply not true to say that people cannot co-operate and live in a safe and prosperous environment without an all-powerful government. Examples abound throughout history of peoples who have done precisely that. Many of us know of examples through personal experience. So the claim that people need government for that reason, because the alternative is an Hobbesian world, where life is nasty, brutish and short, is clearly false.

So the question must be asked: What exactly do we need a state for? The political elite are hell-bent on creating an Hobbesian world, so they can arise from the ashes of destruction, much as the Nazis did in post-WW1 Germany, in a truly all-powerful and all-knowing form, and claim to be entirely necessary. We need to be aware that an all-powerful state is not necessary, and what's more, we need to start putting that knowledge into action, by going back to our cultural roots and helping one another out, supporting one another through hard times (there are plenty of those ahead) and not only believing but actively demonstrating through our daily conduct that what philosphers call 'the state of nature' can be a peaceful, co-operative environment, and that there is simply no need for any agents of the 'state' to interfere in our lives.

With every day that passes, the political forces that have arisen on this earth lose more of their legitimacy, and with it, their power over us. They want to destroy our cultures and our countries, our morals and our shared social backgrounds, so that everyone ends up fighting with one another. The political elite as we know them (and that is bad enough) can then evolve into a new, all-improved, unstoppable form of government. We need to see this effort for what it is. And we all need to remember that we don't need a new world order to be established on this earth in order to live happy and productive lives. We're all quite capable of doing that - by ourselves!

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

trunews (discussing Islam)

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