Click here to vote.
GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s immigration policies drew criticism on Monday after he released his proposal to prevent Muslim immigration to the United States.
Trump released a statement on Monday calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Highlighting a poll from the Center for Security Policy, the statement claimed that “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.”
“Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension,” Trump said. “Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
The Intercept described the Center for Security Policy as a think tank “led by Frank Gaffney, a far-right activist who theorized that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S. government,” and pointed that the poll cited by Trump has “no statistical validity” because it was a “non-probability based, opt-in online survey.”
House Speaker Paul Ryan criticized Trump’s proposal on Tuesday, saying that although he usually does not comment on the Republican presidential race, he was making an exception.
“Freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle. It’s a founding principle of this country,” Ryan said. “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for. And more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”
Trump’s proposal received criticism from GOP rivals such as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who called the proposal “the kind of thing people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they’re talking about.”
“What we need to do is increase our intelligence capabilities activity both around the world and in the homeland,” Christie said. “We need to back up our law enforcement officers, who are out fighting this fight everyday, give them the tools they need.”
When asked by The Hill if Trump’s proposal would go as far as to exclude Muslim-American citizens who are currently out of the country, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said, “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’ ”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush criticized Trump on Twitter, describing Trump as “unhinged.”
Donald Trump is unhinged. His "policy" proposals are not serious.
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC.), who has made questionable remarks in the past such as reportedly saying that “Everything that starts with ‘Al’ in the Middle East is bad news,” took to Twitter to criticize Trump.
.@Realdonaldtrump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric.
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 7, 2015
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) referred to Trump’s proposal as another one of his “offensive and outlandish” statements.
I disagree with Donald Trump's latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 8, 2015
When asked for their opinions on Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration, both Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did not criticize their rival, and instead presented their own proposals for how they would deal with refugees.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Trump’s proposal “reprehensible, prejudiced and divisive,” and insisted that it would make the U.S. less safe.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) December 7, 2015
Trump’s proposal also received criticism from GOP officials in the first three states to vote in the primary process states, who usually stay neutral when it comes to presidential primary contests.
Jeff Kaufmann, chair of the Iowa GOP, said on Twitter that “our founding principles are stronger than political cynicism,” and that while the GOP believes Obama has failed on ISIS, it also believes “we don’t make ourselves safer by betraying bedrock Constitutional values.”
Jennifer Horn, the chair of the New Hampshire GOP, said “There should never be a day in the United States of America when people are excluded based solely on their race or religion,” and said to do so, “It is un-Republican. It is unconstitutional. And it is un-American.”
Matt Moore, the chair of the South Carolina GOP, called Trump’s proposal a “bad idea” and said it sent a shiver down his spine.
(2/2) American exceptionalism means always defending our inalienable rights, not attacking them when it’s politically convenient.
— Matt Moore (@MattMooreSC) December 8, 2015
For more election coverage, click here.
In an exclusive interview with Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook, Mint Press News editor Mnar Muhawesh discusses an important issue regarding foreign policy that the main stream media won’t cover: who is profiting from the war in Syria?
SAUDI ARABIA, September 24, 2015– On one of the holiest holidays in the Muslim culture, the first day of Eid al-adha, at least 700 Muslim pilgrims were killed by fellow pilgrims in a stampede. At least another 800 were injured. The event took place around 9 AM during the ritual known as “stoning the devil” in the tent city of Mina when millions of Muslims were making their pilgrimage, or hajj, to Mecca two miles away.
The Saudi Arabian government reportedly laid blame on the pilgrims.
In a statement, Saudi Arabian health minister Khalid al-Falih said the stampede was “possibly caused by the movement of some pilgrims who didn’t follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the responsible authorities.”
The Iranian government has placed blame on Saudi officials. After saying the kingdom was responsible for Thursday’s tragedy, Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said Saudi’s envoy to Tehran would be summoned to the foreign ministry.
The head of Iran’s Hajj organisation, Said Ohadi, said that, for “unknown reasons,” two paths had been closed off near the site of a symbolic stoning of the devil ritual where the stampede occurred.
“Today’s incident shows mismanagement and lack of serious attention to the safety of pilgrims,” said Ohadi. “There is no other explanation. The Saudi officials should be held accountable.”
Losing one’s life during the Hajj season is considered by many devout Muslims as an entry to heaven. On social media, many Muslims referred to the dead as martyrs.
A computerized crowd control system was installed by a British company in the wake of a previous major tragedy, which occurred in 2006, but did not cover the Mecca area.
Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Naye chairs the Saudi hajj committee. He has ordered an investigation into the incident.
The pilgrimage to Mecca is the largest human migration on the planet. Thursday’s incident was the most deadly in 25 years. In 1990, more than 1,400 Muslims died in a tunnel stampede which drew criticism from Muslim countries around the world aimed at Saudi Arabia.
A new report from a Washington-based research center found that the majority of terror attacks since September 11, 2001 have come from so-called “homegrown” extremists rather than radical Muslims.
New America has found that nearly twice as many people were killed by individuals espousing white supremacist and anti-government rhetoric than by those preaching radical Islam. The report calculates that 48 people were killed by non-Muslim extremists, and 26 were killed by self-proclaimed jihadists.
Non-Muslims have launched 19 attacks since 9/11, while Islamic extremists launched 7 lethal attacks for the same time period. The New York Times reported that a new survey to be published this week found that police have a greater fear of domestic extremism versus radical Islam. Researchers with the University of North Carolina and Duke University took a survey of 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide and found that 74 percent believe anti-government violence is the greatest threat to their safety. The survey found that only 39 percent of the departments fear “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence.
In February, Truth In Media reported on an intelligence report produced by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigations which called attention to an apparent domestic terror threat from ”right-wing sovereign citizen extremists.” The mainstream media was all over the report, complete with headlines proclaiming the growing “right-wing” threat. However, it was found that CNN and other outlets did not read the actual report.
Despite CNN claiming that the threat from sovereign citizens was greater than ISIS and included “right-wing” extremists, the report does not state that at all. In fact, the entire report does not even use the term “right-wing” or even mention the Islamic State. Statements on the alleged danger of right-wing extremists came from a separate report and quotes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, not the actual report itself.
Whether a creation of the mainstream media or a reality check for tyrants, government agencies are, without a doubt, spreading the idea that homegrown, domestic civilians are to be feared.
In June 2014, Truth In Media reported on the creation of a new Department of Justice task force to combat “escalating danger” from “homegrown” terrorists in the United States. At the time of the announcement, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “We face an escalating danger from self-radicalized individuals within our own borders.”
The DOJ is not alone in monitoring domestic activity, however. Jay Syrmopoulos elaborated on the increasing focus on “domestic” or “homegrown” extremists:
“First there was the MIAC report, which claimed that potential terrorists include people who own gold, Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, and even people who fly the U.S. flag.
Then in 2012, there was a leaked Homeland Security study that claimed Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty,” and “suspicious of centralized federal authority” are possible “extreme right-wing” terrorists.
More recently, there is a Department of Defense training manual, obtained by Judicial Watch, using a FOIA request, which lists people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”
This document goes on to call the Founding Fathers extremists, stating, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements, “ including, ‘The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule.'”
So what’s the truth?
Do groups like ISIS pose a threat to the liberty of the American people? Is the “threat” from “domestic” or “homegrown” extremists truly increasing? And to whom are they a threat ? The people or the government?
Perhaps the greatest threat to Liberty lies in the people issuing these reports and passing laws that work to limit the freedom of the people.
Oslo, Norway- A group of young Muslims in Norway have reportedly planned to form a human ring around a synagogue in Norway’s capital on Saturday as a symbolic effort to support the Jewish community. The event’s organizers have said that the group hopes to “extinguish the prejudices people have against Jews and against Muslims.”
The gesture was planned partially in response to recent attacks in neighboring country Denmark when a gunman fatally shot a filmmaker during a “freedom of speech” event and went on to kill a security guard at a synagogue.
Atif Jamil, one of the event’s organizers, said that the purpose of the ring is “to show that Norwegian youth reject what happened in Denmark and to show that Muslims do not support terrorism.”
Another organizer, 17-year-old Hajrad Arshad, echoed Jamil’s remark to Norway state broadcaster NRK, saying that “We think that after the terrorist attacks in Copenhagen, it is the perfect time for us Muslims to distance ourselves from the harassment of Jews that is happening.”
The organizers created a “Fredens Ring” event on Facebook, which states (translated):
Islam is to protect our brothers and sisters, independently of what religion they belong to. Islam is to rise above hatred and never sink down on the same level as the haters. Islam is to protect each other. Muslims want to show that we strongly condemn all type of anti-Semitism and hatred towards Jews. And that we are there to support them. We will therefore create a human protective ring around the Synagogue Saturday February 21. We encourage everyone to be there with us. Remember Together we can make a difference! You and me.
Over 2,000 people have joined the group’s Facebook event. Oslo Jewish community leader Ervin Kohn responded positively to the group’s efforts, saying that “What they are communicating is that if anyone wants to do anything against Jews in Norway, they have to go through us first, and I think that is very positive.”
Kohn has granted permission for the formation of the peace ring, provided that more than 30 individuals attend. “I’ve said that it only comes to 30, it won’t be good, it may seem counter-productive,” he said. “But if you fill Bergstien [the street where the synagogue is located], it will be very good.”
Washington D.C.- In the aftermath of the tragic killings of three Muslim students at the Chapel Hill, the media noticeably stepped back from calling the killing ‘terrorism’, while being eager to consider similar events as acts of terror.
In the above video, Ben Swann speaks with Cyrus McGoldrick, an activist with Islamic Movement for Justice, about the hypocrisies within the media on the subject and the concerns of Muslims across the nation.
On Tuesday, a group of New Jersey Muslims went before the Federal Court of appeals, in hopes of reversing a ruling in the district court from February 2014, which justified the New York Police Department’s massive surveillance program that targeted Muslims as potential terrorists, solely because of their religion.
The Guardian reported that the case has 11 plaintiffs, including “an Iraq war veteran, university students, a coalition of mosques, and the head of a religious school for girls.”
According to the Associated Press, the three-judge panel “questioned whether police had any specific leads to justify the surveillance of Muslim businesses, mosques and student groups in New Jersey following 9/11.”
After the decision was made to dismiss the Civil Rights lawsuit in February 2014, Judge William Martini claimed that the “motive of the surveillance program was not solely to discriminate against Muslims, but rather to find Muslim terrorists hiding among ordinary, law-abiding Muslims.”
According to the Huffington Post, Muslims such as Imam Abdul Muhammad said attendance at his Newark, New Jersey, mosque “dropped by half,” and Farhaj Hassan said he “feared for his position in the Army Reserve,” because of the massive surveillance program.
However, in Judge Martini’s 2014 ruling, he claimed that any damages done by the surveillance program only occurred after the Associated Press revealed that it was being conducted in 2012.
The Guardian reported that starting in 2002, the NYPD dispatched “plainclothes officers or ‘rakers’ to Muslim neighborhoods in New Jersey, monitoring bookstores, bars, nightclubs and cafes” to compile surveillance papers that catalogued “religiously oriented facts.”
According to the Associated Press, the three U.S. Circuit Judges received the case on Tuesday, were critical of the program, asking a lawyer for New York City questions such as, “You’ve got to admit there are a lot of people in this country that became prejudiced against Muslims after 9/11,” and “Whether that includes the people who have instituted the surveillance practice in New York City – how can we know at this point?”
The Huffington Post reported that following the hearing, “plaintiffs and their lawyers expressed optimism that the appeals judges will overturn Martini’s ruling.”
“We definitely put a good foot forward,” said Farhaj Hassan, the lead plaintiff in the case. “Today was a very, very good day for America.“
LONDON, September 9, 2014 – British Muslim extremist Anjam Choudary appeared on CNN’s ” Reliable Sources” Sunday morning. During his interview, Choudary defended his radical religious views and even went as far as referring to President Obama as a tyrant.
When pressed, Choudary refused to condemn the killing of American journalists by the Islamic State saying, journalists are “the propaganda machine of the Obama administration”; and claiming that Muslims in the region are not making distinctions between (Western) civilians and military “because they see that the general populace of America have revoted for people like Obama and Bush who continue their policy of tyranny in the area.”. You can hear his full interview with CNN’s Brian Stelter here:
Wednesday hundreds of thousands converged on Washington D.C. for marches relating to the anniversary of 9/11. The first march was the Million Muslim March, which later changed its name to “Million American March Against Fear”. The group was able to get a permit for their march from the US National Park Service. Though in actuality, only a few hundred people actually turned out and many of those may not have been Muslims at all.
Simultaneously, as our Kristin Tate reported, another group was denied a permit request by the NPS. That group called ” 2 Million Bikers” wanted to ride through Washington, DC on September 11th. They wanted to do this to honor all of the victims killed during the 2001 terrorist attacks. They did arrive in D.C. and as you can see from the photos, the turnout was very large.
Throughout the day yesterday and into today headlines are pitting the bikers against the Muslims. Why would NPS discriminate against the bikers but support the Muslims? Why would Muslims be so insensitive to march in D.C. on September 11th?
This is the left/right game. Don’t fall for it!
The reality here is that both of these groups have every right to march on Washington. Media on the right and left are working very hard today to pit these groups against each other. It is shameful. The reality is that American Muslims have every right to march on Washington for whatever message they want to express. Similarly, the bikers have a right to do the same.
The problem between these groups is not that they both want to march on Washington, the problem is that the National Park Service believes they have the power to decide who can march and who cannot.
The First amendment protects our right to speech and our right to peaceably assemble. The Bill of Rights does not state that your right to do so can be suspended because of traffic concerns or because an area might become too crowded.
When a right can be taken away simply because the National Park Service believes that it can or because local, state or federal lawmakers believe that it can, then it wasn’t a right to begin with. It is a privilege.
The right to assemble and the right to air our grievances is not a privilege. But that is the game we find ourselves playing when one group of citizens begins to argue that another group has been given “privilege”.
Under the Constitution, the American Muslims who marched on Washington D.C. need no permit and no “privilege” to make their voice heard. Under the Constitution the American bikers who rolled into D.C. do not need that privilege either.
The reality of what happened in D.C. yesterday is that both groups suffered a violation of their Constitutional rights. Both have an equal right under rule of law. By making one group (Muslims) obtain a permit and by denying a permit to the other (bikers), every one of those Americans had their First Amendment rights trampled.
The US National Park Service (NPS) gave a permit to Muslims to march on the National Mall on September 11th.
The Muslim group originally called the event the “Million Muslim March,” but later changed the name to “Million American March Against Fear” after receiving criticism. On the group’s website, it claims the mission of the rally was to establish “Humanity and Justice through a Civil Rights Movement.”
Many Americans were outraged that a large group of Muslims would hold a seemingly self-righteous rally on a day like September 11.
But this is America, and we all have the right to free speech… Right?
Well, apparently it is not that simple.
NPS denied a permit request from a group of bikers who wanted to ride through Washington, DC on September 11th. They wanted to do this to honor all of the victims killed during the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Why would the Muslims be granted a permit, but not the bikers?
NPS claimed they denied the bikers’ permit request for technical reasons.
A spokeswoman for the NPS, Carol Johnson, said, “They looked at [the permit application] and decided it would cause a severe service disruption of traffic both inside and outside the area around the mall. The size of the event, we can’t manage. We couldn’t provide adequate park police services and park police escorts and it would require a lot of road closures so it was denied.”
She jokingly said, “[I] wish the bikers would leave me alone.”
Although the NPS denied the bikers a permit, they roared into DC anyway. The group wrote on their Facebook page, “We have our constitutional rights and we shall ride!”
Still, the bikers made it clear they had no intentions of confronting the Muslims (and they didn’t). “We’re here for 9-11. We are going to have a peaceful ride,” said Belinda Bee, the national ride coordinator.
And that’s exactly what they did.
Here are some photos from the event:
While the NPS was not explicitly denying the bikers’ a right to free speech in this case, their reason for denying the group a permit is certainly suspicious. The federal government seems to make it more difficult for non-liberal groups. Mere months ago, it was revealed that the IRS purposefully targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Do you think the Muslim group was given favoritism by the NPS? Let us know in the comments section below.