Sharia Law For Everyone

PUBLISHED: 8:45 PM 5 Jun 2018

National Security Council Addition Alarms Muslim Advocates

When the words are inconveniently true, the left uses a standard tactic, assassinate the speaker’s character.

Fleitz actually believes extremist Muslim factions share a “radical world-view,” of destroying modern society to create a global caliphate. That way they can “impose sharia law on everyone.”

The National Security Council has a new member so controversial that Muslim civil rights advocate groups are ready to declare a jihad. Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz was confirmed on Friday as the council’s new chief of staff, earning his own personal bulls-eye in the media.

He actually believes extremist Muslim factions share a “radical world-view,” of destroying modern society to create a global caliphate. That way they can “impose sharia law on everyone.”

A year ago Fleitz made some remarks for a Breitbart News article that still have Muslims howling for his “racist” blood. When the words are inconveniently true, the left uses a standard tactic, assassinate the speaker’s character.

“There are some communities in the United States that have not assimilated,” Fleitz had the audacity to actually say in print. “I’m not concerned about Amish or Jewish communities,” he clarified. “There are enclaves of Muslim communities in Michigan and Minnesota that concern me.”

“The problem with these Muslim communities is that it is making them susceptible to this radical world-view that wants to destroy modern society, create a global caliphate, and impose sharia law on everyone on Earth.”

Fleitz even went so far over the line that he actually compared the U.S. enclaves with European ones, like in Britain where “Muslims are deliberately not assimilating, are being taught to hate British society.”

That policy incubates radicalism, he notes. The U.K. actually has a sharia law court that runs in parallel with official courts.

Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League issued a scathing statement.

“Fleitz’s senior leadership role with the Center for Security Policy, an Islamophobic, conspiracy-promoting organization, should automatically disqualify him from a position that deals with America’s most essential foreign policy and national security interests.”

Barack Obama spent the entire eight years of his administration bending over backwards to advance Islamic interests. Those days are over.

“People like Fleitz used to be on the fringes, but are now in power,” executive director of the Arab American Institute Maya Berry complains.

Formerly an analyst for the CIA, and most recently holding a senior vice president slot at the Center for Security Policy, Fleitz has considerable experience in the intelligence field.

The National Security Council is a special White House committee chaired by President Donald Trump.

It provides “the president’s main forum for advising him on foreign affairs and security issues.” Fleitz will serve as the panel’s executive secretary and also as deputy assistant to President Trump.

Practically every Arab or Muslim activist group has been running around issuing statements since the appointment was announced. The Arab American Institute, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, even the Southern Poverty Law Center is jumping on the bandwagon.

“This move is destructive,” says Rula Aoun.

The executive director for the Arab American Civil Rights League complains that having someone like Fleitz in charge, “whose knowledge is grounded in nothing but conspiracy theories,” is “detrimental to our foreign and domestic policies.” Policies like implementing sharia law.

“It’s scary to know that this individual is a close adviser to the president” he declares.

To take control of the narrative, Muslim advocates are quick to point out the “contributions” Muslims and Arab-Americans in general add to society.

“We have a rich, multicultural fabric in Michigan, including a large population of Muslims. People from all religious and ethnic backgrounds provide a special diversity that is part of Michigan’s heritage and our future,” a spokesman for the Michigan Governor’s office relays.

Fleitz used to work for John Bolton, who now serves as National Security Advisor. Bolton was the one to name Fleitz to the council. The pair worked together under George W. Bush in the State Department.

The National Security Council responded by calling the attacks nothing but standard rhetoric. “The attacks on Fred Fleitz as an Islamophobe are another attempt by some to paint the Trump administration with a broad anti-Muslim brush.”

There is absolutely nothing wrong. “Fleitz supports the president’s national security and foreign policies. He supervises a transparent, interagency process to present information and coordinate the presentation of policy options for the president and his National Security Council.”

The spokesman goes on to add, “the implication that he is in a position to promote a personal agenda is uninformed and scurrilous. The suggestion that Ambassador Bolton is convening an anti-Muslim cabal is untrue and despicable.”

Responding to Imam Mohammad Elahi’s remark “it looks like we still have a long way before we overcome the illness and ignorance related to Islamophobia,” the NSC spokesman replied, “Fleitz does not believe Muslims are trying to take over the US or infiltrate the government. He views prejudice and discrimination against any religion as deeply offensive.”

Fleitz isn’t blindly opposed to all Muslims, the spokesman insists, only the radicals. “Fleitz stands by his criticism of radical Islam as a global movement at war with modern society.”

At least one Muslim activist supports Fleitz openly. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy notes that detractors automatically assume being “anti-Islamist” is the same as being “anti-Islam.” The -ist at the end makes a big difference.

Being anti-Islam means broadly prejudiced against any and all Muslims, which is not the case with Fleitz. “I’ve known Fred for years,” Jasser confirms. “I’ve never gotten a sense from him that he’s prejudiced against Muslims.”

Fleitz is wary of radical “Islamists” who refuse to adapt to western ways and believe the constitution is secondary to sharia law.

According to Jasser, “the groups attacking Fleitz have grievance narratives that dominate their platforms and avoid the necessary reforms we need to have.”