Social Justice Warriors Slam America’s Oldest Muslim Brotherhood Group on Twitter

7d062cf7-e623-409b-b23f-ef7d45958f50Town Hall, by Kyle Shideler, Nov. 25, 2015:

On Friday, a hashtag campaign targeting what was described as systematic racism exploded over social media. The tag, #BlackinMSA, drew out the experiences of African American Muslims who experienced prejudice in Muslim Student Association (MSA) Chapters, on college campuses.

The Muslim Students Association, founded in 1962, is the oldest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, according to archival Brotherhood records submitted in Federal Court. A NYPD intelligence report describes MSA as“potential incubators” of terrorism, and multiple MSA leaders and members have been arrested on terrorism related charges since 9/11.

Social media users complained of coldness and bias from Arab and South Asian Muslims towards Black Muslims, including the use of the Arabic term “Abdeed” (slave) as a term for Blacks. Additionally, tweets focused on discrimination in the appointment of non-Arab Muslims to leadership positions within the MSA.


But the primary driver of the conversation appeared to be the lack of involvement with MSAs related to Black Lives Matter and related protests.

The campaign received only limited pushback from what appeared to be Arab Muslim twitter accounts, predominately focused

The hashtag campaign appears to have been the brainchild of Tariq Touré,steering committee member for the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative (MuslimARC). MuslimARC also directed the hashtag discussion with a poll question, and other tweets, raising questions about MSAs willingness to engage in the BLM movement and recent protest actions at University of Missouri.

According to Co-founder Margari Hill, MuslimARC was created in response to a call to action on the issue of the role of African American Muslims issued by Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Michigan Chapter head Dawud Walid. Walid receives a “special thanks” on MuslimARC’s website.

CAIR has been actively involved in supporting and participating in BLM protests, beginning as far back as the Ferguson case. Dawud Walid himself linked the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson with the FBI shooting death of Luqman Abdullah, the Detroit-based “Emir” of a group called “The National Ummah” headed by convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Amin, the former Black Panther radical known as H.Rap Brown.

Amin played a key role in the formation of the Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), one of the first efforts to integrate indigenous African American Muslim Islamist groups like National Ummah, with the larger U.S.-based network, led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Luqman Abdullah was a board member of MANA prior to his death.

Interestingly, MuslimARC co-founder Hill also has an association with MANA, having served as the Curriculum Developer for the United Muslim Masjid (UMM). UMM a predominately African American Muslim organization led by Luqman Al-Haqq (AKA Kenny Gamble) a Philadelphia based Music mogul who has been accused of attempting to create a “Muslim-only enclave” in Philadelphia. Like Luqman Abdullah, Al-Haqq is a board member of MANA.

With the hashtag campaign aimed at forcing national MSA leadership to become more overtly involved in the BLM movement, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. may be facing some blowback, from a campaign that has sought to position their Islamophobia narrative within the wider of racial politics.

This no doubt stems in part to an increasing merger between traditional Islamist ideology, and leftist social justice rhetoric.

For example, a popular Tarbiyah Guide (a curriculum developed by MB-linked entities for Islamic education of members,) references both traditional Muslim Brotherhood ideologues like Yusuf Al Qaradawi, S.A. Maududi, and Sayyid Qutb, but also leftist thinkers including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, in addition to the aforementioned Jamil Abdullah Amin.

This is not the only case where MB organizations have run afoul of a younger generation where Islamic grievances are incorporated into theories of intersectionality.

Back in April, MB groups squabbled amongst themselves after a coalition of groups endorse Turkey and opposed an Armenian genocide resolution, only to be denounced by campus level groups like MSAs and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP.)

It may be that we are seeing a generational challenge, as MB-linked entities responded to those who have been indoctrinated within a milieu of both Islamist and leftist social justice politics.

This younger generation, Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 so-to-speak, are as adept at referencing Qutb, as they are Frantz Fanon. Where they successfully navigated this challenge, as in the case of CAIR in the Ferguson protests, MB-linked groups open up additional allies for their cause. Where they fail, however, they face embarrassing public relations trouble, as was the case for #BlackinMSA.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office (TIO) at the Center for Security Policy.


WhittleRight Scoop, by soopermexican, Nov. 21, 2015:

Conservative Bill Whittle produces some of the best political commentary in his “Afterburner” video series and this latest one is no exception. In this one he explains how liberal policies help create the circumstances that lead to more terror attacks from Islamic extremists on the West.

Watch below:

This kind of analysis is very important because so many people see these attacks and wonder why they’re happening and they have absolutely no understanding of the history that lead to them because the media doesn’t show the true causes. Instead they tell us that global warming is causing the extremism…

Obama and the ISIS ‘Recruitment Tool’ Canard

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Pool/Sipa USA)

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Pool/Sipa USA)


I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

This puts me at odds with Barack Obama, as is often the case. It is worth explaining my reasoning, though, since – as our bloviator-in-chief is fond of saying – this is a teachable moment.

The president of the United States, shamefully but characteristically, took the opportunity of being on foreign soil – in the Philippines with its large Muslim population – to smear his fellow countrymen over their effort to protect American national security. The Republican initiative, led by Senator Ted Cruz, would thwart Obama’s scheme to import thousands of refugees and prioritize the asylum claims of Christians. In response to this “rhetoric,” Obama seethed, “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL.”

The president elaborated that “when you start seeing individuals in position of responsibility suggesting Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative.”

So tough here to untangle the ignorance from the demagoguery. For starters, asylum does not involve placing comparative values on the lives of different categories of people. And no one would be more offended than Christians at the notion that Christian lives should be valued more highly than those of other human beings. (By contrast, the conceit that Muslim lives – especially the lives of male Muslims – are more worthy than others is a leitmotif of Islamic scripture that is reflected throughout sharia law.)

Asylum, instead, is a remedy for persecution that is controlled by federal law. Obama lashed out at Republicans for promoting a “religious test,” which he claimed was “offensive and contrary to American values.” Yet, because asylum addresses persecution, governing law has always incorporated a religious test. Again, that is not because the lives of one religion’s believers are innately better than others; it is because when religious persecution is occurring, the targeted religion’s believers are inevitably more vulnerable to murder, rape, torture, and other atrocities than co-religionists of the persecutors.

Consequently, longstanding congressional statutes (a) call on aliens claiming to be refugees to prove “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion,” among other things; and (b) require refugees seeking asylum to “establish that … religion [among other things] was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

Despite his diatribe, I’m going to go out on a limb and conclude that this is not news to Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who, for seven years, has been president and thus responsible for executing the asylum laws. He is also well aware, though, that the Muslim audience to which he was appealing, in the Philippines and in the broader ummah, does not have a clue about the vagaries of American immigration statutes.

Obama knows, moreover, that because sharia tells Muslims their lives are more valuable than those of non-Muslims, nothing is more apt to rile them up than an accusation that nativist Americans are portraying them as second-rate. And Obama knows that when Muslims get riled up, Western politicians curl up in a “religion of peace” ball and meekly back down. The president may not keep the U.S. Code on his shelves, but his bag of community-organizer tricks is ever at the ready.

One trick that never gets old is the claim that this or that American policy is a primo “recruitment tool” for jihadists.

Of course, the patent cause of violent jihadism is Islamic supremacist ideology. Washington politicians will not concede this fact because that ideology is unmistakably based on a literal construction of Islamic scripture – the Koran, the hadith, and sacralized biographies of the prophet Muhammad.

As it happens, there are ways of construing Islamic scripture that are not as literal. These constructions inform the view of millions of Muslims that violent jihad and systematic discrimination are not ordained in the modern world. These competing constructions, however, do not change the stubborn reality that Islamic supremacism – what we presume to call “radical” Islam – is a mainstream interpretation of Islam followed by tens of millions of Muslims, among them renowned sharia scholars, violent jihadists, and wily Islamists.

Though neither Republican transnational-progressives nor the hard Left will admit this palpable truth, the rationales of the two camps are significantly different.

The Republican moderates are well-meaning but foolish. Lacking confidence or competence to explain the different interpretations of Islam, they fear that if they concede the nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadism, they will be perceived as “at war with Islam.” So they relentlessly pretend that the “true” Islam is irenic: a noble quest for justice and tolerance. Because these Republicans are more politically progressive than conservative, they delude themselves into believing their soaring words will someday alter reality: If they say “religion of peace” and “moderate” enough times, Islam will actually become a moderate religion of peace, its sharia seamlessly compatible with our Constitution and Western principles – regardless of what Islamic doctrine actually says.

The Left, to the contrary, is neither well-meaning nor foolish. It will not admit the nexus between Islamic scripture and jihadist terror for two shrewd reasons.

The first is that the alliance with Islamists is useful to the Left. I explained in The Grand Jihad why Islamists and Leftists align, despite their differences on important matters like the rights of women, homosexuals, and the unborn. Both are anti-capitalist, authoritarian central-planners, hostile to individual liberty. They become fast friends whenever they have a common enemy – e.g., the Egyptian monarchy, the shah of Iran, or the Western culture of freedom and reason. If the common enemy is overcome, Islamists and Leftists turn on each other with a vengeance because their utopias cannot coexist. But as long as the common enemy exists, they work well together – just as internecine rivalries between Islamist camps (e.g., Iran and al Qaeda) are set aside in order to present a united front against the West and Israel.

What is the second rationale for the Left’s insistence on bleaching away jihadism’s roots in Islamic doctrine? That brings us back to Obama’s claim that the conservative case against admitting thousands of Syrian refugees is a “recruitment tool” for ISIS.

Obviously, jihad does not erupt out of thin air. The American public, which remains widely uninformed about Islam, realizes something must cause the violence, and that the violence will continue unless that something is overcome. For Leftists, this presents a golden opportunity: They understand that our deeply ingrained tradition of religious liberty – a tradition the Left generally abhors – makes the public resistant to the notion that a religion can cause violence, and thus receptive to the assurance that Islam does not.

So if Islam, in the Left’s telling, has nothing to do with the savagery jihadists commit, what is the cause? Obama and his cohort fill in this blank with … the principles and policies they oppose: robust national defense, American leadership in the world, free speech, sovereignty, economic liberty, income inequality, Christianity, Israel’s character as a Jewish state, Guantanamo Bay, military commissions, … even climate change.

Yes, this is preposterous if you’ve familiarized yourself with Islamic supremacism and classical sharia. But, alas, much of America has not despite a generation of jihad from Tehran to Manhattan to Paris. What a powerful rhetorical weapon it is for the Left to claim that what it opposes is not just wrong but the cause of mass-murder attacks.

In the real world, however, it is the sharia supremacist interpretation of Islam that causes jihadist terror. With that as the foundation, jihadist recruitment has little or nothing to do with the pretexts conveniently conjured by the Left. To the contrary, recruitment is driven by one thing:the perception that jihadists will win. As Osama bin Laden recognized, people are drawn to the strong horse and shun the weak horse.

That is why I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than … Barack Obama.

Also see:



The Glazov Gang, by Jamie Glazov, Oct. 27, 2015:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by David Kupelian, the author of the new book, The Snapping of the American Mind and vice-president and managing editor of the online news giant WND.

David discussed Stealth Jihad vs. America, unveiling the Left’s enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offensive. He also outlined the numerous ways the progressive agenda has spawned The Snapping of the American Mind.


Moral Equivalence in the Middle East


The West has developed a dangerous concern for ‘proportionality.’

National Review, by Victor Davis Hanson — October 20, 2015:

In the current epidemic of Palestinian violence, scores of Arab youths are attacking, supposedly spontaneously, Israeli citizens with knives. Apparently, edged weapons have more Koranic authority, and, in the sense of media spectacle, they provide greater splashes of blood. Thus the attacker is regularly described as “unarmed” and a victim when he is “disproportionately” stopped by bullets.

The Obama State Department has condemned the use of “excessive” Israeli force in response to Palestinian terrorism. John Kirby, the hapless State Department spokesman, blamed “both” sides for terrorism, and the president himself called on attackers and their victims to “tamp down the violence.”

In short, the present U.S. government — which is subsidizing the Palestinians to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year — is incapable of distinguishing those who employ terrorist violence from the victims against whom the terrorism is directed. But why is the Obama administration — which can apparently distinguish those who send out drones from those who are blown up by them on the suspicion of employing terrorist violence — morally incapable of calling out Palestinian violence? After all, in the American case, we blow away suspects whom we think are likely terrorists; in the Israeli instance, they shoot or arrest those who have clearly just committed a terrorist act.

RELATED: The One-State Solution, Ctd.

Two reasons stand out.

One, Obama’s Middle East policies are in shambles. Phony red lines, faux deadlines, reset with Putin, surrendering all the original bargaining chips in the Iranian deal, snubbing Israel, cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood, dismissing the threat of ISIS, allowing Iraq to collapse by abruptly pulling out all American troops, giving way to serial indecision in Afghanistan, ostracizing the moderate Sunni regimes, wrecking Libya, and setting the stage for Benghazi — all of these were the result of administration choices, not fated events. One of the results of this collapse of American power and presence in the Middle East is an emboldened Palestinian movement that has recently renounced the Oslo Accords and encouraged the offensive of edged weapons.

RELATED: The Obama Intifada

Mahmoud Abbas, the subsidized president of the self-proclaimed Palestinian State, and his subordinates have sanctioned the violence. Any time Palestinians sense distance between the U.S. and Israel, they seek to widen the breach. When the Obama team deliberately and often gratuitously signals its displeasure with Israel, then the Palestinians seek to harden that abstract pique into concrete estrangement.

Amid such a collapse of American power, Abbas has scanned the Middle East, surveyed the Obama pronouncements — from his initial Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech to his current contextualizations and not-so private slapdowns of Netanyahu — and has wagered that Obama likes Israel even less than his public statements might suggest. Accordingly, Abbas assumes that there might be few consequences from America if he incites another “cycle of violence.”

RELATED: Palestinian Reasoning: Yield to Our Crazy Religious Intolerance or We’ll Kill You

The more chaos there is, the more CNN videos of Palestinian terrorists being killed by Israeli civilians or security forces, the more NBC clips of knife-wielding terrorists who are described as unarmed, and the more MSNBC faux maps of Israeli absorption of Palestine, so all the more the Abbas regime and Hamas expect the “international community” to force further Israeli concessions. The Palestinians hope that they are entering yet another stage in their endless war against Israel. But this time, given the American recessional, they have new hopes that the emerging Iran–Russia–Syria–Iraq–Hezbollah axis could offer ample power in support of the violence and could help to turn the current asymmetrical war more advantageously conventional. The Palestinians believe, whether accurately or not, that their renewed violence might be a more brutal method of aiding the administration’s own efforts to pressure the Israelis to become more socially just, without which there supposedly cannot be peace in the Middle East.


But there is a second, more general explanation for the moral equivalence and anemic response from the White House. The Obama “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” administration is the first postmodern government in American history, and it has adopted almost all the general culture’s flawed relativist assumptions about human nature.

Affluent and leisured Western culture in the 21st century assumes that it has reached a stage of psychological nirvana, in which the Westernized world is no longer threatened in any existential fashion as it often was in the past. That allows Westerners to believe that they no longer have limbic brains, and so are no longer bound by Neanderthal ideas like deterrence, balance of power, military alliances, and the use of force to settle disagreements. Their wealth and technology assure them that they are free, then, to enter a brave new world of zero culpability, zero competition, and zero hostility that will ensure perpetual tranquility and thus perpetual enjoyment of our present material bounty.

RELATED: There Is No God But Hephaestus — And Fire Is His Messenger

Our children today play tee-ball, where there are no winners and losers — and thus they are schooled that competition is not just detrimental but also can, by such training, be eliminated entirely. Our adolescents are treated according to the philosophy of “zero tolerance,” in which the hero who stops the punk from bullying a weaker victim is likewise suspended from school. Under the pretense of such smug moral superiority, our schools have abdicated the hard and ancient task of distinguishing bad behavior from good and then proceeding with the necessary rewards and punishments. Our universities have junked military history, which schooled generations on how wars start, proceed, and end. Instead, “conflict resolution and peace studies” programs proliferate, in which empathy and dialogue are supposed to contextualize the aggressor and thus persuade him to desist and seek help — as if aggression, greed, and the desire for intimidation were treatable syndromes rather than ancient evils that have remained dangerous throughout history.

Human nature is not so easily transcended, just because a new therapeutic generation has confused its iPhone apps and Priuses with commensurate moral and ethical advancement. Under the canons of the last 2,500 years of Western warfare, disproportionality was the method by which aggressors were either deterred or stopped. Deterrence — which alone prevented wars — was predicated on the shared assumption that starting a conflict would bring more violence down upon the aggressor than he could ever inflict on his victim. Once lost, deterrence was restored usually by disproportionate responses that led to victory over and humiliation of the aggressive party.

The wreckage of Berlin trumped anything inflicted by the Luftwaffe on London. The Japanese killed fewer than 3,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor; the Americans killed 30 times that number of Japanese in a single March 10, 1945, incendiary raid on Tokyo. “They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” was the standard philosophy by which aggressive powers were taught never again to start hostilities. Defeat and humiliation led to peace and reconciliation.

The tragic but necessary resort to disproportionate force by the attacked not only taught an aggressor that he could not win the fight he had started, but also reminded him that his targeted enemy might not be completely sane, and thus could be capable of any and all retaliation.

Unpredictability and the fear sown by the unknown also help to restore deterrence, and with it calm and peace. In contrast, predictable, proportionate responses can reassure the aggressor that he is in control of the tempo of the war that he in fact started. And worse still, the doctrine of proportionality suggests that the victim does not seek victory and resolution, but will do almost anything to return to the status quo antebellum — which, of course, was disadvantageous and shaped by the constant threat of unexpected attack by its enemies.

Applying this to the Middle East, the Palestinians believe that the new American indifference to the region and Washington’s slapdowns of Netanyahu have reshuffled relative power. They now hope that there is no deterrent to violence and that, if it should break out, there will be only a proportionate and modest response from predictable Westerners.

Under the related doctrine of moral equivalence, Westerners are either unwilling or unable to distinguish the more culpable from the more innocent. Instead, because the world more often divides by 55 to 45 percent rather than 99 to 1 percent certainty, Westerners lack the confidence to make moral judgments — afraid that too many critics might question their liberal sensitivities, a charge that in the absence of dearth, hunger, and disease is considered the worst catastrophe facing an affluent Western elite.

The question is not only whether the Obama administration, in private, favors the cause of the radical Palestinians over a Western ally like Israel, but also whether it is even intellectually and morally capable of distinguishing a democratic state that protects human rights from a non-democratic, authoritarian, and terrorist regime that historically has hated the West, and the United States in particular — and is currently engaged in clear-cut aggression.

NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Islamists and the radical left: Co-belligerents in a war on America


Family Security Matters, by Lawrence Sellin, September 5, 2015:

It should surprise no one that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has joined the Black Lives Matter movement.

It is logical that CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for providing support to the terrorist group Hamas, should join a group which has contributed to an atmosphere of violent incitement and hatred against police officers across the nation.

While Islamic radicals seek to rid the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftists desire to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed.

Although their motivations are different, fundamentalist Islam and the radical political left are both devoted to totalitarianism, have a shared hatred of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian democracy and they are equally determined to extinguish liberty and subjugate the individual, either to Sharia or the state.

The current turmoil playing out every day on American streets and fomented by criminals and extremists, has been tolerated if not encouraged by the hands-off approach of Barack Obama, whose own radical leftist beliefs and his love of, if not strict adherence to Islam, could qualify him as the nation’s first Marxist Mahdi, eager to cleanse America of the “evils” perpetrated by capitalism and Judeo-Christianity.

Societal division and social unrest are tactics used to destabilize and demoralize, to further fundamentally transform the country, which has already been undermined economically and culturally from within; of which, in no small part, is the deliberate, politically-motivated invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants and so-called Muslim refugees.

This premeditated mass migration has several purposes including the dilution of U.S. nationalism i.e. “Americanism” through multiculturalism and to establish the demographics for a one-party state.

In addition, the social and economic turmoil created by uncontrolled illegal immigration or undesirable legal immigration, like George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four,”  can generate an environment of perpetual crisis requiring growing government surveillance, sustained by state-sanctioned media, and  all governed by a privileged and oppressive political elite led by a quasi-divine party leader who enjoys an intense cult of personality and considers personal liberty as a source of unhappiness.

One could say that it represents the realization of Obama’s private fantasy, the fundamental transformation of America to a totalitarian state dominated by either mullahs or magistrates.

In the 20th century, Germany and Russia were examples of major countries that succumbed to totalitarianism, largely because of economic and social chaos. In the German federal election of 1928, the Nazi Party garnered a mere 2.6% of the vote. Five years later, they controlled Germany. What happened? The Nazi message hadn’t changed, but the economic and social conditions in the country had, resulting in extreme political polarization and rampant street violence.

Although subjected to many of the same economic and social strains of that era, the United States and Great Britain did not follow a similar path because both had long-standing democratic institutions and, more importantly, a populace with a sense of its own history and traditions.

It has long been a goal of the left, now joined by American Islamists, to re-write U.S. history and re-interpret what it means to be an American, in order to produce low-information voters willing to submit to tyranny and a political-media- academic class willing to implement revisionism.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS), for example, a one-size-fits-all, top-down national education system, embraced by Democrats and big government Republicans alike, does just that, turning primary and secondary schools into re-education camps for leftist and Islamic indoctrination .

The Islamo-Leftist educational agenda seeks to popularize theories specifically designed to weaken the foundations of Judeo-Christian democracy and to eradicate our cognitive ability to transmit to the next generation, the ideas and values upon which America was built.

Much of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in the country is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, radical Islamo-leftist agenda – and an administration that enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies.

Also see:

The Convergence of Threats

obama flamesUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sep. 3, 2015:

Police officers are being targeted for assassination; there are an increasing number of jihadi attacks across the world; tens of thousands of Christians are being slaughtered by Muslims in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere; a flood of refugees from hostile countries are being forced on local townships across America as a part of federal government plan funded by tax payers; our critical infrastructure is dangerously vulnerable; our military is being gutted, courageous leaders are being punished, and our nuclear forces are decaying; there is a disregard by our leadership on both sides of the political aisle for the rule of law and our Constitution; many Christian and Jewish leaders stand on the side of tyranny with socialists and jihadis in the name of “tolerance”; there exists a unified effort by the socialist Left in America and the Islamic jihadis to silence all forms of communication which brings the truth to light and call this evil out for what it really is; Russia stands ready to engage the U.S. militarily; and this administration openly supports the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world – Iran – in developing nuclear weapons which it says will be used to destroy Israel and the United States.

This is where we are today in America. Yet, Americans still feel compelled to ask if this is intentional or just the result of poor policies that have gone awry. You do not have to be a political scientist to understand America is and is headed exactly where the Jihadis and the Progressive Left Movement has worked for over 50 years to take this nation. This is the intentional outcome of a decades-old effort to bring the United States down.

Growing up, President Obama went to an Islamic school. His father and step-father were Muslim, and his greatest mentor, according to the President, was a card carrying member of Communist Party USA (Frank Marshall Davis). Mr. Obama studied and taught Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which is Marxist revolutionary ideology. In that book, you will see all of the tactics detailed which we are now witnessing on the streets of America. Just like a playbook.

It should be noted Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Satan – by the way.

So where did the President learn to respect America’s founding principle that our rights come from God and that all of our laws and moral standards flow from that point? He never did.

Today the forces of the Marxists and socialists have a well-funded and well-organized movement to destroy the foundations of this Republic while the jihadis have an even more well-funded and well-organized effort to destroy us as well. The facts and evidence have been on the table for sometime with no thoughtful or factual debate coming from another point of view. Those defending the founding principles of this great Republic are told to shut up and stop being so “racists” or “hateful” or whatever other adjective they throw out. Just like the Nazis, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and so many other tyrants have done over the years.

The first step in maintaining a free society is for citizens with courage to stand in that freedom and refuse to slowly get washed out into the sea of slavery. We must count the cost and be ready to give everything to maintain the liberty our founders gave to us with the blessing of Almighty God.

Obama: American in name only

20141210_obamameanmadsmugFamily Security Matters, by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD, July 21, 2015:

Barack Hussein Obama is making the world safe for Islamo-Marxism.

At first glance, it would seem an improbable collaboration, but the marriage of convenience between radical Islam and Marxism, like the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939-1941, has a practical purpose, to destroy Western democracy.

Adolf Hitler did not want a two-front war and benefitted from Soviet resources while he attempted to crush France and Britain in 1940 before turning the full force of the German military against his ultimate enemy in the east.

Likewise, Joseph Stalin expected Germany, France and Britain to exhaust themselves in a prolonged conflict, buying time to build Soviet military strength and, debilitated by war, the Red Army would then easily march in and conquer all of Western Europe.

Both radical Islam and Marxism have a mutual hatred of Judeo-Christian democracy and a shared belief that the United States, as the cornerstone of Western civilization, is the embodiment of evil and the main impediment to establishing a global caliphate or a communist dictatorship. They have joined together in a formal conspiracy of political and social manipulation specifically designed to convince individuals that his or her actions are determined not by personal liberty, but the needs of a “community,” whose desires and rights are dictated exclusively by mullahs or commissars.

Obama’s rhetoric and policies mirror the Marxist war on Western culture by destroying the Middle Class, weakening the family as the primary social institution, practicing tribal politics, encouraging historical revisionism, promoting political correctness and multiculturalism, replacing logic and facts with emotionally satisfying gestures; all meant to undermine traditional American values and the principles upon which our country was founded.

Obama began his first term of office with his now infamous “apology tour,” humiliating, some say condemning the United States.

On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama said about Iran: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

Yet Obama’s policies have virtually guaranteed a nuclear- and intercontinental ballistic missile-armed Iran.

Also in Cairo, Obama said: “There’s been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other.”

Yet Obama’s policies fostered Islamist governments in Egypt and Libya.

In general, Obama has pursued policies that have facilitated rather than opposed the aims of our enemies.

Having been granted immunity from any uncomfortable questions about his personal history, Obama has established deceit and political oppression as primary instruments of government policy. He has attempted to render Congress powerless by unlawfully assuming executive authority not granted under the Constitution in order to continue, unobstructed, his fundamental transformation of the United States.

Left unimpeded, the inevitable result of Obama’s transformation will be a dystopia, characterized by a New Dark Age, a cataclysmic decline of society, in which a totalitarian government enforces ruthless egalitarianism by suppressing or denouncing ability and accomplishment, or even competence, as forms of inequality.

All the damage that Obama has perpetrated on the United States, however, could be reversed, his Constitutional transgressions declared null and void, simply by telling the truth.

That will not happen because Congress and the media are complicit in the greatest fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history and, if exposed, the truth would obliterate the corrupt political-media status quo.

The Democrats and their media shills are in lock-step. They have sworn allegiance, not to the Constitution and the country, but to their führer, their Islamo-Marxist Messiah, who they will protect by any means necessary.

Republicans remain silent because they have sworn allegiance to their personal bank accounts.

It should now be clear to Americans who are not politically sedated that the institutions of the federal government can no longer be relied upon to adhere to the Constitution or enforce the rule of law. The States will need to reclaim the powers given them and the American people under the 10th Amendment, powers that have been increasingly usurped by Washington DC.

“When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” – Thomas Jefferson


4255460656 (1)Center for Security Policy, July 23, 2015:

Adam Savit |


Washington, D.C.:  The Center for Security Policy today released a new paperback version of the monograph by investigative journalist James Simpson: The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.

PhotoshopScreenSnapz008This report extensively details the networks of radical left non-profits, foundations, government agencies and the personalities behind them. Unbeknownst to most Americans they are using refugee resettlement as a pretext to import waves of immigrants from third-world nations as a key front in Obama’s strategy of “fundamentally transforming” America. These refugees have little interest in assimilating. Many are from Muslim countries, view immigration as “Hijra” i.e. a subversive means to invade a foreign nation, and have demonstrated a willingness to either support or engage in terrorism both in America and abroad.

These groups are coached by leftist non-profits to capitalize on our generous welfare programs and shown how to maneuver around legal impediments – all at our expense – but are not being taught how to assimilate. The report conservatively estimates welfare costs at $10 billion per year. Additionally, government resettlement contractors receive $1 billion annually in federal tax dollars and non-profits supporting the agenda are provided billions of dollars from non-profits like George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The President has launched a “Welcoming America” initiative which seeks to “seed” refugees throughout our communities and weed out “pockets of resistance” with a full-throated effort vilifying anyone opposing his radical agenda. It is literally an offensive to erase American laws, traditions and culture, and replace them with a pliable, multi-cultural society that will vote the Left into the “permanent progressive majority” it seeks.

Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. states:

Jim Simpson has done a characteristically exacting investigation of the extent to which the red-green axis – the radical left, with its activists, contractors, philanthropies and friends in the Obama administration, and Islamic supremacists – have joined forces to use U.S. refugee resettlement programs as a prime means to achieve the ‘fundamental transformation’ of  America. His expose is particularly timely against the backdrop of the government sponsored effort to ‘Welcome New Americans’ and suppress those who understand the imperative of “resisting” the migration to and colonization of this country, or hijra, that Shariah-adherent Muslim believed they are required to undertake.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Mr. Simpson’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series at

Buy The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America in paperback or Kindle format on Amazon.

You can also download the PDF: Red_Green_Axis

Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance With Islamism


Front Page, by Daniel Greenfield, June 25, 2015:

We know that Barack Obama has said that one of the sweetest sounds is the Muslim call to evening prayer.  We know that he has repeatedly said that Islam is a religion of peace and — side-swiping Danish cartoonists who must now fear for their lives — told the UN that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. 

We know that Obama has been a proponent of the idea that “Islamophobia” is a heinous offense, comparable to racial and gender hatred.  We know that the President has allowed several individuals with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood to get jobs in his administration and that he, virtually alone among the leaders of the Western world, did not go to Paris to protest the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and at a Jewish kosher restaurant.

What we know about Barack Obama’s attitude toward Muslims and the Muslim world, in other words, is bad enough.  But what we don’t know about him is even worse and this is the subject of Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield’s new Freedom Center pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance with Islamism.”
Greenfield’s pamphlet is a work of deep scholarship and legitimate outrage.  It exhaustively explores Barack Obama’s relationship with Islam — his cerebral relationship as well as his policy initiatives in the Muslim world.  Moreover, Greenfield tracks how Obama’s soft spot for Islam has disastrously affected America’s ability to defend itself from an enemy — radical Islam — that seeks to destroy us.  So read “Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance” and prepare to be afraid, very afraid.
To read the pamphlet, continue.

To order the pamphlet, click here.

The Next Phase in the Destruction of Free Speech Has Begun

shut_up-300x200Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 7, 2015:

Sunday’s Washington Post published an article entitled “When Is Freedom of Speech Irresponsible” in which writer David Cole omitted many facts, lied, and used Muslim Brotherhood talking points in an attempt to silence the very people and organizations whose facts and evidence detailing the jihadi threat to the United States and the West are unassailable.

UTT (Understanding the Threat) and its founder John Guandolo along with Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism were specifically targeted in this article.

Cole’s article references a new book by David K. Shipler, which is a blueprint of the coming assault on those who stand on truth to explain the growing jihadi network in America.  Mr. Shipler was allowed to attend a UTT training program last year to help him understand the threat, yet his work leaves out so many facts that it is clear his intention was and is to deceive and manipulate readers to dismiss the imminent threat to our security from the Islamic Movement.

In fact, Mr. Cole states Shipler’s objective is not to suppress free speech “but simply to demonstrate that their (Guandolo, Gaffney, Emerson) claims are vastly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. In short, he answers their speech with his speech. An objective reader cannot help but come away with a better understanding of the truth. This is the freedom of speech at its best.”

Since what Mr. Shipler writes is objectively not true it means Mr. Cole is equating matching truths with lies and calling it a great debate.  In reality, it is a facade and a deceit.

Specifically, in the Washington Post article states the focal point of everything UTT and other organizations say about the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadi Movement is based on one document – “An Explanatory Memorandum” – which is the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

Since John Guandolo has written a book on this topic entitled Raising a Jihadi Generation, and the fact he spends nine hours or so in his 3-day training program laying out the evidence of the threat, the claim that the entire understanding of the threat rests on one document is absurd.

Mr. Cole naively states “(Shipler) finds that the central document underlying most of the claims is a 15-page “explanatory memo” found in an FBI search of an Annandale, Va., home in 2004. Signed by Mohamed Akram, a member of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood…Shipler shows that in fact the document is nothing more than a thought piece drafted by a single individual in the early 1990s, and that there is no evidence it was ever considered, much less adopted, by the Muslim Brotherhood or anyone else. Shipler’s research shows that other supposed evidence of the grand Islamist conspiracy is similarly speculative.”

Mr. Cole fails to detail other significant evidence supporting “An Explanatory Memorandum” as a major underpinning of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in North America, nor does he do any due diligence on the mountain of evidence which exists revealing the MB Movement and modus operandi here – which UTT teaches to law enforcement and national security professionals who acknowledge its relevance and factual/evidentiary basis.

While Mr. Cole reveals “An Explanatory Memorandum” was written by a “member” of the MB’s Palestine Committee – Mohamed Akram – he also fails to reveal to the reader that the Palestine Committee is Hamas in the U.S.  Nor does he tell the reader that Akram is the number two man on the list of the “Palestine Section in America” discovered by the FBI in the raid in Annandale, Virginia.  Furthermore, he does not mention the Memorandum was found among the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader – Ismail Elbarasse.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership – as well as David Cole and David K. Shipler – continue to dismiss “An Explanatory Memorandum” as just some document found in some garage written by some unknown guy.  In fact, the Memorandum was written by a leader in the MB/Hamas Movement, found among the MB archives in North America, and was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008).

In UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating Jihadi Network” course, an entire day is dedicated to walking through facts already in evidence revealing a massive Muslim Brotherhood jihad network threatening the United States.  This information does not hinge merely on “An Explanatory Memorandum” yet it does reveal the MB is doing exactly what the Memorandum says it should do in it’s pursuit of overthrowing the U.S. government and imposing Islamic rule.  This information includes details from dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas documents, the results of the fifteen year (15) FBI investigation culminating in the US v HLF trial, testimony of government officials,declassified FBI documents from related investigations of major Islamic organizations like ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), NAIT (North American Islamic Trust), and others, all of which reveals a coordinated, well-funded, and continuous Islamic Movement in the United States and elsewhere with the stated goal of waging “Civilization Jihad” to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islamic rule.

In fact, since 2006 when UTT founder John Guandolo created and implemented the first counterterrorism training program in the government specifically detailing the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Sharia, and the penetration of our system, he has openly and repeatedly stated he will remove any information from his briefing that is not factual and supported by evidence.  To date, he has never had to do this.

In fact, Muslim Brotherhood leaders who have attended his public presentations do not say what Guandolo is saying is not true, they tell him they simply do not like that he is saying it.

Most revealing, however, is the fact that this information has been presented to law enforcement officials, military, national security professionals, and senior leaders in America, nearly all of whom have stated the information was unknown to them prior to the course, yet the information details an “insurgency” or Movement in the U.S. which constitutes a major threat that needs to be addressed.

Many of the comments about UTT’s training programs can be found on the UTT website.  These comments from law enforcement, military, and security professionals, reveal how powerful this information is.  One FBI Agent states “This training should be mandatory for every cop and federal agent in America.”

UTT’s 3-day program is the only one like it in the nation, which is why the Muslim Brotherhood and their collaborators from the progressive left continually try to shut it down.  This, in and of itself, is evidence of the power of this program and the truth of the threat.

In April 2011, Director of Central Intelligence (1993-1995) R. James Woolsey, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (1988-1991) Lieutenant General Ed Soyster, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (2003-2007) Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, and Inspector General of the Department of Defense (2002-2005) Joseph Schmitz signed a letter supporting John Guandolo and the information he presents on the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In part, the letter reads:

“Every citizen in this country should hear what (John Guandolo) has to say. The facts he presents speak for themselves and require no commentary. For local and state law enforcement and intelligence officials, this information is critical to identifying, understanding, and thwarting threats in your locale. UTT gives specific details on how to practically implement this information in your area, which directly affects your community and your families…John is our go-to guy concerning these issues.  His research is thorough, fact-based and logically presented.  He is only biased by reality. We applaud this man of courage and hope you will make the time to hear this presentation.”

In March 2007, UTT Founder John Guandolo and Stephen Coughlin held a one-day seminar at the FBI Academy hosted by the Marine Corps Nation Capital Region Command Antiterrorism/Force Protection (MCNCRC AT/FP) Staff detailing the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharai, and the strategy and modus operandi of this enemy.  In its official communication to the FBI following this presentation, the Colonel leading MCNCRC wrote, in part:

“The CT presentation provided a solid foundation for the pinpointed actual root of Islamic Fundamentalism that is fueling the Global War on Terrorism. In any battle, military personnel are taught to understand the enemy. This is exactly what this presentation provided: a solid understanding of the ideology the enemy is using. The presentation highlighted that the enemy knows who they are, where they come from, and what they want.

“All of the points discussed were backed up with appropriate research, citing and clearly articulating an understanding of the core issues. The research provided quotes and examples of the extremists supporting the Islamist ideological message. There is hardly a more convincing argument then using one’s own words and actions...As a result of this presentation, MCNCRC AT/FP has received numerous requests from DoD, state, federal, and local organizations and agencies who attended the CT seminar, specifically asking to receive this course of instruction and follow on training from SA Guandolo and Mr. Coughlin, in order to share this critical information with their colleagues and subordinates.

“SA Guandolo and Steve Coughlin have identified a critical information and education gap. They should be commended for their initiative to conduct such an in depth study of the enemy and their courage to share their vast knowledge in an effort to better educate others.

“It is recommended that this program be made more readily available to all levels of government and concerned citizens. It is imperative that we as leaders and as a nation understand and can contextualize this threat to our Nation.”

In fact, those who hear this information, realize the threat from the Islamic Movement is real, is present, and must be dealt with as a part of any National Security effort.

In September 2014, UTT hosted a one day training program in Phoenix, Arizona for 300 law enforcement officers from all over the state.  Prior to the course, six (6) Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in Arizona partnered with their collaborators at the ACLU loudly protested the training program calling it bigoted and hate filled.  They wrote a letter to the Maricopa County Attorney calling for the training to be cancelled.  One of the signers was Usama Shami, the leader of the Hamas/MB’s Islamic Community Center of Arizona – the home of the two jihadis killed in Garland, Texas several weeks ago who were looking to impose Sharia by shutting down free speech.

Also of note is that the MB/Hamas organizations identified by UTT as threats have supported jihadi operations across the nation as has been previously detailed by UTT.

At the end of this one-day program, only nine people in the audience raised their hands and stated they knew this information prior to the training.  Seven of them had been to a prior UTT training and two had been working with the Center for Security Policy.  Everyone in the audience raised their hands when asked if the information was critical to protecting citizens in their state.

The reality is that a strategic assault on our free speech by the progressives on the left is now unfolding and David K. Shipler’s book and support from those like David Cole of the Washington Post are simply the leading edge of this next phase.

Americans must boldly continue to speak truth, not back down, and not be silenced.  The assault on our free speech is, in the eyes of our enemies, is the key move in this war to silence us so we will go along quietly while the Republic burns.

Faithful Americans must not succumb to this.

Leftist and Islamic Policymakers Outlaw the Truth

Truth-is-the-new-hate-speechAmerican Thinker, by Sonia Bailley, July 4, 2015:

No need to worry, the recent Ramadan triple slaughter fest in Tunisia, France and Kuwait has nothing to do with Islam.  There is no linkage between Islam and terrorism, and the word Islamic need not be used to describe the terrorists because their murderous and barbaric ideology has nothing to do with Islam.  Islam is, after all, a religion of peace that is being hijacked, perverted and distorted by only a small percentage of savage extremists.

Welcome to the false narrative that Western leaders, mainstream media outlets, and academic elites are enforcing on civil society to help shape the public’s perception of Islam so that it is always presented in a positive light.  Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam is in violation of Islamic law, which forbids any criticism of Islam, even what that criticism expresses the truth.  Stories that are reported according to this narrative need not have anything to do with factual accuracy or truth.  Both the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in Texas and the beheading in Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma last September were reported as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

With the aid of leftist and Islamic policymakers shaping the course of international relations and security policies, that false narrative is finding its way into international policy to destroy the West’s hard-won, cherished core values.  Realities and facts that might tarnish Islam’s name are deemed hate speech and becoming lost through censorship. The 57-state Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that happens to be rooted in communism, and the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world pushing to criminalize any criticism of Islam, are two such policymakers who are influencing world leaders and the news media.

Most Western world leaders are bleating the same empty platitudes about the recent Ramadan terrorist attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait, carefully avoiding the word “Islam.”  UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained to the media that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the terrorists who “do these things…do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology.” When asked if it’s right to say that the recent Ramadan attacks have nothing to do with Islam, UK Home Secretary Theresa May responded to BBC’s Andrew Marr in the positive, “that it has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion,” and that the terror attacks are “about a perversion of Islam.”

Instead of issuing travel warnings not to vacation in Islamic countries especially during Ramadan, the Islamic “sacred” month of feasting — a month rife with bloodshed and battle since Islam’s inception, when armed raids on Meccan trade caravans and bloody battles were waged by Mohammed and his followers (including the 1973 Yom Kippur War on the 10th of Ramadan), not to mention the ISIS Ramadan message that jihad is 10 times more obligatory during Ramadan, and that those who die will be rewarded by Allah ten times more than during the rest of the year — Western leaders like Cameron continue to nourish the official politically correct narrative of Islam being a religion of peace not linked to terrorism.

The twisted and perverted ideology to which both Cameron and May refer, pervades pages and pages of the Koran and other Islamic doctrine, inspiring jihadists and religious Muslims to “do these things,” including operating child sex slave grooming gangs throughout Europe, especially in the UK, to rape, pimp, torture and sometimes kill non-Muslim underage schoolgirls.  The Koran itself contains over 100 verses  promoting violence against non-Muslims who, to this very day, remain victims of the verse.

What lies at the heart of Islam is an antipathy towards non-Muslims, as well as a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to wage Jihad and eventually subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule in the name of Allah.  Massive street prayer is one form of subjugation conducted only to intimidate and Islamize Western society, to remind non-Muslims who’s really in control. Similarly, forcing non-Muslims in their own countries, in the UK for example, to eat halal slaughtered meat — an utterly inhumane and barbaric Islamic practice, not to mention a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by Muslim Brotherhood organizations that fund jihad worldwide — when only a mere 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and when the Koran specifically exempts its followers from eating halal if it’s not available, is another way to subjugate non-Muslims.

People are becoming sitting duck targets for Islamic terrorists in Western countries and abroad because of the little-known but powerful world policymakers like the OSCE and OIC who influence world leaders to kowtow to Islamic interests.  Western leaders fail to convey an accurate picture and understanding of what is really going on in the world because it might reflect badly on Islam, and they don’t want to appear “Islamophobic” for fear of more terrorist attacks.  By failing to report the truth, they are denying citizens the opportunity to take appropriate action that could save their lives when faced with something that could be considered a threat, such as a beach vacation in an Islamic country over Ramadan.

The dead European tourists in Tunisia might still be here today had there been an undistorted flow of information to warn them that warfare and killing in the name of Islam are encouraged during the month of Ramadan.  Furthermore, people might choose to avoid Islamic countries at all times if they were aware that these countries rely upon the most non-liberal draconian and barbaric Islamic or sharia-based corporal punishments imaginable.

The anti-blasphemy narrative pushed by the highly influential but little-known OIC, ehich speaks on behalf of over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, not only silences any expression considered to be offensive and insulting to Islam, but punishes the offenders, as Mohammed did to his dissenters and insulters.  They were either condemned to hell or killed.  Because Muslims consider Mohammed as the ideal model for mankind to follow, many Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also made blasphemy subject to the death penalty with their anti-blasphemy laws.

It is this anti-blasphemy law that the OIC is striving to legally enforce on the world in order to curtail speech and expression when it comes to Islam — not so much for religious compliance as for the global subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam.  Since 2005, the OIC has been pushing relentlessly for a UN blasphemy resolution (Resolution 16/18 passed in 2011) to silence so-called Islamophobia — a term deliberately coined and marketed in the 1990s by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, one of the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups worldwide, to drive public discourse and policy.  However, the OIC’s top priority is to globally criminalize any criticism of Islam, and is working with the Muslim Brotherhood to accomplish this. Ten years later, in 2015, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime in some European countries.

The highly influential yet little-known OSCE that is rooted in communism, is supposed to protect and promote civil liberties.  Instead, it is negotiating them away by capitulating to the OIC narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal from the 1990s is to destroy Western civilization from within.  Its goal of global domination is to be accomplished not through violence, at least not yet, but rather through the slow infiltration of Western government, military, judicial and academic institutions.

So far, there has been practically no opposition from  any Western administration in power, only cooperation from world leaders, government officials, and leftist policymakers.  In fact, the cooperation from Western leaders with OSCE and OIC policymakers has been so great, that the U.S. co-sponsored Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan, and helped usher it through in 2011, despite this resolution being a direct assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

At an OSCE May session in Vienna (on how the media can help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism), OSCE panelist Leila Ghandi, producer and TV show host on the most popular Moroccan TV channel (2MTV) that is over 60% government-owned, maintained that the truth or facts about “a community” can sometimes constitute hate speech when those facts are offensive and therefore should not be said.  The panelist’s words echo those of the new OIC Secretary General, Iyad Amin Madani, who tweeted earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, that “freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.”  In other words, truth about Islam is designated as hate speech.

Furthermore, OSCE panelist Victor Khroul, correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya, a Russian state-owned international news agency, questions why the mainstream media throughout the world still refer to the “self-proclaimed self-established state in the Middle East” as the Islamic State. His words echo those of Madani, who proclaimed last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam.  Khroul claims it’s a mistake for these people to be called Muslim and their state Islamic, which only “confuses the audience with this correlation with Islam.”  He maintains that it’s still possible “to find other words to describe this so-called state and its activity,” discounting the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its motivation to Islam and its acts to Allah. The name Islamic State does not have to be rectified because it accurately reflects reality, defines the organization in question, and is therefore a correct term that would sit well in the world of Confucius and his doctrine on rectifying names.

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, and the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law and jihad (until he was dismissed in 2008 for linking Islam with terrorism with his Red Pill Briefings), stresses the urgency of defining the enemy as he defines himself:  “you cannot target what you will not define…if I can’t use the concepts of Jihad that Al-Qaeda say they rely on, then I can’t understand what they are going to do.”

Author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Coughlin attended the OSCE May session and responded to the OSCE jargon as follows:

“Once you decide that facts on the ground as they present themselves, can be considered hate speech, this is no longer about truth…you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know when they formulate their decisions, and replacing them with narratives to keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated and verified.  That can never be considered hate speech. We’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation.”

Rather than disseminate vital information to the public that can save lives, Western world leaders are betraying their citizens by submitting to the OSCE and OIC narrative of outlawing any criticism of Islam and rendering truth illegal.  Reassuring citizens that Islam is a religion of peace merely renders them incapacitated from exercising sound judgment, crippling their ability to make the right decision in the face of potential harm.

While global institutions and national security policies are being shaped, and compromised, by highly influential but ill-known world organizations such as the OSCE and OIC, it’s critical that citizens get to know who those policymakers really are, and become more engaged in public affairs and the political process in order to arrest the Islamization process of the West…before it’s too late to reverse.


For more on how the OIC is working to criminalize criticism of islam see:

There is a new addition to the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series which has not been announced yet but is available at Amazon:


Destructive Forces: Islamic State Killers & Leftist Utopians

ISISChristianIcons-300x189Religious Freedom Coalition, July 3, 2015:

Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a commentator for Fox News, recently penned an editorial that perfectly describes the common linkage between the Islamic State savages and the far left Utopians who inhabit academia and our lamestream media.

Peters notes that the Islamic State is on a rampage to destroy every ancient monument in the Middle East that reminds them of Western Civilization and leftists are doing the same thing in America by erasing patriotism and any knowledge of Western Civilization’s contribution to human freedom.

As Peters writes:

The Islamic State destroys wondrous monuments to prevent “pagan worship,” to purify Islam and restore the caliphate to a state of perfection it never possessed. Aiming at a less puritanical, if equally rule-bound utopia, the American Left has all but destroyed the teaching of history in our schools, scorning facts in favor of paternalistic condescension toward minorities.

Thus it’s not enough to take the reasonable step of removing the Confederate Battle Flag from state and local government properties. That flag must be driven from the marketplace, from all public spaces and, at last, from the personal space, since it might be “hurtful,” even if hung in a basement. It’s admirable to celebrate the Black Panthers, but not for a struggling working man to honor a Civil War ancestor. In this case, brothers and sisters, bigotry ain’t a monopoly.

Islamist State sledgehammers smash off the faces of classical-era statues. Our Left wants to remove Founding Fathers and others from our currency to replace them with minor figures that suit their agenda. Both actions are about mastering the past to control the future.

The Utopians throughout history have brought only destruction, death, famine and despair into the lives of millions of people. From Sparta to Robespierre to Karl Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pot, the result is always the same. In the name of creating a Utopian heaven on earth, these tyrants and butchers end up killing millions of people and plunging their nations into unspeakable hell.

As Ralph Peters puts it:

The Islamic State wants to obliterate the glories of the past, in service to humanity. The global Left denies the greatness of Western Civilization, in service to humanity. Their methods differ, but their utopian goals are equally divorced from tolerance, from all allowance for human frailty and, not least, from mercy.

When that amnesiac utopia arrives, whether in the wreckage of the Middle East or on our soil, the one thing of which we may be certain is that human beings will not prove perfectible. And heretics and apostates, the “enemies of the people,” must be destroyed.

The Islamic State and the Left in America are joined in a common goal of destroying Western Civilization – and they have Barack Hussein Obama in the White House to help them do it – a man who has a political philosophy that blends Karl Marx, Mohammad and Saul Alinsky into a toxic, death-producing poison.

Judicial Watch: Newly Released Documents Confirm White House Officials Set Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Response

NATO Summit Lisbon 2010 - Day 1Judicial Watch, June 29, 2015:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council.  The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request on June 13, 2014, and subsequently a lawsuit on September 4, 2014, seeking:

Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

A September 11, 2012, email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack.  Referencing pending press statements by Barack Obama and Clinton, Nuland wrote: “We are holding for Rhodes clearance. BMM, pls advise asap.”

Meehan responded three minutes later, at 6:24 p.m.: “Ben is good with these and is on with Jake now too.”

Rhodes sent an email at 9:48 p.m. to senior White House and State officials on the issue: “We should let the State Department statement be our comment for the night.”

An email from Meehan, sent at 10:15 p.m. on September 11 to Rhodes, Nuland, Sullivan, Kennedy and Clinton aide Philippe Reines, further confirms the White House approval of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to an Internet video: “All, the Department of State just released the following statement. Per Ben [Rhodes’] email below, this should be the USG comment for the night.”

The “USG comment” turned out to be Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Rhodes emailed Meehan, Sullivan and Reines at 11:45 p.m. on September 11, writing, “Fyi – we are considering releasing this tonight.”  The next line is redacted.  The email also included a “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” the contents of which are also completely redacted.

On September 12, the day after the attack, Meehan sent an email to Obama administration officials announcing that “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15AM ET today.”

The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative. The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack.  The email has the subject line:  “Urgent: Anti-Islamic Film and Violence” and reads in part:

I am sure you are considering putting a statement on the film and the related violence.  In addition to the condemnation of the disgusting depictions, it will be important to emphasize the need to respond in a way that is consistent with Islamic principles, i.e. not engaging in violence and taking innocent life …

The resulting OIC statement, sent to Hussain by the OIC’s Uraz, linked the film, as requested by the Obama administration, to the Benghazi attack and suggested that the United States restrict free speech in response.  The official OIC statement called the film “incitement” and stated that the attack in Benghazi and a demonstration in Cairo “emanated from emotions aroused by a production of a film had hurt [sic] the religious sentiments of Muslims.  The two incidents demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression.”  The OIC’s statement referenced its own efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam. Hussain sent the OIC statement immediately to other Obama administration officials, including then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who thanks Hussain for the email.

The State Department withheld communications on September 12, 2012, between Hillary Clinton’s senior aide Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain about an article passed by him about how “American Muslim leaders” were tying the video to the Benghazi attack.  At the time of the Benghazi attack, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 “special government employee” compensation.

The State Department also disclosed a document, dated September 13, 2012, entitled “USG Outreach and Engagement Post Benghazi Attack.”  This record details how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack.  The document “captures USG efforts to engage outside voices to encourage public statements that denounce the attack make it clear that the anti-Muslim film does not reflect American [sic].”  The document highlights the use of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the terrorist attack to an Internet video.  The “outreach” document also highlights “Special Envoy’s engagement” with the OIC and the “Saudi Ambassador.”

The documents show that the Internet video was raised in a September 15 discussion between Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.  The “eyes only” “secret” document was partially declassified.  Davutoglu “called the controversial anti-Islam video a ‘clear provocation,’ but added that wise people should not be provoked by it.”  The next line is blacked out and the markings show that it will not be declassified until 2027, more than twelve years from now.

Another email, evidently from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sent to Meehan and other top White House and administration officials, shows that the administration took no action to deploy military assets almost five hours after the attack begun:

OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt].  Have responded “not to our knowledge.”

The State Department referred Judicial Watch to documents in the batch of 55,000 emails allegedly turned over by Hillary Clinton and searched in response to the court order in this lawsuit.  These emails were published on the State Department’s web site, but are also available here.  In addition, the State Department produced new documents containing Hillary Clinton emails.  In one such email (September 11, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.) from Clinton to Nuland, Sullivan and top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, with the subject line “Chris Smith,” Clinton writes: “Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?”

Nuland responds: “We need to ck family’s druthers. If they are OK, we should put something out from you tonight.” Mills then replies to Nuland, “Taking S [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] off.” (Sean Smith, not “Chris Smith” was one of four Americans killed at Benghazi.)

On September 13, 2012, Politico’s Mike Allen sent then-National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor an news article entitled “America was warned of embassy attack but did nothing.”  The story reported that “senior officials are increasingly convinced” the Benghazi attack was “not the result of spontaneous anger.” Vietor forwarded the story to other top White House and State Department officials, but Vietor’s accompanying comments and the comments of other top Obama appointees are completely redacted.  The administration also redacted several emails of top State officials discussing a statement by Romney campaign spokesman criticizing the “security situation in Libya.”

In April 2014, Judicial Watch first obtained smoking gun documents showing that it was the Obama White House’s public relations effort that falsely portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”

The documents include an email by White House operative Ben Rhodes sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” This “prep” was for Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her appearances on Sunday news shows to discuss the Benghazi attack and deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to the video.

The email listed as one of the administration’s key talking points:

“Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.

“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech.  It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people.  All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie.”