I mean, am I out of line by saying the UK is friendly to terrorists? I don't know how else to explain it.

No, look, I'll tell you something right now.

I am banned from entering the UK.

Am I some kind of criminal? No, I have no criminal record.

And I have never called for or advocated violence.

But I am banned from the UK for saying that Islam has doctrines of warfare against unbelievers, which is like saying water is wet.

It's obviously true and easy to prove.

I wonder if the third option is, has wokeism just infected England so badly that they're afraid to even accuse someone of jihad?

the

obverse of that is the islamic ethic and the spirit of parasitism which is that there is no idea that allah blesses work it's really something kind of shameful that the non-muslims ought to do in the ideal society and when they do it the empire's in great shape.

But when they cannot do it any longer, the empire goes into decline.

So that's the failure.

Then come the Western academics to make the excuses.

And they say, oh, see, this was a really great civilization.

While Europeans were still blowing their nose into their hands, the Muslims were translating Aristotle And preserving all the Greek classics.

And

What, wh- wh- wh- wh- why would he even say that?

Well, he says so many things.

I think the man doesn't have the filter perhaps that he should have.

On the other hand, who am I to say that when he's the President of the United States? And it was precisely because he was an honest man, plain-spoken.

He said what he meant.

I think that endeared him to the American people more than Democrats ever have wanted to admit.

And so I, I can't really say, "Oh, it's a terrible thing," but sometimes I think he shouldn't be shooting off his mouth about these things, and that's one of them.

... who support this network, who read and support you? What would you say, "Hey, guys, I wanna tell you now what I think could indeed happen, and if it does, this is what you need to be aware of"?

What, what, what, why would he even say that?

Well, he says so many things, I think the man doesn't have the filter perhaps that he should have.

On the other hand, who am I to say that when he's the President of the United States? And it was precisely because he was an honest man, plain-spoken, he said what he meant.

I think that endeared him to the American people more than Democrats ever have wanted to admit.

And so I, I can't really say, "Oh, it's a terrible thing," but sometimes I think he shouldn't be shooting off his mouth about these things, and that's one of them.

The, uh, fact is, though, that I do believe he overestimated the, uh, weakness of the regime inside Iran.

Whereas really the Islamic Republic of Iran is kind of the poster child for why there should never be gun control because the protesters hate the regime, and there are millions of protesters, but they, they don't have the guns.

... who support this network, who read and support you? What would you say, "Hey, guys, I wanna tell you now what I think could indeed happen, and if it does, this is what you need to be aware of"?

What is your reaction?

Well, I think you're absolutely right in your opening remarks that this is just an attempt to make sure that the Muslim population in Britain keeps on voting Labour.

They're in very bad electoral shape.

And Reform and the Restore UK party are taking the votes of all the people, and there's an increasing number of them every day, who are dissatisfied with the government's foreign and domestic policies.

And so in response, Labour is just going farther to the left, abandoning Israel altogether, embracing the global jihad, and particularly the jihad against Israel.

The whole idea that the settlement's in the West Bank or Judea and Samaria are illegitimate or are occupation, that is based on a complete ignorance or a refusal to acknowledge the fact that actually the only rightful owner of that land by international law is indeed the State of Israel.

And there was an agreement in the 90s, the Oslo Accords, that gave some of those territories, but not all of them, set them aside for the possibility of a future Palestinian state.

Why do you think that is?

Am I wrong?

No, you're absolutely right.

It's chapter 3, verse 28 of the Qur'an.

It says, And that last bit there is interpreted in mainstream commentaries on the Qur'an that Muslims read to this day.

It quotes an early follower of Muhammad saying, This means we smile in the faces of some people and behind their backs we curse them.

And the 20th century Islamic leader Maulana Maududi in Pakistan, he wrote a multi-volume commentary on the Qur'an.

He said, under some circumstances, this verse means that Muslims can pretend to be on the side of their enemies.

I've never heard that.

How do you read Michigan?

Yeah, I couldn't agree more.

Actually, just the other day, he was captured on video.

I was writing about it this morning, where he quotes the Quran, chapter 3, verse 110, which says to Muslims, you are the best nation.

Raised up for mankind.

Enjoying what is right and forbidding what is wrong.

Now see, this is a very important statement because not only is he saying Muslims are the best people on earth, which is another translation of the same verse, but this is in the Quran which also says that unbelievers are the most vile of created beings and like animals.

I can't stand that these people try to be morally superior and they use this language and they get away with it in order to beat people into submission.

Wow

... enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong." Now, see, this is a very important statement because not only is he saying Muslims are the best people on Earth, which is another translation of the same verse, but this is in the Quran, which also says that unbelievers are the most vile of created beings and like animals.

That's chapter 98 verse 6 and chapter 8 verse 55.

And so Abdul El-Sayed, when he says, "You are the best of people," he is saying, "I endorse this supremacist Quranic worldview," which says that Muslims are better people than other human beings, and that as a matter of fact, the other human beings are not even fully human beings at all.

But it's even worse than that because he goes on to quote the rest of the verse, "Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong." A lot of people are gonna miss this and think, "So what's the big deal?" But that is a very dangerous statement because he's saying that the Muslims are the best people on Earth when they direct the rest of us in what is right and what's wrong.

In other words, when they impose their law, Sharia, on the United States and they are enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, then they are the best of people on Earth.

And so Abdul El-Sayed is gonna probably be a senator from Michigan who holds to a laws, a legal system that is political supremacist, expansionist, violent, and in radical contradiction to the US Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.

Yeah

What type of a commission are we talking about?

This is a state commission that the Massachusetts state government is putting in.

It's pretty much a far gone conclusion that it will indeed go through, because Massachusetts, like so many other states, is, uh, what we would call solidly blue or a one party state.

Uh, the left, when it ten- when it gets into power, tends to take steps to make sure that it never gets out of power, and that's what we see in California, in New York, in Massachusetts, in Illinois, in Michigan, and elsewhere.

Where the Democrats have taken over, they have changed the zoning, changed the laws in various ways to destroy the opposition.

And the Republican Party is just a small token organization in all of those states, never expects to win anything and never does.

And so the Democrats control Massachusetts.

Just, period, doesn't fit with our nation.

What do you make of this?

Well, you know, what I think they're trying to do is a, it's a passage in the Quran, strike terror in the enemies of Allah, chapter 8, verse 60.

This is designed to frighten the people who are depicted in the video and to frighten americans who are loyal to trump who think that america is on the right track to try to take out the iranian regime and so on which is of course not what trump is doing but in any case uh the the idea that they are capable of doing this, actually it is 100% true that they are.

Because this is very low-tech stuff.

It really doesn't take a whole lot to mail somebody some anthrax or to mail them some explosive.

And so this is very much within the realm of possibility.

But it's also noteworthy that they haven't actually come out and said that they killed Senator Graham.

They're just running under Marxism and communism right now,

What do you make of this?

Well, you know, what I think they're trying to do is a, it's a passage in the Quran, strike terror in the enemies of Allah, chapter 8, verse 60.

This is designed to frighten the people who are, depicted in the video and to frighten Americans who are loyal to Trump, who think that America is on the right track to try to take out the Iranian regime and so on, which is, of course, not what Trump is doing.

But in any case, the... idea that they are capable of doing this, actually it is 100% true that they are because this is very low-tech stuff.

It really doesn't take a whole lot to mail somebody some anthrax or to mail them some explosive.

And so this is very much within the realm of possibility.

But it's also noteworthy that they haven't actually come out and said that they killed Senator Graham.

They're just running under Marxism and communism right now,

Do you know anything about that? And do you think we could see massive violence on the streets of America and in homes in America here sooner than later?

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Look, there have been several different surveys conducted independently of one another over a period of several years since 9-11.

And they all separately came to the same conclusion that that 80% or more of American mosques are teaching hatred of America and the necessity ultimately to replace the Constitution with Islamic law.

And there's another thing that's just anecdotal evidence, but I'm going to tell you.

I was speaking years ago in Las Vegas, and after the event, The organizer of the event said, hey, let's take a little ride and go see the local mosque.

And he took me out to the mosque that had just been built, a nice big mosque in Las Vegas.

What are some other reasons that Americans should be concerned about the spread of Islam and Sharia Islamic law in the US?

What is your assessment of the advisability of this deal, Robert, and its implications, sir?

Frank, I'm very sorry to say that I think this is a disaster.

It's very dangerous.

And in the first place, that has nothing to do with the specifics of the deal, but just the fact of the deal itself.

Because Islamic law does not allow an Islamic entity to make peace with a non-Muslim entity except...

if the Muslims are losing and need time to gather strength to fight again more effectively.

And that is very clearly what the Islamic Republic is doing here.

Give us a sort of canonical, you know, situational assessment of what Muhammad's treatment of children meant in his own life and for successive generations, including the present one.

What is the theological link between a society's perceived humiliation and waging war on those outside the, the Dar al-Islam, the world of Islam?

Well, see, like I said at the beginning, Islam doesn't work.

And so when Islam doesn't work, what's a believer gonna do? Well, one thing you can be pretty certain he's not gonna do, except in very rare cases, is conclude that Islam doesn't work.

In other words, he hears the pr- call to prayer which says, among other things, "Come to prayer, come to success," and he doesn't, uh, find success because the whole thing's a lie.

But he's not gonna say, "Oh, Allah's a liar, [laughs] and I'm not succeeding because there is no Allah, or because this whole thing is fake." He's not gonna say that.

So what can he say? He can say, "I must not be doing enough." And this is the temptation that all the believers always have.

There's always more you can do.

You've already touched on this a little bit, but could you elaborate on that?

So is that really a deal or an agreement? And I ask that question because just this morning, President Trump, while speaking with Egypt's president, said that the agreement isn't necessarily finalized and that he reserves the right to back out of it or to resume military operations, which in my mind muddies the water a little bit more.

Well, Terrence, it's a good thing that the water is being muddied in this case because the deal, as it has been explained, at the highest levels.

For a long time, it was covered up.

It was rumored.

It was concealed.

But it all seems to have come out now.

It was in the New York Post this morning.

I really had hoped that we had turned the page on anti-Semitic crimes, but it seems like the trend is not going that direction.

What is it?

Well, the ethic of Islam is actually essentially parasitical.

And that is a reference to the famous book that some people may have heard of who are listening, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which was a book about how Protestant Christianity, because it teaches the value of work and how God will bless the work of your hands and so on, it's made for prosperous societies because people would work and think that they were being blessed by God, and so they wouldn't hesitate to work.

Whereas in Islam, There is really no work ethic.

I'm not saying that nobody works.

Obviously they do.

But it's not considered to be something that Allah blesses in and of itself.

Robert, why is the mere existence of the state of Israel an insult to Islam?

so your

thoughts i would expect that the opposition will come the way it has come in britain in britain i mentioned restore britain a moment ago and they're a small political party that has very little chance of electoral success larger than that is uh reform uk which many people have high hopes for, but actually the head of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, has already betrayed his people by saying that we can't make this into a conflict with Islam, and if we make it into a conflict with Islam, we will lose, which is incredibly defeatist and shallow and demoralizing for him to have said.

when he could have said we're going to stand up for our national identity and our national integrity and prevail against the invaders which is what they are uh he has a chance for electoral success but i'm not sure it will make any difference in light of the fact that he does not intend to deal with the real problem which is the islamization of britain that is on the very much on the horizon now and more and more people are seeing it so the real opposition i would suggest to you gentlemen is Tommy Robinson.

Now Tommy Robinson is someone I've known for many years.

He's a working class lad from Britain who saw as he was growing up in Luton all the Muslim migrants coming in and coming in in increasing numbers until finally the native population became the minority.

and the muslims are in charge and he didn't want to see this happen to britain as a whole but he's not a politician he's not a polished character he is a man from the streets and i suspect that if europe has any hope for the future it will come from people like him in germany in spain in france in sweden in italy there will arise ordinary people who would have led very ordinary lives if it had not been for this period of national crisis that calls upon them to come forward to try to save their people, save their nation, which is what is at stake here.

What we're talking about when we talk about Islamization, you know very well from Indian history and you can see it in the history of Egypt and the history of Syria and of Iran and other countries that these were Afghanistan, which was a Buddhist country, Iran that was Zoroastrian.

But here is my one final question that I will have from you again is that, Do you see this Iran-U.S. skirmish war or a tug of war or battle of wits something to do with the 21st century version of jihad versus crusade?

And even though they're getting bombed to smithereens and losing money, they don't care about the same things that we care about.

That's right.

I think you're absolutely right.

It's not simplistic at all.

That's actually the handicap that all of America's leaders and all the leaders in the West have, that they do not understand Islam and they don't understand why it is so costly to not understand Islam.

The fact is that the Iranian regime doesn't care about losing money.

It doesn't care about its people starving.

You really think that's how he views them, that he really can get along with them and successfully? I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, but you really think that's how Trump views them?

Wow

... who was the Shah from 1925 to '41, the father of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was toppled in 1979.

They, in other words, they still have a great res- regard for the monarchy.

They'd be happy to see the crown prince back.

He himself has said he would not be an absolute ruler.

He would not rule indefinitely.

He would be in a caretaker role until the Iranians chose what kind of a government that they want.

Okay.

What do you think is going to happen here?

Well, I understand the pressure that both sides are under, and certainly I understand how the president wants to have a negotiated settlement.

But the fact is that the longer the ceasefire remains in place and the longer the Islamic Republic has to be able to regroup without having to deal with particular attacks, the stronger the Islamic Republic will grow, and ultimately the conflict will be prolonged.

It will not end.

The Islamic regime in Tehran will never actually honor any settlement it agrees to.

The ideology it's based on has a developed doctrine of deception in order to lull your enemies into complacency and gain time thereby to gather strength to fight again more effectively.

The regime itself is unshakably hostile to the United States.

But it leaves me wondering, genuinely, is there even really a deal to be had, one that both sides would agree to? And if so, what's that look like?

running Iran? Because there's been a list of so many people who have been killed in Iran, and I guess the bigger question is, who is ultimately running Iran? Who is the United States ultimately negotiating with? Do you have any answers? Do you have any insight?

Terrence, it seems like the first thing we can be sure of in this whole murky situation is that Mojtaba Khamenei, the putative supreme leader, is not in charge and has never been in charge.

He may not even know he's the supreme leader.

He may not even be alive.

And so it seems clear that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has always been the muscle of the Islamic regime in Tehran, is in charge.

Whoever they may be is not clear because a lot of their leaders, as you've pointed out, have been killed.

But what most people seem to be seeing in the Islamic Republic right now is a transition to more of a military dictatorship.

What really is happening on the ground in Iran that we're not hearing about in the US? Because to us, it's all a little bit puzzling that we haven't seen more activity from the Iranian people.

You just can't negotiate with terrorists.

You're right, Terrence, and it's even compounded in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran because we have to remember this is a 12-er Shiite regime.

A lot of people in the United States since 9-11 have become familiar with the idea of taqiyya, which is religious deception, pretending that you're on the side of your enemies or that you are not interested in fighting them anymore in order to gain time.

and gain an advantage over those enemies.

It's a kind of religiously sanctioned deception.

And it's the Shiites, the 12 or Shiites, who actually invented this idea as a theological concept.

It's rooted in the Quran, but it is a hallmark of this regime.

I just want to allow you to elaborate on that truth.

But why would you pull that verbiage? Yeah, go

ahead.

Well, clearly he wanted to cozy up to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Muslim countries.

He wanted to placate and appease the growing Muslim population in the United States.

And so he hamstrung, now it's 15 years, hamstrung our counter-terror apparatus because they can't study the motives of the enemy and that is just a recipe for failure as we know the oldest adage in warfare is know your enemy and we are prevented from doing that and so these guys are coming in and establishing Sharia enclaves and the people who are dealing with them in law enforcement and intelligence have no idea what they're dealing with or the implications of it.

And they have, most American politicians and public officials have no idea that Islam is more than a religion but is also political.

Thank you.

That's why they've been saying death to America for 47 years.

Are people buying what he's saying, that he was under attack in New York City, when you and I both know there were a couple of idiots that were trying to make their name with Islamic Jihad or somebody?

Well, Joe, you know, I think the big problem we have today is what's known as the low information voter and people who hear things from people they trust and they just take them for granted as being true.

And so I'm sure that because it was not just Mamdani, but also the establishment media as a whole.

and not just CNN either, they portrayed that attack, which was an Islamic Jihad attack, like you said, by ISIS guys who were trying to carry out the demands, the commands of the Islamic State to target non-Muslims and particularly those who are considered to have insulted Islam.

And the media completely turned it around, classic leftist Darvo tactic, deny, attack, reverse the victim and the offender.

And they portrayed it as an attack on Mamdani because it was outside the mayor's mansion in New York City.

And so a lot of people, I'm sure, still think that.

The other guy, I'm going to go kill some people because they're my enemy, my sworn enemy.

Ca-can you remind us what Islam and Sharia actually says about those who do not subscribe to their own Sharia supremacist ideologies and tenets?

tenets?Absolutely, Josh.

There is a mandate in Islamic law that is unique among the religions of the world to call for warfare against those who do not believe in order to subjugate them under the hegemony of this law, which is political as well as religious.

And that is a core element of Islam.

It's been acted upon for fourteen hundred years.

It's not a twisted, hijacked version of Islam held by a tiny minority of extremists.

It is taught by all the mainstream sects and schools of jurisprudence without any exception.

So maybe you can kind of just walk us through s- briefly some of the history and some of the doctrine when it comes to Islamic-Christian relations in particular.