Why Does Mainstream Media Ignore Islamization in the US?

The nail bomb in New York City as well as other attacks by people from Muslim countries, plus the fraud in Minnesota, are a loud warning about who should be allowed into the United States. People of other religions do violent attacks and fraud, but Muslims do the majority of both.

This fact should be loudly proclaimed by media sources, but “America’s mainstream media mostly ignored Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s detailed warning about the growing threat of Islamization in the United States.” This warning “was issued a few days before Christmas” 2025 at a Turning Point USA event. Mark Tapscott reported the following: 

Conservative media like The Daily Caller devoted significant space to the speech, but a search of The New York Times website, for example, turned up no references to the former Democrat congresswoman’s remarks despite the fact that it included this stunningly direct admonition:

“There is a threat to our freedom that is not often talked about enough, and it is the greatest near and long-term threat to both our freedom and our security, and that is the threat of Islamist ideology. It is propagated by people who not only do not believe in freedom; their fundamental ideology is antithetical to the foundation that we find in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is that our Creator endowed upon us inalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Gabbard pointed to a conference earlier in 2025 in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations “issued a call to action to use the American legal and political systems to overthrow the United States government. This Islamist ideology is a direct threat to our freedom because, at its core, it is a political ideology that seeks to create a global Caliphate that governs here in the U.S., in America, threatening Western civilization – [it is] governance by Sharia law.”

Sharia law is the civil and religious law prescribed by the Islamic religion’s Quran to regulate public and private life. Among much else, Sharia sanctions husbands treating wives as slaves, justifies Islamic men raping non-Islamic women, requires the death penalty for those who identify as homosexual, death by stoning for adulterers, and forces non-Muslims to convert or face death by beheading.

By failing to recognize and take decisive action to defeat this threat, Gabbard predicted, “we will find ourselves in a place where many European countries and countries like Australia have found themselves. Countries where you can get arrested for praying silently on a street corner, as happened in the U.K. countries where you can be arrested for putting up a social media post.”

“In places like Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, clerics are openly pushing this Islamist ideology, trying to recruit and radicalize young people. This is already underway in places like Houston. This is not something that may possibly happen. It is already happening here within our borders. Paterson, New Jersey, is proud to call themselves the first Muslim city. They are working to implement in their own governments these Islamic principles that are forced on people through the use of laws or violence,” Gabbard said.

The big mainstream media outlets like the Times weren’t talking about Gabbard’s warning last year, but other people across the nation have been and are now talking and acting.

As The Washington Stand recently reported, the newly organized Sharia-Free America Caucus in the House of Representatives was announced the same week as Gabbard’s address but has since quickly swelled its membership to 43 members, an unusually swift recruitment success … [without a complete pitch being made to enlist members].

Among those joining the caucus was Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, whose district stretches from Oklahoma’s southern border almost to the far-North Dalas suburbs. Gill … pointed to Ndiaga Diagne, the naturalized U.S. citizen from Senegal who murdered three people and wounded more than a dozen in Austin, Texas, in the early morning hours of March 1.

“That was somebody who clearly had no business being in America, who was wearing a sweatshirt that said, ‘Property of Allah’ and a tee-shirt with an Iranian flag, who was clearly an Islamist terrorist. The American people are waking up and saying why in the world are these people in my community,” Gill said.

“The problem is across the country, and there are particular epicenters that include the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, Minnesota, and then a few other localities and states, but this is fundamentally an immigration issue that needs to be tackled on the federal level,” Gil continued.

Traditionally, American immigration policy required new arrivals to assimilate fully, to adopt and support this country’s political principles of freedom of speech and religion, learn the language, and become independent, productive citizens.

“That hasn’t happened for a long time,” Gill said. “Political Islam is incompatible with the American way of life. We should not be importing people from the Islamic world. It is idiotic and suicidal.” ….

Asked about reports of growing numbers of Muslim candidates seeking local public offices in Texas, Gill said he was told recently by a constituent, “We ought to be aware that it’s happening everywhere. I can tell you in my district in one of the small towns, one of the very small towns, I was speaking to a city official in the past three weeks who was telling me they’ve got issues where there are Islamic centers popping up and who are wanting to blast calls to prayer. This is in rural North Texas. This isn’t big-city Dallas, this is happening everywhere and the time to stop it is now,” Gill declared.

 

What Is Holding Up the SAVE America Act?

The fight to get the SAVE America Act has escalated. Reuters reported that President Donald Trump threatened to not sign any other legislation until the SAVE America Act is on his desk.

The Republican-led House of Representatives passed the bill in February. However, it is a difficult battle in the Senate which is also narrowly controlled by Republicans. The Senate filibuster rule requires 60 votes to pass, and Democrats continue to refuse to vote for it.

Trump wants this bill passed, and he is pressuring Congress to get it done. He previously threatened to “impose similar voter eligibility rules through executive action, but parts of a similar executive order were blocked by a federal judge in 2025.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) says that he supports the bill, but he has not taken any action to weaken filibuster rules in the Senate to get it passed. However, there is some talk that the Senate race in Texas may exert some pressure on him.

Democratic Party leaders say the legislation attempts to suppress the vote and undermine their electoral chances at a time when they are favored by independent analysts to take control of the House.

There are questions as to what holding out will do for Democrats when more than 80% of Americans support such a bill. Democrat comments make it sound like they want illegal aliens to vote in federal elections.

Who Is Victor Davis Hanson?

My VIP for this week is Victor Davis Hanson who is recovering from major cancer surgery to remove a malignant tumor from his lung. Recovery has taken a little longer because there were complications, including emergency surgery for an arterial bleed. The word is that he is recovering well as well as grateful for all the support that he has received during his recovery.

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Hanson discusses “Trump’s ‘Wars of Reckoning’ Send a Message to Iran, China, and Beyond.” 

Hanson is a historian, and he sees current events through the lens of history. He has watched how Trump runs a war and says that there is “a general pattern” for “a Trump way of war.”

·        [Geostrategic]

One thing that’s central to all of his action is they’re geostrategic. Pressuring the Panamanians to divorce themselves from China. Making sure the Venezuelan oil does not go to Russia or China by changing the government and kidnapping, capturing, Nicolas Maduro.

Things like that suggest that the current Iranian operation has targeted China, but it’s a major supplier of Chinese oil. China’s one of the biggest, if not the biggest, supplier of consumer goods, material goods to Iran. It supplies weaponry to Iran, and Iran has become a client more of China now than Russia. And it may be lost to China as Venezuela was, and maybe Panama was.

·        [Settling Old Scores]

You’re starting to see a pattern. These are wars of reckoning. People say, “Well, why are we attacking Iran?” and Trump’s way of reasoning, he’s settling up old scores. Panama was getting away with murder through a previous administration, maybe including his own, by stationing or allowing the Chinese to have strategic locations on the Panama Canal.

It was time to say, “No more.” Maduro was getting away with literally murder. Sending drugs, working with the cartels into the United States, sending hardened criminals into the United States as well, illegal aliens. And it was time to say, “You’re not going to cause a Castroite Latin American Communist Revolution. We’re going to stop it.”

And it was past time in Trump’s way of thinking. All of these wars are in that way. Same thing with Iran. They have killed more Americans, as we all have been told, than any other terrorist clique or operation. Going back even before the Iran-Iraq war, before our incursions in the Gulf War.

At the very beginning that government was birthed on the idea of taking American hostages and then subsequently blowing up our embassy, blowing up Marine barracks, involvement in Khobar Towers, using proxies like Hezbollah to hijack planes, assassinate Americans.

It was time, in other words, to even up the score. These take place during negotiations.

·        [Negotiation]

Notice that Trump was negotiating with Iranians during the summer hit on their nuclear facilities. He was negotiating with them in this current war. He was negotiating with the Venezuelans, and that is his characteristic.

He’s saying to these different entities, “I want a peaceful solution.” And even if he didn’t want a peaceful solution, the idea that he is negotiating lessens the criticism that they are preemptive, or preventative, optional wars. In other words, he can say, “Well, I wanted to make peace, but the negotiations broke down.” 

[Top-Down Attacks]

Notice their top-down attacks. They go after Qasem Soleimani in the first term, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or they go after Maduro or they go after Ali Khamenei. The idea is, everybody in the world should be on notice…. Of course, there’s no nation-building….

·      [No cultural imperialism]

There’s no cultural imperialism. No desire to say we were going to make democracies all over the Middle East. We’re not going to do that, and therefore, we’re not going to have boots on the ground … unless emergencies.

·         [Weird Exit Strategy]

There’s a weird exist strategy too that Donald Trump has in all of these. He determines when the war starts and when it ends….

·         [No UN Involvement]

An eighth aspect of the Trump way of war: There’s no effort to go to the United Nations. No United Nations, no International Criminal Court, no EU consultation. … nobody talked about NATO….

·         [Showcases U.S. Arms]

Nine, there are show cases for U.S. arms…. Everybody’s talking about the greatest, biggest, strongest warship in the history of civilization, the Gerald R. Ford….

·         [America First]

And finally, there’s no, I don’t know how to put it, but he’s not hiding U.S. self-interest. Of course, he talks about it’ll be much better for the greater Middle East, but we wouldn’t have gone to war if it hadn’t been for U.S. interest.

And what is U.S. interest? We’re sick and tired of the Iranians attacking our allies, but more importantly, as the biggest killer of Americans. We don’t want them to hijack planes anymore. We don’t want them to stage assassination attempts in New York or in Washington against either dissidents or foreign entities like the Saudi ambassador.

We don’t like them to capture hostages and torture them. We don’t like them sending lethal arms to kill Americans as they did during the Iraq war. We don’t want them to kidnap people in foreign countries or in Iran and hold them as hostages. We’re just sick of it. And it’s in our interest, in Trump’s way of war, to end it….

… War doesn’t change because human nature is immutable….

But how do you do it? What are the tactics? What is the strategy? What is the weaponry? Have change, and no one has changed them more than Donald Trump.

 

When Does Protest Break the Law or Become Terrorism?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the question: when do constitutionally protected protests turn into crime or terrorism? Simon Hankinson asked, and then answered, this question in his article published at The Daily Signal.

When does protest start to break the law – or even become terrorism?

I’ll define terrorism as using violence to achieve political aims. Most criminals are not terrorists. So, who is? Let’s start with some easy ones.

The Irish Republican Army, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization all murdered and bombed military and civilian targets in pursuit of political goals. At the risk of oversimplifying, these were: ending British rule, establishing a Marxist-Leninist state, and creating a Palestinian state, respectively.

The goals of 1960s radical youth groups such as the Weather Underground in the U.S. and the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany were more vague; the overthrow of what they saw as the capitalist, imperialist, fascist countries they lived in; maybe world revolution. But still, terrorism.

Today, the Left intentionally makes things appear fuzzier. The 2020 demonstrations, looting, and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd were not terrorism. We saw plenty of violence, and it was clearly political, but there was not a unified, clearly articulated goal. There was no list of things that the government of Portland, or Minneapolis, or even the federal government could have conceded that would have ended the whole thing and sent everyone home. It was inchoate rage against a vague, “oppressive” system with no specific or achievable policy proposals.

Now let’s look at the recent organized demonstrations against immigration enforcement.

In much of the country, ICE is going about its business of enforcing federal law. It is arresting aliens with no right to be here, many of whom have serious criminal charges or convictions. The most crucial assistance ICE needs is for local jurisdictions to honor their “detainers.” This means handing over criminal suspects or convicts, once their criminal process is complete, to ICE for immigration process.

In some major jurisdictions that refuse to do this, we see street violence: Los Angeles, Portland, and most of all Minneapolis….

Much of the conduct we have seen in Minneapolis is not “free speech” protected by the First Amendment. The protesters are not attempting to change anyone’s mind through discourse when they bang on pots at 3 in the morning. They are trying to change policy through physical means….

Activists follow ICE agents in their vehicles, claiming to be “legal observers,” but they also cross into deliberate obstruction, which puts them at risk. It’s also a felony under federal law: anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal agent can be charged and sentenced to up to eight years – 20 if they hurt an officer.

What about real or self-appointed journalists?

On Jan. 18, a group of people, including ex-CNN personality Don Lemon, entered a Minneapolis church, uninvited, during a service. At an agreed point, they broke into protest chants. They reportedly impeded church members from worshipping, moving freely, or exiting the building. Protest leaders berated the pastor and some church members. They did not leave after being clearly told they were not welcome….

Churches are private property….

No one’s right to speak freely trumps another person’s right to private property or to worship God. If it did, then any person could enter another’s house, office, or property and stage a protest without limits….

Though he was obnoxious and unwelcome, Lemon was not violent. He is potentially liable for trespass, which is a local offence….

The Minneapolis church invaders are potentially liable for federal crimes under the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act [FACE Act] and even the Ku Klux Klan Act….

A federal court will decide if Lemon and others broke the law by attempting to coerce political action through force. While the punishment need not be severe if this is their first offence, we need to lay down a national marker at the limits of acceptable behavior when we disagree with others politically.

We cannot allow individuals to force others to accept their views….

How Have You Let God Prevail in Your Life?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Genesis 24-33 in a lesson titled “Let God Prevail.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

How do you secure for yourself a blessing from God? You might say that the account of Jacob, grandson of Abraham and Sarah, is the story of a man who learned the answer to that question. In a culture where the firstborn son received a birthright blessing, Jacob was born second, grasping the heel of his twin brother, Esau. The name “Jacob” means “supplanter”—one who replaces someone else. Jacob lived up to that name by trying, more than once, to supplant Esau as inheritor of the birthright blessing because Esau was unworthy of it (see Genesis 25:30-34; 26:34-35; 27:36). The result was discord in the family, and Jacob had to flee for his life into the wilderness.

Years later, God commanded Jacob to return home. On the way, Jacob, in humility, again sought a blessing from God. The scriptures describe this time as a “wrestle” for Jacob, and he declared that he would not give up “except thou bless me” (Genesis 32:26). Then came the lesson—and the blessing. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel—meaning, among other things, “let God prevail.” Israel learned that to receive God’s most valuable blessings, His covenant blessings, it’s not necessary to supplant someone else. His blessings aren’t purchased or seized or won. He gives them freely to all who live up to the name of Israel—who let God prevail in their lives.

The scripture block teaches numerous lessons, including the following: (1) Covenant marriage is essential to God’s eternal plan (Genesis 24); (2) I can value eternal things over temporal things (Genesis 25:29-34); (3) The covenants of the Lord’s house bring God’s power into my life (Genesis 28); (4) The Lord remembers me in my trials (Genesis 29:31-35; 30:1-24); (5) The Savior can heal my family (Genesis 32-33). This essay will discuss principle #5.

The story of Jacob and Esau is a story of forgiveness. Esau was the elder son who should have received the birthright. However, he sold his birthright to Jacob for a pot of porridge. Then their father Isaac confirmed with a priesthood blessing that the birthright belonged to Jacob.

The mother, Rebekkah, was afraid that Esau would kill Jacob, so she sent Jacob to live with her brother a long distance away. Jacob was there for at least fourteen years. Through some “palace intrigue” Jacob first married Leah, the older sister, and later married Rachel, the woman that he loved. Leah had lots of children, but Rachel did not have any. Therefore, Rachel gave her handmaid to Jacob as a wife to bear children for her. Then Leah gave her concubine to Jacob. Therefore, Jacob had four wives, twelve sons, and at least one daughter when he returned to Canaan. However, he was fearful of his brother Esau.

Jacob planned to give many animals to Esau to placate him, but he discovered that Esau was already a rich man and had forgiven his brother. The two men and their families lived in peace.

After telling the story of Jesus Christ healing the daughter of Jairus, President Howard W. Hunter taught the following. 

“And [Jairus] besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death.” This is typical of what happens frequently when a man comes to Christ, not so much for his own need, but because of the desperate need of a loved one. The tremor we hear in Jairus’s voice as he speaks of “My little daughter” stirs our souls with sympathy as we think of this man of high position in the synagogue on his knees before the Savior.

Then comes a great acknowledgement of faith: “I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.” These are not only the words of faith of a father torn with grief but are also a reminder to us that whatever Jesus lays his hands upon lives. If Jesus lays his hands upon a marriage, it lives. If he is allowed to lay his hands on the family, it lives. (Emphasis added.)

How Do We Protect the Mental Health of the Rising Generation?

Children and youth are stronger when they limit their time on social media, and strong members of the rising generation strengthen their families, communities, states, and nations. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TENN.) is working to get a bill into law to protect young users of social media. She recently called out Big Tech, specifically Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and accused “social media companies of harming young users.” 

The timing is interesting because Blackburn’s remarks come as “20-year-old Kaley G.M. is suing Meta and Google’s YouTube” in Los Angeles County Superior Court. “She accuses the companies of designing addictive and harmful platforms that have negatively impacted her mental health.” However, “Zuckerberg continues to deny these accusations.”

The case is part of a growing national debate over whether social media companies should be legally responsible for how their platforms affect teens’ mental health.

Blackburn said on the Senate floor regarding this case, “New court documents that were made public … revealed that nearly 1 in 5 – 1 in 5 – young teenagers have reported seeing nudity or sexual images on Instagram that they did not want to see.”

The impact of these social media platforms has shown to worsen anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.

Zuckerberg denies that his platform increases mental health risks….

Blackburn also noted that when Zuckerberg testified, downplaying the accusations, he did so within feet of the parents of children who have tragically lost their lives from social media.

“Last year, Meta spent roughly $20 million fighting the Kids Online Safety Act.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Blackburn are sponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act. The legislation would protect minors from social media, video games, and other platforms by requiring safeguards for users under 17.

Annie Chestnut Tutor, a policy analyst for the Center for Technology and the Human Person at The Heritage Foundation, said, “The revised KOSA requires platforms to obtain verifiable parental consent for research for children older than 13. This robust measure provides parents with greater autonomy over how Big Tech companies may use their children’s information.

She added, “KOSA empowers parents by giving them the final say in their child’s privacy and account settings.” …

She explained that an earlier version of the Kids Online Safety Act passed “the Senate on a 91-to-3 vote. It has a veto-proof majority.” However, it never passed the House before the last congressional session ended.

Contact your Congressional representative and convince them to vote for KOSA. Our children and youth deserve protection of their mental health.

Why Did Trump Team Give Up on Negotiation with Iran?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns safety and security in the world. One reason for lack of peace in the Middle East for many years is the unwillingness of Iran leaders to want peace. They have been at war with the United States since 1979 when they took Americans hostage for more than a year. They continue to proclaim, “Death to America!” It was obvious to all honest observers that Iran did not want peace.

President Donald Trump and his administration tried hard to negotiate with Iran negotiators. However, they determined that Iran “was not acting in good faith,” according to an article by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell published at The Daily Signal. 

In a call with reporters on Tuesday, an administration official said that Iran had attempted to drag out negotiations over its nuclear program and delayed the Americans’ request for a detailed proposal before the U.S. decided to act with Israel and strike Iranian military and political targets this weekend.

During several rounds of talks between representatives of the two countries, Iran had maintained it did not intend to build a nuclear weapon, but it had enriched uranium far beyond the level needed for civilian energy use and close to the level needed for a bomb, Reuters reported.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, one of the diplomats involved in the talks, told CBS News last week following the third round of talks that the Iranians were willing to minimize enrichment, forgo stockpiling nuclear material, and allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

However, the administration said it learned that Iranians were hiding their nuclear enrichment program underground. The regime claimed it used its Tehran Research Reactor for civil purposes, but negotiators determined Iran was stockpiling fuel to later use to create a weapon….

The U.S. offered the Iranians free nuclear fuel to use for their civilian nuclear program, but the Iranians declined, saying enrichment is a national, “inalienable” right, an administration official said Tuesday.

“We said to them that you may deem that to be your right,” the official said. “We deem our right the ability to stop that, and we’re going to stop it, and we’re not going to allow it.”

Negotiators demanded that the Iranians have their facility above ground, and the Iranians shot back that it could then be bombed.

“If there’s nothing nefarious being done there, then, then you shouldn’t be worried about a bomb,” an official said. “So, it was one of these things where just everything was just trying to create a construct that would give them the capabilities and materials they needed in the future to produce nuclear weapons.” …

“It was very clear they were just trying to buy time in order to preserve whatever they could, to get past the term of President [Donald] Trump, in order to get a nuclear weapon,” the official said, “and if they wanted to do a peaceful nuclear program, or kind of a real deal, we offered them many ample opportunities to do that, and they kept getting in their own way, probably intentionally, in order not to do that.” …

It was the role of the negotiators to determine if a deal could be made. They came back and reported to the president that Iran was “basically playing games,” so a deal would be difficult….

Obviously, President Trump was not willing to play games with the Iranians, so he gave approval for the military operation against Iran. Iran is certainly seeing the consequences of trying to play games with Trump.