Japan’s new security laws to take effect March 29




The cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe decided Tuesday that new national security laws, which mark a major shift in Japan’s postwar security policy, will take effect March 29.

The laws bring into force a July 2014 Cabinet decision to reinterpret the Constitution to allow Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense under strict conditions, such as the nation’s survival coming under threat.

Previously, successive governments have interpreted the Constitution to mean that Japan possesses the right to collective self-defense but cannot exercise it due to Article 9 of the supreme law that bans the use of force to settle international disputes.

Under the new laws, Japan can come to the aid of the United States and other friendly nations under armed attack, even if Tokyo itself is not attacked.

The laws, enacted by the Diet last September, also expand logistical support for the militaries of the United States and other countries, and for participation in international peacekeeping missions.

“With enforcement of the laws, Japan will enhance deterrence and more proactively contribute to peace and stability of the (Asia-Pacific) region and the international community,” Abe told a cabinet meeting Tuesday, according to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga.

The enforcement “has a historic significance,” Abe was quoted by Suga as saying.

Abe stressed the necessity of the laws given an increasingly perilous security environment surrounding Japan, such as North Korea’s recent nuclear test and missile launches in defiance of objections by the international community.

At the same time, Abe said it was important to win “broad public support” for the controversial laws, and requested his Cabinet ministers increase efforts to gain broader public understanding on the legislation, according to Suga.

Five opposition parties—the Democratic Party of Japan, the Japan Innovation Party, the Japanese Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party and the People’s Life Party—have agreed to make the scrapping of the security laws a major campaign issue for a House of Councillors election this summer.

Along with the laws, Abe’s cabinet also decided Tuesday to revise 26 relevant ordinances. One revision, for example, allows the Self-Defense Forces to dispatch commanders to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

But the government plans to deal cautiously with assigning new duties to the SDF once the laws take effect.

“We will undergo necessary education and training and make best preparations so as to secure the safety of SDF personnel and allow them to carry out new missions appropriately,” Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said at a news conference.

The government has decided to postpone until the autumn or later the SDF’s use of weapons in coming to the aid of geographically distant units or personnel of the United Nations and other countries under attack, as part of international peace cooperation activities.

At present, SDF members operating in U.N.-led peacekeeping missions cannot rescue either peacekeepers from other countries or civilian U.N. staff under attack in areas other than those in which the SDF troops are deployed.

The postponement apparently reflects the Abe government’s stance to prevent controversy over the issue from affecting campaigns for the upper house election. The security laws enable the SDF to expand the scope of its missions in U.N. peacekeeping operations.

The coalition of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito party controls a majority of the 242-member upper house and more than two-thirds of the more powerful, 475-member House of Representatives.


Trudeau condemns Brussels “terrorist” attacks, ignores Islamic jihadi motive


Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, condemned on Tuesday, March 22, 2013 the series of terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium. In his official statement, Trudeau said the following:

“I am outraged and deeply saddened by the news that so many have been killed and injured in terrorist attacks targeting the people of Brussels, Belgium.

“Sophie and I join all Canadians in extending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed. We also hope for a fast recovery to all those who have been injured.

“Canada stands by Belgium in this difficult time and has offered all possible assistance. We will continue to work closely with our allies and the international community to help fight and prevent terrorism here and abroad, and to bring to justice those who are responsible for planning and carrying out these senseless acts.

“Canadians mourn the loss of so many innocent victims. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Belgium.”

Since assuming power in November 4, 2015, Justin Trudeau and his senior minister condemned some of the terrorist attacks carried out by international Islamic terrorist organization, but persistently failed to mention the name of these organizations or their Islamic jihadi motive to kill the non-Muslims or the apostates as part of a jihad that strives to achieve a global Islamic dominance.

A year before the federal elections, Justin Trudeau conveyed a clear message about his intention as a future Prime Minister to avoid relating Islam to terrorism.

In an interview (November 12, 2014) to Alameen Post magazine, based in Surrey, BC Trudeau addressing the local Muslim community, was quoted as saying the following:

In reference to the Ottawa shooting and statements given by the other two political leaders, especially when it comes to Canadian Muslims, he feels that they could have done a better job. He feels that in light of the 9/11 incidents and lessons learned from it, that any time such an incident does occur there has to bestrong message needed to be sent to separate the muslims from the terrorist…”

Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion has issued since November 2015 seven statements condemning terrorist attacks carried out by the two major global Islamic terrorist organizations – the Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL, Caliphate), al-Qaeda and Boko Haram. In all seven statements the word “Islamic” is absent, the Islamic motivation is not mentioned nor the name of the organizations that claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The following are excerpts from Stéphane Dion’s statements condemning terrorist attacks since November 2015:

February 1, 2016 – Boko Haram attack on civilians in Nigeria

Description of the attack: “attack”

Action: “condolences”, “work[ing] closely with the international community to help Nigeria”

January 16, 2016 – Qaeda’s attack in Ouagadougou; Six Canadians dead

Description of the attack: “attack”, “ act that threatens the safety of civilians”

Action: “deepest condolences”, “stand[ing] with Burkina Faso and its people at this difficult time”, “need to work with partners to deal with global threats”

January 14, 2016 – ISIS Attacks in Jakarta; 1 Canadian dead

Description of the attack: “attacks on innocent civilians”

Action: “heartfelt condolences”, “stand[ing] by Indonesia and cooperate in the fight against extremism”, “offer[ing] our full support to the Indonesian authorities during this challenging time.”

January 12, 2016ISIS attack in Istanbul

Description of the attack: “terrorist attack”

Action: “sincere condolences”, “stand[ing] with the Turkish people in the global struggle against terrorism in all its forms”

November 20, 2015 – Al-Mourabitoun and Al-Qaeda attack in Mali

Description of the attack: “attack”, “indiscriminate acts of violence against innocent civilians”

Action: “working with our embassy and with our allies to ensure the safety of Canadians”

November 13, 2015ISIS attacks in Paris

Description of the attack: “tragic events”, “series of heinous attacks”

Action: “deepest condolences”, “offer[ing] France its full support during these difficult times”

November 12, 2015ISIS attack in Beirut

Description of the attack: “twin suicide bombings”, “violent extremism”, “horrendous attack”

Action: “sincere condolences”

man hating, racist feminazi Lindsey Middlecamp



Is Lindsey Middlecamp, a Minneapolis lawyer and founder of Cards Against Harassment, a misogynist, misandrist, and racist? Well, to start with, she is a feminist. That should be enough evidence on its own to answer yes to the above questions. Feminism has a long history of prejudice against people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, etc. One doesn’t have to look very hard to find feminists berating, silencing or practicing bigotry any number of groups outside the affluent, white, female collective. But let’s dig a little further just to be sure. Let’s discover who Lindsey is. She’s a board member of Stop Street Harassment, an organization that claims to fight the abuse of women and oppressive behavior of men. Things like men telling women they are pretty. And men sitting comfortably on a subway or city bus.

Why Feminists Hate Beauty (And How Capitalism Makes Fairy Tales Come True)



Grace Kelly is arguably the most beautiful actress in cinematic history, yet what if she had never gone to Hollywood? Keep that thought in mind the next time you read a Harvard feminist ranting against “the psychology of female objectification,” or denunciations of “the male gaze” in media.

“The male gaze, which refers to the lens through which mostly white, heterosexual men are viewing the world, is a lens of entitlement.”
Kelsey Lueptow, “4 Ways To Challenge The Male Gaze,” 2013

“Making all the Princesses beautiful, while all the villains are obese or ugly, the Disney Company reinforces the idea that one’s physical appearance is a manifestation of one’s personality. . . .
“The protagonists of these films fulfill unrealistic expectations of beauty, which are then perpetuated as the norm to mainstream society. Giving young girls the idea that they must be beautiful or they will not succeed is incredibly harmful.”
Melanie Greenblatt, “The Heteronormative Objectification of Women in the Disney Princess Films: A Study of Brand Advertising and Parents’ Perceptions,” 2013

“Western beauty practices not only arise from the subordination of women, but should perhaps be seen as the most publicly visible evidence of that subordination. . . . They are justified by tradition, as in the popular wisdom that women have always wanted to be beautiful and that it is natural for men to be attracted to ‘beautiful’ women.”
Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2005; second edition, 2015)

This kind of feminist rhetoric implies:

  1. Male admiration of female beauty is inherently wrong;
  2. Such “objectification” is not a natural expression of human biology, but is instead “socially constructed” and thus fundamentallypolitical, a manifestation of “male supremacy”;
  3. There is no such thing as beauty, but rather only an artificialpreference for certain types of female appearance based in male supremacy and reinforced through media messages.

Feminism’s attack on The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf, 1991) would have us believe that Hollywood producers, Paris fashion designers, Madison Avenue advertisers and other sinister forces of patriarchal capitalism have conspired to brainwash us into believing that some women are more beautiful than others. “All Bodies Are Beautiful” has become a popular feminist slogan, and skepticism is impermissible — a ThoughtCrime.


Any man who doubts this ideology — aesthetic egalitarianism, we might call it — will find himself denounced as a misogynist. Men are wrong to prefer Kate Upton to Lena Dunham, according to feminists who wish to silence male praise for beauty, because feminists believe that men’s enjoyment of beauty is harmful, oppressive, sexist. This anti-beauty message has been a core component of feminist rhetoric since 1968, when the Women’s Liberation movement emerged from the New Left and staged its first public protest against the Miss America pageant. Beauty pageants “epitomize the roles we are all forced to play as women,” the protesters declared, proclaiming that “women in our society [are] forced daily to compete for male approval, enslaved by ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards we ourselves are conditioned to take seriously.”

Notice the words “forced,” “enslaved” and “conditioned,” used to imply that these “ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards” are imposed on women against their will. Are women “forced” to play these “roles”? Do women “compete for male approval” because they have been “conditioned” to do so? Before you answer, consider this: No one is offended if we say, for example, that Warren Buffett is rich, Stefan Curry is tall, or Vladimir Putin is powerful. The scale of values by which men are measured in terms of status and prestige is not controversial. There is no “social justice” movement of men complaining that women are attracted to millionaires, athletes and other high-status males, whereas feminism routinely stigmatizes the normal preferences of heterosexual males.

A radical egalitarian ideology derived from Marxism (many feminist leaders of the 1960s and ’70s were “Red Diaper babies,” i.e., children ofCommunist Party members), feminist theory assumes that every observable inequality between men and women is unjust and oppressive. The propaganda of such a movement requires that women’s lives be depicted as an endless nightmare of suffering, and that males be demonized as enemies who cruelly inflict this oppression on women.

Feminism is a cult and, like all other cults, seeks its recruits among vulnerable young people who are in some way alienated from society.

Feminism’s quasi-religious cult belief system explains to the young recruit that her antisocial resentments — toward her parents, her siblings, her classmates in school, her ex-boyfriend — are entirely justified. Her feelings of self-pity and anger are rationalized by feminist ideology, and she is encouraged to focus her anger on targets designated by the cult leaders. She is supplied with a vocabulary of jargon (“rape culture,” “heteronormativity,” “phallocentrism,” etc.) that makes her feel morally and intellectually superior to those outside the cult. Once she has learned to view life through the warped lenses of feminist theory, it is impossible for her to relate normally to others. She becomes disdainful of anyone who does not share her fanatical devotion to the feminist cause.

Eric Hoffer’s 1951 classic The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements shows how political cults like feminism operate. Yet our education system does not make Hoffer required reading for high school students, to inoculate them against the True Believer mentality. Nor do taxpayer-supported schools ever expose students to anything written by the most articulate critics of the feminist movement. No public high school in America would assign, for example, Christina Hoff Sommers’Who Stole Feminism? or Carrie Lukas’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism. There is a vast library of books by women authors — Danielle Crittenden, Carolyn Graglia, Helen Smith, Dana Mack,Daphne Patai, Mary Eberstadt, et al. — who in one way or another dissent from the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of radical feminism.

“The discourses which particularly oppress all of us, lesbians, women, and homosexual men, are those discourses which take for granted that what founds society, any society, is heterosexuality. . . . These discourses of heterosexuality oppress us in the sense that they prevent us from speaking unless we speak in their terms.”
Monique Wittig, “The Straight Mind,” 1978

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“In contrast to young women, whose empowerment can be seen as a process of resistance to male dominated heterosexuality, young, able-bodied, heterosexual men can access power through the language, structures and identities of hegemonic masculinity.”
Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson, The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power (1998)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist,”2015

Feminism assumes as it premise that women constitute an oppressed class, “a sexual caste subordinated to the dominant ruling sex, man,” as Barbara Burris and her comrades asserted in their 1971 “Fourth World Manifesto.” Or, to cite a more recent source: “The sexual caste system privileges male heterosexuals over everyone else,” according to Professor JoAnne Myers, co-founder of Women’s Studies at Marist College.

This radical worldview is now widely accepted at elite schools like the University of Southern California, where the executive director of the USC Women’s Student Assembly calls for the “dismantling of our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy.”

Let us now return to the question: What if Grace Kelly had never gone to Hollywood? You must understand that it was only the modern technology of cinema (invented by Thomas Edison in the 1890s) which eventually made it possible for the entire world to admire the beauty of Grace Kelly. Born in 1929, the third of four children of a prosperous Irish Catholic family in Philadelphia, she was 23 when she signed her first Hollywood contract for $850 a week. Two years later, she won the Academy Award for Best Actress. Two year after that, the 26-year-old star retired from acting to marry Prince Rainier of Monaco, and Princess Grace became the mother of three royal offspring, Caroline, Albert and Stephanie.

Feminists who denounce the “heteronormative objectification” of Disney movies for promoting “unrealistic expectations of beauty” would have us ignore the implications of Princess Grace’s biography. We now take for granted the technology that took Grace Kelly from Philadelphia to Hollywood to the royal court of Monaco, just as we take for granted the technology that permits a blogger in his pajamas to critique the theories of Harvard students and tenured professors. This technology — produced by a system known as capitalism — is phenomenally powerful and innovative, and capitalism liberates human beings in amazing ways.

Capitalism pays our bills, capitalism feeds our children, capitalism funds the enterprises that provide us with the means of communication and transportation by which an Irish Catholic girl from Philadelphia can become European royalty. Capitalism makes fairy tales come true.

Well, why does Professor Jeffreys scoff at the idea that “women have always wanted to be beautiful and that it is natural for men to be attracted to ‘beautiful’ women”? Why does she put “beautiful” in quotation marks, as if the meaning of this word was somehow suspicious or misleading? Or why would other feminist professors speak of heterosexuality as “a highly artificial product of the patriarchy,” by which men “access power through . . . hegemonic masculinity” within “a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm”?

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
Pat Robertson, 1992

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, an ideology profoundly hostile to everything that brings hope and happiness to human life, including both capitalism and beauty.

Here at the desk in my home office, I am surrounded by stack of books about feminist theory: Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality by Peggy Reeves Sanday (1981), The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory by Marilyn Frye (1983), The Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner (1986), Toward a Feminist Theory of the State by Catharine MacKinnon (1989), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler (1990),  Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (2002), Theorizing Sexuality by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott (2010) and Modern Feminist Theory: An Introduction by Jennifer Rich (2014), to name but a few. None of these books, however, are actually helpful in understanding human nature. In fact, we have reason to suspect, confusion is a common result for the many thousands of young students who are indoctrinated in feminist theory in university Women’s Studies courses every year. Why do we need professors teaching theory, when the truth is so simple?

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

No student at Harvard (annual tuition $45,278) or Yale (annual tuition $47,600) is taught this truth. It is unlikely a student who believes the Bible would go anywhere near Harvard or Yale. The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and no Christian parent would send their children to such infernal institutions, where perverted professors teach satanic doctrines to corrupt the souls and poison the minds of youth.



Feminists reject any suggestion that there is anything natural about human sexual behavior, instead believing women are “coerced into heterosexuality” because of “the power men have in society.” Feminists believe “that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories,” and this denial of any natural basis for heterosexual attraction means that male admiration of beauty — and women’s pleasure in being admired by men — can only “arise from the subordination of women.”

Because feminists are “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31), they seek to destroy human happiness. Feminists hate love itself.


Canadian Imam admirer of Trudeau: “Muslims will conquer Rome, defeat Christianity”


Sheikh Shaban Sherif Mady (شعبان شريف ماضي), was a scholar at al-Azhar theological school in Egypt and served at the Ministry of Endowment and Ministry of Education of the Egyptian government. Today, he is the Imam of a Muslim congregation in Edmonton, Alberta which holds its Friday prayers at Glengarry Hall in Edmonton.

In a recent Friday sermon (February 2016), Imam Shaban Sherif Mady mentioned Mohammad’s prophecy about the future Islamic conquer of Europe and defeating Christianity, Islam’s prime enemy, after taking over Turkey and Palestine.

The following is an except of Shaban Sherif Mady’s sermon as translated by Memri:

The Prophet Muhammad told us that Constantinople would be conquered. This was the capital city of the Byzantine Empire. I am talking about prophecies from the sunna. Where is Constantinople, the capital city of the Byzantine Empire? Today, it is in Turkey.

Turkey, Montenegro, Kosovo, all the way to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia… All these countries were ruled by the rightly guided Caliphate, the last Caliphate of the Muslims. [It ruled] about half of Europe, in the East, and then the other half, in the West, the countries of Al-Andalus: Spain, Portugal, and part of France, all the way to the Ural Mountains. All this was an Islamic Caliphate.

Constantinople will be conquered. It is the Prophet Muhammad who said so. And what was Constantinople? Just like the Vatican today, it was the capital of all the Christians in the world. It was conquered and became Turkey. The Hagia Sophia became a great mosque, where Allah is worshipped.

The prophecies of the Prophet Muhammad came true. But some prophecies have not come true yet. Look forward to it, because the Prophet Muhammad said that Rome would be conquered! It will be conquered. Constantinople was conquered. Rome is the Vatican, the very heart of the Christian state. When and how? You and I, who suffer of psychological defeatism, cannot fathom that. But people of faith have will, power, and understanding, and they know that the Prophet’s hadith is true, for he does not speak on a whim.”

The future conquest of Rome and all of Europe

The prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatari-based spiritual authority for the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood and admired by Shaban Sherif Mady, issued an Islamic ruling that, despite the pessimism among Muslims, Islam will definitely prevail and eventually become master of the entire world.

One of the signs of Islamic victory will be the conquest of the Italian capital, Rome, by the Muslims. Occupying Europe and defeating Christianity will become possible, according to al- Qaradawi, with the spread of Islam inside Europe until it becomes strong enough to take over the whole continent.

Al-Qaradawi asserts that “the signs of salvation are absolute, numerous, and as plain as day, indicating that the future belongs to Islam and that Allah’s religion will defeat all other religions.”

He relies on ancient Islamic traditions quoting the Prophet Muhammad, who allegedly argued that the conquest of Constantinople (Istanbul) and then Romia (Rome) are considered signs of the victory of Islam. Al-Qaradawi wrote:

And Romia is the city we name Rome, the capital of Italy. The city of Herqel [Constantinople] was conquered in 1453 by the young Ottoman, aged 23, Muhammad Ibn Mourad, known by his nickname Muhammad the Conqueror. Nowadays, the conquest of the other city Romia [Rome] remains unfulfilled.

Namely, Islam will return once more to Europe as a conqueror and as a victorious power after it was expelled twice from the continent….I assume that next time the conquest [of Europe] will not be achieved by the sword [i.e., war] but by preaching (daawa) and spreading the ideology [of Islam]….

The conquest of Romia [Rome] and the expansion of Islam will reach all the areas where the sun shines and the moon appears [i.e., the entire world]….That will be the result of a planted seed and the beginning of the righteous Caliphate’s return….[The Islamic Caliphate] deserves to lead the nation to the plains of victory.”

Sherif Mady greets the Syrian refugees: “O Allah! Strengthen the mujahideen everywhere”

Alberta Islamic Welfare Association headed by Shaban Sherif Mady hosted on Family Day (February 5, 2016) Syrian refugees and their families for a social gathering with members of the local Muslim community in Edmonton and the Imam Shaban Sherif Mady.

In his speech to the Syria refugees, Shaban Sherif Mady greeted them, emphasized the merits of the people of Greater Syria in the eyes of Allah for defeating the Crusaders and the Tatars and ended with a supplication to Allah. The following is an excerpt of the supplication (originally in Arabic):

O Allah! Strengthen the mujahideen [jihad fighters in the path of Allah] everywhere, make their hearts firm and strong, let them hit their targets, give them victory over their enemies.

O Allah! Destroy the oppressors.

O Allah! Destroy your enemies, the enemies of religion (Islam).

O Allah! Whoever wishes good for Islam and the Muslims bestow all goodness upon him.

O Allah! Whoever wishes ill for us and wishes ill for Islam and the Muslims, make his plot (tied) around his neck and make him preoccupied with himself, and make his plan cause his own destruction.”

Canadian Imam likens Trudeau to a King who helped Muslims and converted to Islam

Shaban Sherif Mady dedicated his Friday sermon on December 18, 2015 to Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whom he sees as the greatest ally of the Muslims. Trudeau was likened to “the Najashi”, the Christian King of Abyssinia in the 7th century AD, who is honoured in the Islamic history for the support and protection he provided to the Muslim emigrants who fled pagan Mecca and his persistent refusal to expel them while fending off the pressure and lure offered by Muhammad’s Meccan rival leadership. Later, according to the Islamic tradition, the Najashi King accepted Muhammad’s invitation to embrace Islam and became a Muslim.

The following is an excerpt of Shaban Sherif Mady’s sermon (originally in Arabic):

Justin Trudeau – I call him today the Najashi of the current era. He hosted Muslims,honoured them, visited their mosques, greeted them for their holidays, and removed the suspicion that terrorism is related to Islam, honoured the Muslims, hosted the refugees.

He is the Najashi of the current era. This is the title of my sermon that will appear on YouTube – Justin Trudeau Najashi of the current era

In Islam there are men, in the world there are men who helped the world with their wisdom, such as [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan [President of Turkey] and Justin Trudeau.

Salute to Justin Trudeau, O the Najashi of the current era. Thank you… This man is affable. This amiable man we call him the Najashi of the current era.

Thank you for hosting our Muslims on behalf of this Canadian country which you run in the same way the Najashi ruled in ancient era our Muslims, who were oppressed and tortured [in Mecca].

Thank you. Thanks you, O the Najashi of the current eraThe world is happy to see people like Erdoğan and Trudeau. With people such as those the compassion is spread, the friendship is spread, the love is spread…”

In his Friday sermons in Edmonton during the years 2013-14, Shaban Sherif Mady said the following:

O the courageous Palestinian people! Al-Quds (Jerusalem) will become the capital of the Islamic State, not of Palestine… Had it not been betrayal, all the territory of Europe was almost conquered from Andalus (Spain). This is the promise of the Prophet Mohammad. The victory will come… Then the Rightly-Guided Caliphate (Islamic State) will be established and it will follow the path of the Prophet (Mohammad). We will welcome it.”

Why (the Muslim Brotherhood movement was designated as) a terrorist organization? Because it calls for the return of the Caliphate (Islamic State). If so, I’m an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood, I’m a terrorist… (O Allah) to those who want to harm Islam and the Muslims, make their animosity annihilate themselves, make them kill themselves, destroy them completely, annihilate them all, like you did to the peoples of A’d and Thamoud… O Allah, support all mujahideen in any place around the globe.”

O Allah, support any mujaheed (jihadist) who raises the flag of Islam.”

The secularism is always in a war against Islam and this conflict between the two still exists.”

The [unmarried] adulterer and the [unmarried] adulteress will be flogged 100 times and their testimony will never be accepted by court.”

Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea for Idaho to import Islamists


Idaho State University massively imports Islamist students. The Islamic students commit crimes and harass our women. Could this be a problem?

As the number of Middle Eastern students grew to nearly 1,200, almost 10 percent of the school’s enrollment, that meant an estimated $40 million for the local economy every year. Even if they were just normal, rowdy college kids, the behavior of the mostly male students stood out in this conservative, predominantly Mormon city. Free from the strict cultural mores of their home countries, some students have faced charges like drunken driving and stalking.

Stalking? That’s an unusual charge. I wonder who the “mostly male” Islamic students are stalking?

At the same time, professors said students, many of them unfamiliar with English, were ill-prepared and frequently resorted to cheating.

On campus, several professors said their colleagues chafed at the extra work required of them because of the poor English skills of many students who needed help after class. Some professors also believed the students did not have the proper math backgrounds for their chosen majors: A chart sent to the faculty by one dean revealed that in some classes with more than 20 Middle Eastern students, 90 percent of them had failed physics, 75 percent had failed introductory English, and more than 60 percent had failed math.

While admitting that some Middle Eastern students had cheated, Ali Alheid, 22, a mechanical engineering major from Kuwait, complained that the university had painted all of them with a broad brush. “They caught 20 or 30 students cheating,” he said. “Because of that, they treat us like cheaters.”

“Only” 30 foreign students cheating, and all treated like cheaters! What could account for that?

Eighty percent to 90 percent of the cheating cases reported in recent semesters in engineering and science have involved foreign students, Dr. Rodgers said.

The university has bought antiplagiarism software, installed cameras, and gone so far as to track the Internet addresses of submitted papers,

Here’s something even more effective: don’t admit students who are unprepared. I’ll bet they haven’t tried that!

Professors and proctors have sometimes prohibited bathroom breaks during exams and looked between students’ legs for hidden cellphones.

Don’t the religious police do that to their women in Saudi Arabia?

The cheating accusations are one reason Mr. Alnejidi is now telling friends not to come to Idaho State. “The Saudi students are leaving because they feel they will not graduate under that level of scrutiny,” he said.

They will not graduate under that level of scrutiny because they are cheating.

On a recent afternoon at the engineering school, groups of Middle Eastern students chatted outside. Inside, Saudi students worked in a basement laboratory on a virtual shield to protect United States borders from incursion, both by undocumented immigrants — and terrorists.

I feel more secure knowing we are importing Islamists from Saudi Arabia to protect us with a virtual shield.

By some estimates, the one million international students in the United States generate a $30.5 billion boost to the economy. The largest group comes from China, but Saudi Arabia, the fourth-largest country of origin, supplies more than 70,000 students to schools like Arizona State, Western Kentucky, Cleveland State and Southern Illinois.

Why are we letting in more than 70,000 Saudis a year? They are tremendous security risks! Have we learned nothing from 9/11?

Some of these institutions are particularly concerned about the impact of a recent announcement by the King Abdullah Scholarship Program, which supports most of the students from Saudi Arabia. The program is facing “deep funding cuts,” according to Moody’s Investors Service, which said the scholarships would be limited to the top 100 American schools, an Academic Ranking of World Universities list that does not include Idaho State.

Mr. Scholes said new limits established by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments might mean that no Middle Eastern freshmen will be arriving at Idaho State for the next academic year, cutting enrollment by more than 250, on top of the 100 Saudi students who have already departed.

So ironically, it’s not the US government, which cares nothing about the risk to security by admitting tens of thousands of Islamists into the country, we have to thank, it’s the Saudi government, for cutting subsidies for the Islamists they are exporting to us. On this point, Saudi Arabia is doing more to enhance our security than our own government.