Taking the Jihad Temperature - A Gathering Storm Special Series- INTIMIDATION – Part 3

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will not notice the rise in temperature and will eventually boil. 

The Islamists are boiling our frog and though this blog and hundreds like it record almost daily the rise in the Jihad temperature, unless we see how far and fast the temperature has risen, we will not know how far along our boiling has progressed. 

So, the Gathering Storm will be posting only once a week but these weekly posts will take the Jihadist temperature by looking back at news and events over the last two years. Over the next several weeks in the areas of intimidation, infiltration, disinformation and thoseappeasers and apologists who either knowingly or unknowingly advance the Jihad agenda, the Gathering Storm will show how far our frog has been boiled. 

By seeing the boiling water around us, we can see how far the boiling has progressed. 

The good news is that we are noticing that the water is getting warmer. There is a glimmer of awareness here - a glimmer of hope there. But we have a long way to go. 

Here’s this week’s look back AGAIN at the rising Jihad temperature of INTIMIDATION !! And remember – this is just a sampling of Jihadist Intimidation. More to follow.

The Price of Moderation

Where are the Muslim Moderates? Hiding for their lives.

A Labour MP is stepping down after receiving death threats over his role in bringing three racist killers to justice. Mohammad Sarwar, who became Britain's first Muslim MP in 1997, said he feared the lives of his family were also in jeopardy.

He was instrumental in arranging the extradition of Imran Shahid, Zeeshan Shahid and Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq after they fled to Pakistan. The three were jailed for life last year for the abduction and racially aggravated murder of teenager Kriss Donald, who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in Glasgow in 2004.

A brave Muslim doing his duty. His reward?

Mr Sarwar, 54, told the Daily Record: "Life is not the same, to be honest with you, since I brought them back. I was subjected to threats. "I was told they wanted to punish my family and make a horrible example of my son - they would do to him what they did to Kriss Donald. I received threats to my life, to murder my sons, to murder my grandchildren."

The trio fled to Pakistan shortly after Kriss's murder in February 2004, and were brought back after 18 months of negotiations involving the MP and British and Pakistani authorities. The killers were the main players in a violent gang that terrorised the Pollokshields area of Glasgow. Mr Sarwar said he recognised the risks of trying to bring them to justice but knew that "it was the right thing to do".

Will the government hunt down the thugs who threaten a man doing his job for the government? Don’t hold your breath.

Dunkin Donuts Islamophobic or Doing Good Business?

We see this more and more. Muslims want to play by their own rules even after agreeing to follow ours. Some Muslims whine about being ‘oppressed’ in non-Muslim countries because they can’t practice some religious ritual that goes counter to a 21^st century society. They believe they can accept a contract with the infidel and then change the rules. When the infidel cries ‘foul’ – they draw the Islamophobic race card.

Now it’s Dunkin’ Donuts turn.

“A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.”

This is a pile of horse manure. This is not a civil rights case but a case of business law. Read on.

For many years the donut chain had permitted Walid Elkhatib to refrain from including bacon, sausage or pork in breakfast sandwich offerings, because of religious scruples, but in 2002 it insisted that he carry the line with meat included, and he sued on religious-discrimination grounds.

Why the insistence? Is Dunkin’ Donuts being a hard ass? No.

He [Elkhatib] wanted to go ahead and keep selling the sandwiches without putting meat in them, which would presumably have implications for what franchising strategists call the consistency of the customer experience.

A franchise success is built on a readily identifiable ‘consistency of the customer experience’. Elkhatib refused to deliver it. He is in breach of a business contract. We’ve seen this before with the Minnesota Muslim cabbies and Target Muslim check out clerks who won’t handle pork. We must accommodate our business practices to Muslims – not the other way around.

If it’s against Elkhatib’s religion to sell products in a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise he shouldn’t have purchased one in the first place. But that’s not how the arrogant Muslim works. Like Burger King, he wants it his way and the rules don’t apply to him.

Kuala Lumpur Cracking Down on Bloggers

“The government has lost its patience with bloggers who break the law” said a Minister in the Prime Minister’s office of Kuala Lumpur.

And what law did the bloggers break? Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said the government would be taking legal action against bloggers who flagrantly belittled Islam or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

He told the Dewan Negara yesterday that three laws could be used against the bloggers: The Internal Security Act (ISA), Sedition Act and Section 121b of the Penal Code. Section 121b deals with offences against the authority of the king, ruler or Yang DiPertua Negeri and carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Speaking at the Malaysian Press Institute Press Awards Night here yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the government was deeply troubled by the growth of "irresponsible" alternative media.

"In the name of freedom, these websites allow the broadcast of slander, lies and swearing, the use of harsh, degrading language and racial slurs without regard for the reader or those concerned," he said.

In the name of freedom. Get that?

"Even though the government has been tolerant of anti-government positions and criticisms on the Internet, we are very concerned about statements that insult religion and reek of racism."

Ah yes. He must have picked up that argument from our loyal Lefties quick to play the race card.

Najib said webmasters and web journalists were not exempted from the laws of the country and the government was duty-bound to protect the peace. "We will not permit any party to disturb the nation’s harmony and cause unease among the community," he said.

Sure. Make freedom of speech illegal and you’ll have peace.

Nazri said the government was looking at formulating new laws allowing it to monitor and act against offending bloggers. He said the proposed legislation was not intended to strangle the freedom of the Internet.

Oh! Really!

"This is to put a stop to the freedom to lie in the blogosphere.

It’s OK if the government lies. Excuse me while I gag.

So what’s got Mr. Aziz’s panties all in a bunch? Was it a call to anarchy by bloggers? Or perhaps a plan to over through the government posted in detail on a blogger’s site? Nope.

Senators used the opportunity to criticise bloggers against the backdrop of a police report lodged on Monday at the Dang Wangi police station by Umno information chief Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib against the Malaysia Today website for insulting the king and Islam.

Nazri told senators that writings describing Islam as "a big lie fabricated by Arabs who had put a huge rock (the Kaabah) in the middle of the desert were not only ill-mannered but could provoke anger among Muslims".

Oh those poor oppressed Muslims – even in Kuala Lumpur. Opinions freely stated can not be tolerated by upstanding Muslims. Riots anyone?

He said the hatred perpetuated by bloggers was spread further by those who read them.

Correct – and so is the truth. That’s the power of blogs.

Extra Protection for Ex-Muslim

What an insecure religion Islam must be that its believers can not only take the slightest criticism but if one of their flock bolts, they resort to threats of violence in response. This patterns we have seen time and time gain yet hear nothing about it from moderate Muslims who continuously claim that Islam is a peaceful religion willing to live side by side with all others.

Here’s another example of the tolerance of Islam.

Once again, a critic of Islam has been placed under heavy security in the Netherlands. Ehsan Jami, a local council member for the Dutch Labour Party and a former Muslim, has been afforded extra protection since Monday this week, on the orders of the National Counter-Terrorism Coordinator. The local politician, who also heads a committee established to fight for the interests of former Muslims, was the target of a violent, physical attack outside a supermarket near his home in Voorburg last Saturday.

Ehsan Jami was knocked to the ground and kicked by a group of three men: two young Moroccans and one Somali. During the incidents, his attackers called him a 'filthy homo' and 'filthy traitor'. Mr Jami's advisor, Afshin Ellian, later pointed out that it was not the first time he had been physically attacked.

But it’s not just Jami that needs protection from the religion of peace and tolerance. Afshin Ellian, an academic and columnist, is also being protected by the authorities. Both are in good company.

Ehsan Jami now shares the dubious honour of enjoying the same kind of security given to other threatened individuals, including former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali who ultimately decided to move abroad. Meanwhile, the question has been asked in various quarters as to why Mr Jami has only now been given serious protection, especially in light of the fact that his address and telephone number have been available on an Islamic website for at least two weeks.

The Labour Party councillor had already attracted considerable publicity with his critical remarks about Islam. These have included his comparing the Prophet Muhammad with Osama bin Laden and describing some passages in the Koran as 'backward'.

Now that deserves a beating. Don’t it?

Ehsan Jami operates through his committee to argue the case of people who have turned their backs on the Muslim faith. Since the attack, he has made it known that he would prefer to remain indoors for the time being, but that he has no intention of staying silent or toning down his comments about Islam: "I will go on fighting for freedom of religion, because even though they can, of course, harm my body, they can never do that to my ideology."

The Netherlands is a perfect case of dhimmitude cowering from the fear of offending Muslims.

"We ought never to forget that people like former Amsterdam councillor and current deputy minister Ahmed Aboutaleb and Amsterdam City Mayor Job Cohen have also been threatened, and you really can't accuse them of making any harsh statements against Islam. Many opinion-shapers and satirists are simply scared to death of writing anything about Islam."

Afshin Ellian has made a telling remark about the atmosphere in the Netherlands.

In his view, the climate of intolerance in the Netherlands has hardened in recent years, and he says that such incidents put him in mind of the atmosphere in places such as the country of his birth, Iran, or Pakistan.

OK. Let me get this straight. Muslims flee Islamic countries so they can practice their religion freely then create the same atmosphere of fear and hate in the adopted country. That does not make sense – does it?

But maybe this does.

A radical imam teaches young Muslims from birth that their particular brand of Islam is superior to all others and that Allah commands that they impose their beliefs on the entire world. Perhaps they are not fleeing oppressions but are in fact an invading army that seeks to bring their form of oppression to other countries. Not willing to assimilate and bath in the freedoms of religion in host countries but to dominate their host culture.

This behavior is a true sign of the enemy we face. The ideology of Islamism. This and many other signs of intimidation both violent and political needs to be recognized as an alien invasion intent on overthrowing our culture and replacing it with a 7^th century one and must be offensively - not defensively - resisted.

But the vast majority still refuses to see the threat. It's time we go on the offensive with political Islam.

Muslim’s Outraged Again

The Channel 4 exposes ruffled a lot of feathers with their ‘distorted’ documentary exposing the radical rabble rousing at London mosques.

A “distorted” Channel 4 documentary about Muslim extremism that enraged community leaders and resulted in a fruitless police investigation will now be the subject of an Ofcom inquiry. West Midlands Police made a formal complaint over a Channel 4 Dispatches film that participants and race crime prosecutors claim was edited in a misleading manner.

Undercover Mosque, broadcast in January, featured footage shot at a number of mosques, including one at which a preacher praised the Taleban for killing British soldiers. Channel 4 said that the programme revealed how a message of hatred and segregation was being spread by some Islamic preachers.

But it seems those very same preachers were – TA DA! – quoted out of context.

After investigating 56 hours of footage, West Midlands Police said that it had been advised by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the broadcaster for stirring up racial hatred, but that selective editing had helped to create an impression of Muslim hatred.

Let’s look at that defense of ‘selected editing’ according to the preachers themselves.

Abu Usamah, a preacher at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, said he was shocked when he saw himself depicted. Mr Usamah was shown saying: “If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that is my freedom of speech, isn’t it?”

Umm...selective editing? Isn’t this what he said? He admits it. But no…..

He later said that he was explaining an opinion featured in some books, and not one that he believed.

Wait a minute. He was quoting books? Which books? The Koran? The Hadith?

Mr Usamah said that the mosque had a tradition of teaching a moderate version of Islam. “To try and demonise the efforts of these people by taking their comments out of context was shocking,” he said.

Out of context? What he said was pretty clear to me.

A senior imam filmed calling for the creation of a British Islamic state under Sharia also claimed that his comments were take out of context.

And in what context would “calling for the creation of a British Islamic state under Sharia” not mean what it says it means? Can the imam explain another context that would not mean what he said?

Several speakers were clearly shown making abhorrent and extreme comments. This was a thorough and detailed one-hour documentary, made over nine months, which allowed these comments to be seen in a fuller context.”

Here are some more words taken ‘out of context’ from the Channel 4 documentary.

Abu Usamah: “They will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be from among them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is approaching”

Dr Ijaz Mian: “You have to live like a state-within-a-state until you take over”

Abu Usamah: “Why give up your religion and your long legacy of Islam to please someone who is an enemy to you?”

Abu Usamah on Osama Bin Laden : “He’s better than a million George Bushes, he’s better than a thousand Tony Blairs, because he’s a Muslim”

Channel 4 said it believed that Ofcom would exonerate the broadcaster. Kevin Sutcliffe, commissioning editor for Dispatches, said: “We believe the comments made in the film speak for themselves”.

Of course they do. Any 5^th grader can tell you that. Or has the language of our mother country been so degenerated that it has ceased to have any meaning at all?

More of the Tolerance of Islam

We just can’t get enough examples of Muslim tolerance these days. Here’s another one.

A group of Muslim protesters in India has attacked an exiled Bangladeshi author and feminist at a book launch in the country's south.

That’s right. ATTACKED. Muslim whining is no longer good enough to silence critics.

Lawmakers and members of a Muslim political party (All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen) stormed the press club in the city of Hyderabad Thursday, shouting, overturning furniture and throwing objects at controversial novelist Taslima Nasreen. Nasreen escaped unhurt with the help of police.

And what did Nasreen say that got their burkas in a bunch?

The author and feminist has criticized Islam and other religions for oppressing people, especially women. Several of her books have been banned in Bangladesh. Nasreen fled her home country in 1994 when Islamist extremists threatened to kill her. The Bangladeshi author still faces death threats.

Ah, yes. The tolerance of Islam. And what do we hear from that invisible group of Muslim moderates about this behavior? Nada.

News from the Dhimmi Front in Europe

The BBC has abandoned plans to screen a fictional terrorist attack by Muslim suicide bombers and German journalist and historian of the Third Reich, provokes a wave of indignation and accusations from Muslims.

First the BBC.

The BBC was to include a fictional attack by Muslim suicide bombers in their primetime drama Casualty but had to drop the reference to Muslims after internal clashes over whether the highly sensitive subject matter would cause them offense.

The BBC was in a dilemma since they had already started filming. What to do? What to do?

YES!! Find another group of terrorists! Their choice?

BBC drama executives were keen to push the storyline and may even have started filming, a source close to the production told The Observer. But they were overruled by the corporation's editorial guidelines department, which ordered that the episode be changed so that the Muslim characters were replaced by animal rights extremists.

Umm….excuse me? Has there been a rash of PETA bombers in Britain and has the BBC be suppressing the news in deference to pet lovers?

In the substitute story, a double episode to be shown over a weekend, a bomb explodes on a bus after being planted by animal rights militants, leaving the Holby City Hospital's Emergency Department to deal with the bloody aftermath.

This change in antagonists did not sit well with Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative Party chairman who was seriously injured in the 1984 terrorist bombing by the IRA in Brighton.

'People were perfectly free during the violence in Northern Ireland to produce dramas about terrorism for which presumably they might have been accused of stereo-typing IRA terrorists or even suggesting that all Catholics were terrorists,' he said. 'What is the difference here? I fail to see why sauce for the goose shouldn't be sauce for the gander. The BBC exists in a world of New Labour political correctness.'

Right on!!

Now on to Germany.

The plans of an Islamic association to build an imposing "Central Mosque" in Cologne are the subject of ongoing controversy in Germany. The mosque design features a giant 35 meter high dome flanked by two 55 meter high minarets. Much of the initial public opposition to the mosque project was organized by "Pro Cologne": a political movement that local authorities have classified as "right-wing extremist" -- a common euphemism in Germany for neo-Nazi groups. Last May, however, the controversy over the Cologne mosque project took on a new dimension when the renowned German journalist and historian of the Third Reich, Ralph Giordano, joined the ranks of the mosque critics. Giordano argued that the mosque project sent the "wrong signal" and claimed that the integration of Muslims in Germany had "failed." As proof for his claim, he pointed to the presence of fully veiled women on the streets of Cologne, whom he described as resembling "human penguins." "I do not want to see women wearing burqas on German streets!" Giordano exclaimed.

Now such ‘truthing’ does not sit well with the multiculturalists in Germany.

Giordano's remarks provoked a wave of indignation and accusations that he was making common cause with Nazis and racists.

So tell the truth and you’re racist. Muslims are a race? How silly of me.

These accusations were made all the more piquant by the fact that the 84-year-old Giordano's own first-hand experience of Nazi racial persecution as the son of a Jewish mother is the core theme of his writings. But according to the Turkish-born author and Cologne resident Arzu Toker, there are also many opponents of the mosque project to be found among the very people whom Germany's Islamic associations are presumed to represent: namely, the some 3 million or so residents of Germany, the majority of them of Turkish descent, who are commonly described as "Muslims," whether they practice Islam or not. Toker, a critic of the increasing influence of the Islamic associations in German public life, is the co-chair of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims of Germany.

You can read the discussion between the two here. It’s a good insight into both the dhimmi attitude in Germany and those that are resisting it.

An Infidel Asks a Question - How Dare He

Always on Watch has already done a fine post on this event. After reading the article in the post she referenced, I found this little give and take – mostly take – between one of the candidates and the Muslims at the park.

Briefly, “close to 1,000 members of Northern Virginia's Muslim community packed a corner of a Fairfax County park in the wilting heat yesterday for emotional, and sometimes tense, encounters with a procession of public officials and political candidates eager to court their votes”.

I found this one encounter very informative and a reflection of what the Muslim population in Northern Virginia really thinks.

The afternoon's most dramatic moment came when Loudoun County Supervisor Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling), who has led efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants, took the microphone to make a rambling appeal to the Muslim voters in his eastern Loudoun district. Sterling is the home of one of the region's largest mosques.

"I stand with you," he shouted. But he drew scattered boos when he demanded to know whether those in the crowd "come in peace" and whether they pledge allegiance to the United States.

Scattered boos? Not approving applause? After all, aren’t Muslims supposed to be Americans first? Now what would bring DelGaudio to ask such a question? Could it be – low and behold – recent Muslim terrorism?

So what DID get the 1000 strong Muslim’s roaring approval?

Moments later, Maryland Del. Saqib Ali (D-Montgomery), the first Muslim elected to a state or districtwide office in the Washington area, answered Delgaudio with a sharp rebuke that brought a roar of approval from the crowd.

"Our values are the values of tolerance and inclusion," Ali said. "Mr. Delgaudio . . . you do not reflect our values, even if you say you do."

HUH!! Asking if American Muslims are true Americans does not reflect Muslims values? What’s wrong with this picture? Oh, yes – they hold the values of tolerance and inclusion unless you ask if they are true Americans.

You can just imagine the next interchange now.

“Oh excuse, Mr. Muslim. I know this is a sensitive question but, if you don’t mind, may I ask you a question. If it upsets you I understand fully and for the life of me I can’t see why I would want to know. Here’s my question (Head bowed in submission) Are you truly Americans?

“How dare you little dhimmi ask such a question of our tolerant and inclusive religion. Back in your place DelGaudio!

‘nuff said.

 

Muslim Student Association – None Dare Call It Hate

Jeff B. over at Protein Wisdom ran across this little piece of un-reported news missed by the MSM (Surprise. Surprise.) but picked up by LGF. Jeff wrote:

I’m interested to hear what the diversity czars and the risk-averse university bureaucrats have to say about this kind of identitarian political activism — not because I’m particularly bothered by it (the video shows the MSA for the repressive ideologues and wannabe zealous thugs they are, and frankly, I find it refreshing to see such free speech aired on a university campus for a change) — but rather because a university-sanctioned group is performing such confrontational activism on a university campus, where “hate” is purportedly disallowed.

Wow, what makes this report even better is the little video at LGF that actually documents the harassment – videoed by an MSA student himself.

This is what the Muslim Student Association is doing on American campuses, in a video apparently shot by an MSA member at the University of Texas at San Antonio using the name “dawahworks.”

The title of the video is: The Missing Hijab 2 & the Jew.

You’re not going to believe this, as he thuggishly harasses a female Muslim student to explain why she isn’t wearing the hijab, and justifies forcing it on all women with quotes from the Koran.

And it gets worse, when he moves on to a Jewish student. The sense of menace is almost palpable. “What would you think is the biggest accomplishment of the Jews in America? 9/11?”

Jeff goes on.

This puts diversity advocates and university administrators in quite a bind, I should think. Because to “tolerate” the political activism of the MSA, the university must simultaneously allow for “hatred” against women and Jews (the latter not really much of a problem, of course — provided the wretched Zionists don’t threaten to sue). Unless, that is, one is able to alter what constitutes “hate” by simultaneously altering the feminist narrative to conclude that Muslim women who “Americanize” are somehow traitors to their own cultural foundationalism, and so shouldn’t be granted the protections of American women who are treated as kitchen and laundry room chattel. Which argument, here, would manifest itself as nothing much more than deafening silence from the Women’s Studies Department.

Sadly, none of this anti-intellectual two-stepping is at all implausible (or even unlikely) — particularly when one is forced by one’s progressivism to navigate through the minefield that identity politics and multiculturalism combine to create once protected groups are pitted against one another.

I seriously doubt that the University will see this type of harassment as a case for hate but that’s the way it is in the 1984 of the politically correct where black is white, up and is down and Freedom is Slavery (dhimmitude) and Ignorance is Strength (being politically correct) – and where peace is mistakenly seen as the absent of war and not the presence of justice.

Legal Jihad Exposed

Muslim employment discrimination suits have increased dramatically since 1990 with the biggest increase after 9/11. The year 2007 is on track to have the largest number of Muslim discrimination opinions in history.

According to the IASC:

In terms of their geographic source, courts in New York, California, Illinois, Texas and Washington D.C. were most common jurisdictions issuing Muslim employment decisions. In fact, the total cases from those five jurisdictions constitute about one-half of the total.

The most remarkable thing about this list is the exponential growth of Muslim employment discrimination cases. Between the Rollins case in 1974 and the end of 1979, there were a total of six (6) Muslim employment discrimination opinions (approximately one per year.) In the 1980s, there were 17 (a little over one per year).

Now here are some interesting facts from the study.

The acceleration of Muslim employment discrimination claims followed the first World Trade Center attacks in 1993. Around this time, Americans were being killed in Israel in acts of terror perpetrated by the Palestinian rejectionist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with such incidents receiving heightened attention in the U.S. media. Through the end of the decade, there were several more Islamic attacks on U.S. interests abroad, and al Qaida began to be an entity known to many Americans. Then came 9/11.

Why would Islamic terrorist attacks result in more claims of employment discrimination against Muslims? There are a number of possible theories, which neatly fall along a continuum of two diametrically opposed views.

One on end is what I will refer to as the "Innocent Muslim Bystander" theory: Islamic terrorist attacks against the U.S. increase discrimination against innocent Muslim employees here, who are distrusted in the workplace and wrongly punished for of the actions of a few radicals who claim to act in the name of their religion. This theory is the narrative advanced by such groups as the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim civil rights organization.

On the other end of the continuum is what I will call the "Political Islam" theory, which is the narrative pushed by a number of prominent commentators: Muslims in the U.S. saw the steady increase in attacks that culminated in 9/11 as an opportunity to press their advantage and achieve greater Islamicization of American workplaces, even while disavowing violent jihad, and their employment discrimination push is one aspect of such effort.

Any doubts to the overall strategy of political Islam? Legal intimidation, as I and others have written about time and time again, is only one form of jihad. The others are media, demographic, institutional, education, cultural, financial, criminal, and economic jihad.

I believe the question of which of these two competing views is more valid is easily answered by examining one factor: whether the growth in Muslim-initiated employment discrimination claims since the 1990s has resulted in a concomitant increase in actual judicial findings of religious discrimination. After all, either the "Innocent Muslim Bystander" or the "Political Islam" theory would explain the growth in the number of claims, while only the former would explain a growth in the rate of successful claims (measured by the percentage of successful claims to total claims.)

Here's the upshot: Muslim employment discrimination cases are rising at an alarming rate. The number of judicial opinions that were formerly issued in an entire decade are now coming out in a single month. Meanwhile, the rate of successful Muslim employment discrimination claims remains extremely low. In fact, the total number of judicial opinions in which courts have affirmed Muslim employment discrimination is 12. That is not a typo - the total count is a single dozen, in U.S. history. How many total claims? Around 300 resulting in court decisions. I believe that this astounding fact shows that there is a growing effort to perpetuate the myth that Muslims in the U.S. are treated poorly. The more interesting question is why this type of religious discrimination claim is on the rise. Perhaps we should look to the Muslim civil rights organizations for answers.

All you’ll get from CAIR and other Islamist organizations is their plan to impose Islam on the USA and implement Sharia law.

Those are examples of the rising Jihad temperature of for this week. When seen in groups like this, the slow boil becomes obvious.

Next week another look back at the rising Jihad temperature of Islamist INFILTRATION!!

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.