Emerson with Judge Pirro on U.S. Counter-Terrorism Strategy

 

by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
October 11, 2014

Clip from 60 Minutes: Ultimately an American citizen unless the passport is revoked is entitled to come back. So if someone who has fought with ISIL with an American passport wants to come back, we’ll track them very carefully.

Judge Jeanine: That’s FBI director Jim Comey saying they’ll track any Americans returning here after fighting alongside ISIS. Really, track them, that’s it? Why are these guys even allowed back into the country? With me now founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson, and National Review columnist Tom Rogan. Good evening gentlemen. You know Tom, Prime Minister Cameron faced with the same issue on the return of ISIS fighters returning to the UK is trying to actually prevent them from coming in. How is he trying to do this?

Tom Rogan: Yes, thank you for having me on, Judge. He’s doing a number of things and all of that flows from the fact that British intelligence are incredibly concerned about the threat that the Islamic State poses to the UK mainland. But one of the main things he is doing is trying to pass a law in Parliament that would actually allow the British government to refuse entry to people coming back in, sort of extension perhaps of being denied British citizenship and nationality, and sending the message that if you go and fight with the Islamic State which because of David Haines and Alan Henning is a clear enemy of the United Kingdom, then you will face the consequences for action. So it is a much tougher line than perhaps we’ve seen from the US Government.

Judge Jeanine: Well certainly, and Steve, I am sure you can speak to that. But Steve what we’re seeing is, and what you’re investigating, is the uptick in terms of the recruitment by ISIS in Western Europe as well as the United States.

Steve Emerson: Judge, there has been a tremendous uptick in recruitment. In the last month alone intelligence estimates say up to more than 5,000 volunteers have come from Europe alone and several hundred from the United States. And the notion that we can track them when they come back to the United States I think is somewhat questionable since it takes about 24 agents just to track one person for a 24 hour period nonstop. Number two, I think our policy on the issue of radical Islam is really screwed up here. Here you have a president at the UN praises a radical sheikh who says he’s opposed to ISIS but issues a fatwa calling for killing of American soldiers. You have the President basically sending a welcome message to the Oklahoma mosque which produced that crazy Islamist who beheaded, Mr. Nolen, who beheaded his co-worker and who had on his Facebook page photos praising bin Laden, praising 9/11, and even a picture of somebody being beheaded. So I think our own policies [ are actually constraining us], including that the fact that the Attorney General has prohibited the FBI from using religious criteria from investigating Islamists. I think right now, Judge, we have a [counter-terrorism] policy that doesn’t exist.

Judge Jeanine: Steve you may not know, Tom was nodding his head while you were speaking. Tom, one of the things that Steve is referencing is the fact that by our not identifying certain things as terrorism and calling things work place violence, the United States and the Department of Justice is almost tying the hands of our investigators. What is the perception from Britain as to how we’re approaching this in the United States? We’re both facing the same disaster.

Rogan: The British government is reluctant to criticize the US government. But there is certainly much greater concern in the UK and frankly I think that should be a great are concern here because the simple fact is the Islamic State have learned from their predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq. They know to stay off of the internet and they know to actually come back and not engage in some of the open extremist activities that previous terrorists had done before. So they can actually stay, bide their time and then move toward an attack. And that makes it very, very difficult for intelligence services – the NSA and the British equivalent GCHQ – to be able to develop the kind of intelligence picture, the same monitoring that Steve is talking about, large teams of officers. MI5 is stretched to the brink. That’s why you see David Cameron so concerned about preventing people coming back, because frankly MI5 officers are telling him we do not have the capacity physically to monitor these people.

Judge Jeanine: What is interesting Tom, I have an article here that says terrorist chatter raises the threat level for UK police, and that it’s been raised there from moderate to substantial. What can we do here, Steve, given the constraints that we have and reluctance to even identify things as work place violence? We’ve got this guy Nidal Hasan who writes the Pope who says I am a terrorist. What can we do?

Emerson: First of all we have to reverse the damage done by the Attorney General.

Judge Jeanine: How?

Emerson: First of all stop the purge that was done two years ago in the FBI of all material that was considered to be ‘offensive against Islam’ that stripped the FBI of thousands and thousands of books, pamphlets and power points of anything that dealt with radical Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood. That [material] has to be restored. Number two, the training of FBI informants, that budget was slashed in half under the Attorney General. Number three, there has to be a policy decision that recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood, these other [Islamist] groups, are just as much a threat to the United States and to our way of life as ISIS is. And if we don’t recognize that Judge, we’re gonna be doomed.

Judge Jeanine: I couldn’t agree with you more. Steve, Tom, thank you so much for being with us this evening.

Rogan: Thank you, Judge.

Emerson with Judge Jeanine: The Jihadists in Oklahoma and the Obama Administration’s Blinders on Islamic Extremism

 

by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
September 28, 2014

Judge Jeanine Pirro: And with me now the founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson. All right Steve, welcome. A great night for you to be on. Alton Nolen’s Facebook page. You’ve seen it. What does it tell you about him and what his intentions are?

Steve Emerson: His Facebook page is replete with statements, pictures that emphatically reveal his allegiance to radical Islam, his hatred of the United States, his support of 9/11 attacks, his support of killing Americans, his support of Osama bin Laden. It’s a road map to his affiliation and his support to radical Islam. It’s proof of the fact that he’s a jihadist.

Judge Jeanine: So when you say that he has the markings of a jihadist, tell us why.

Emerson: Let me add a couple of other things here. Not only does the Facebook page prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt [that he was a jihadist], but the fact that his computers that were seized by law enforcement show that the websites he visited also revealed that he was looking at radical websites that were radical Islamic websites going for the killing of Americans. He was converted in jail to be a radical Muslim. The first step that is done by jihadists to prove, after when they start converting people, which he was doing, after he was released from jail, to prove that they can carry out acts of terrorism. So I’m looking at a scenario here, we don’t know, let me say Jeanine, what actually prompted him to pop. He was fired from his job. We don’t know that he was carrying out this beheading as a jihadist or that he was carrying it out because he was fired. But he carried it out as a jihadist in a jihadist manner, a decapitation which is an Islamic way.

But this guy was a ticking time bomb and I’m positive in saying this. That if he didn’t carry out this attack now at this point he would have done it in the future. And there are tens of thousands of others like him lurking outside, in the United States who haven’t done this but are jihadists and are just waiting to do it. And that’s the problem. Because as you know as a judge, you need a criminal predicate in order to charge somebody. Just because they express their support for jihad and willingness to kill, you can’t charge them, you can’t open up an investigation.

Judge Jeanine: Of course not, but Steve let me say that it is the intent, it’s the circumstances surrounding the crime both before and after that give us some sense of what the individual was thinking. And I think for the American people they’re wondering if this is a carrying out of a jihadi, a lone wolf carrying out his own jihad or if this is something bigger than that. But make no mistake Steve, this guy is imprisoned and actually tried to escape from detention and did escape. He was charged with assaulting an officer. He just got out of state prison. And we’re going to talk a little later in the show about the radicalization of some of our inmates to Islam based upon what they’re learning in prison. But with this case, how do we know whether or not his trying to recruit other people to join Islam is indicative f his being a jihadist?

Emerson: Well first of all there were profiles done [by the FBI and CIA] a couple years ago about Muslim inmates who are converted to Islam and what they actually do in prison and what they do after they get out of prison. The first thing they do out of prison in order to prove their loyalty to Islam is to actually try to convert people to Islam to prove that they are true Muslims. The second thing they do after they prove that is to do other steps [that prove they can be trusted to carry out terrorist acts]. I believe this [current situation] is going to lead to other people involved, [like] somebody who was running this guy frankly.

Number two, I believe that if we find out that he popped or that he carried out this killing because he was angry about being fired, [that] if he wasn’t fired he would have [ultimately] carried out…[sometime] else, a jihadist killing, because he was a radical jihadist that believed in killing Americans. And frankly Jeanine, there are tens of thousands of others like him in this country. I have no doubt that we are going to see other things like this, like are going on around the world. We are entering a global jihad. And the fact is this administration, the Attorney General, the White House, they have banned the use of the term ‘Islamic terrorism.’ He, [the] Attorney General who is retiring should be tried on obstruction of justice because I can tell you, [and] this is not publicly known, he has quashed the indictments of terrorist charges against known terrorist charities because he didn’t want to alienate Islamic communities in the US.

Judge Jeanine: I wish I had more time Steve to talk to you about that. Steve Emerson, thanks so much for being with us this evening.

Emerson: You’re welcome.

Obama Forbids FBI to Use Religion in Identifying Terror Threats, as ISIS Recruits Openly in U.S. Mosques

American Thinker, By Karin McQuillan:

Steven Emerson

Steven Emerson

AT had a chance to catch up with Steven Emerson, head of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and hear his assessment of the ISIS threat here on American soil. Emerson runs the country’s top data center on Islamic terror groups in the United States, working like a man possessed, and accomplishing the work of thousands on sheer guts and determination to protect our country.

Wherever the bad guys have been caught and prosecuted successfully, you will find Emerson working quietly behind the scenes as an invaluable ally of the FBI and Homeland Security. Because he accepts no money from the government, Emerson has been free of the diktats of the Obama administration that have forbidden the FBI to train their sights on Muslim terrorists. (That means The Investigative Project needs your help to continue its work.)

In the words of U.S. Representative Pete Hoekstra, Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical to our nation’s security. There is no other non-governmental group that has better intelligence or data on the threat to the United States and our allies. Making do with a bare bones budget, the IPT is a national treasure whose influence and achievements are unparalleled.

It is not an exaggeration to say that because of Democrat political correctness hamstringing our FBI agents, they could not combat the Islamists in our midst without Steven Emerson. Oliver “Buck” Revell, former head of FBI Investigations and Counter-Terrorism, said as much in these words: “The Investigative Project has been one of the most important sources of accurate and timely information on the real goals and objectives of the wide spread and powerful Islamist movement.”

The FBI turns to Emerson to find out what is happening. So does AT. This is what Emerson told us:

Isis is Al Qaeda 3.0. They are already in the United States and the only reason there has not been a terror attack is that they have not decided to do it yet.

The chief danger Steven Emerson sees is that there are three to four hundred ISIS killers in Syria and Iraq with American passports, who can return whenever they want, and the Obama administration is blocking the FBI from monitoring them in mosques. As Emerson told Judge Jeannine Pirro on Fox News:

The FBI has been handcuffed in terms of investigating religious extremists in mosques, as a result of guidelines put out by the attorney general earlier this year. And so therefore, there is… a definite problem now in investigating those militants in the United States who are either recruiting for ISIS or have returned from Syria or Iraq having fought for ISIS, and are ready to carry out freelance or directed terrorist attacks on behalf of ISIS against the United States…

the Department of Justice [which] put out guidelines that restricted the FBI and other law enforcement agencies from using religious factors in identifying threats, national security threats to the United States in the homeland.

…we’re seeing ISIS recruiting biophysicists, engineers, social media types, people who have expertise in really carrying out sophisticated terrorist attacks coming back to the United States.

there’s one recruiter that [had been]… picked up [in the past], well identified, in Bloomington, Minnesota at the Al Farooq Mosque. There are recruiters going around the country in other mosques, where they identify potential volunteers. They test them out to see if they’re willing to die on behalf of martyrdom of the cause for Allah. Then they give them cash, they provide money for their families in case they die. They give them tickets to go to Turkey. Turkey has allowed them, hundreds, to go through to Syria, then to Iraq. And we [the U.S.] count Turkey as one of our top allies. We haven’t put [many of] them on the terrorism watch list, which we should. So there’s a major disconnect, Judge, here between what we should be doing to protect the homeland and protect American citizens.

Question for our Congress: Obama will do nothing to revoke the passports of American ISIS maniacs. What are you doing about it?

 

Emerson on CNBC Discussing Terror Threats to West by Jihadi Veterans

 

IPT, by Steven Emerson
Interview on CNBC
September 18, 2014

Host Tyler Mathisen: Authorities in Australia staging the largest counterterrorism operation in the country’s history Thursday to disrupt a gruesome plan by Islamic militants living in the country to carry out random public executions or demonstration killings. Australian media reporting the suspects wanted to kidnap and behead a member of the public and drape the body in an ISIA flag. Australia just the latest example of radicalized Islamic militants waging terror from within on the home front. We’ve already seen murderous attacks in Belgium and England. Steve Emerson is an author and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and Ghaffar Hussain is a director at Quilliam, a counterterrorism think tank in London. Welcome to both of you. Mr. Hussein, let me begin with you. How close a call was this?

Ghaffar Hussain: From what I’m hearing, it was pretty close. The Australian police intercepted a phone call which suggested that these individuals, or one individual is a quite high-ranking member of ISIS, and he had been given instructions to now carry out this attack in response to, or as a tactical response from the ISIS point of view to the fact that the Australians are now sending troops to the region to help in the international effort to defeat isis. So I suppose we’re starting to see a number of things ISIS doing now, all of which are aimed to kind of prevent or the international coalition which has been a real game changer in holding back ISIS in Iraq.

Mathisen: Mr. Emerson, react to what Mr. Hussain just said, but also put in context the idea that the biggest terror threats may now come from within, not from without, and who are these people? Are they nationals of Australia or people who have gotten in via a passport? What?

Steve Emerson: Well after 9/11, the biggest threat was from al Qaeda [was] sending in operatives or trying to remotely detonate planes through operational devices that could remain undetected. Then we went through a period of homegrown terrorists who weren’t directed by al Qaeda but were recruited online or by the Muslim leaders in their own community. Now we’re into jihad 3.0 where we have people who are volunteering to battle Syria or the West in Iraq and in Syria, gaining the incredible experience of fighting, and then possibly returning back to their own countries in Europe, Australia or the United States. Now you have to remember that the people who are being recruited get vetted before they go to Turkey, which is the infiltration route. Then they get vetted at the border between Turkey and Syria to see who is willing to die and who is willing to be the most vicious. So when they return back to their home countries, you already have a preselected number of jihadis who are willing to die or carry out vicious acts of violence like beheadings. We haven’t experienced that in the US yet, but it certainly has been experienced in Belgium, Germany. It’s been experienced in Britain and now in Australia.

Mathisen: Mr. Hussain, how easy or difficult is it to track these individuals who as Mr. Emerson just described have a rather circuitous path, often moving through Turkey into Syria, into Iraq? How easy is it to track them so that when they try to come back into the United States or Great Britain, they can be identified, detained, investigated?

Hussain: Well, it’s not straightforward to stop people going or people returning. Turkey is a very popular holiday destination for many British people. And millions go there every year. It’s very easy to get a cheap, low-budget flight to Turkey and then get a coach across to the border and cross over. And if someone’s done that for a few weeks or even longer and decides to come back, unless they’ve popped up on social media and talked openly about what they’ve been doing, we’re not going to really know what they’ve been doing, these individuals. So it is very worrying that it is quite easy, in my opinion, to get back into Europe, certainly Britain or America, certainly very easy to get back into Europe, European territory, from Turkey and from Syria. And part of the problem is the fact that the Turkish government has actually turned a blind eye to these individuals because they have their own tactical objectives of overthrowing the Assad regime. And in the past they have not done enough to secure that border. So many individuals are getting the know-how, getting the motivation from individuals they come across online and then arranging to meet them at the Syrian border so they can go over and join ISIS.

Mathisen: We’re very tight on time. Mr. Hussain, thank you very much. Steve Emerson, where is the risk most prevalent and what would you expect the next sort of terror target to be? Would it be those kinds of streetnappings, or would it be the kind of attack that we saw in the shopping mall in Nairobi about a year ago? Very quickly.

Emerson: I think it would be the latter. I think we’re probably going to see–[although] it’s impossible to predict, a freelance–a homegrown terrorist returning from Iraq or Syria who decides to detonate a bomb someplace remotely or carry out a suicide bombing on his own like we saw in Belgium and in France in the last two years.

Mathisen: Is Europe more vulnerable than the United States, or can you tell?

Emerson: Europe is more vulnerable because there are ten times more numbers of jihadi volunteers, up to 5,000, who have gone over to Iraq and Syria. In the United States, only about 200 to 300 have. But that number is growing, unfortunately.

Mathisen: Gentlemen, we thank you both for your perspectives on this very chilling topic.

Emerson on Fox with Judge Pirro on How the US is Manipulating the Truth on Radical Islam

by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
September 13, 2014

Judge Jeanine: And with me now the founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson. All right Steve, ISIS claims to have beheaded this British hostage. Your reaction tonight.

Emerson: Look, ISIS is very adept at manipulating the entire world. This is a recruitment video. It’s going to recruit a lot more jihadis from the West. There’s a reason why they’re videotaping it. There’s a reason why they’re using British or foreign jihadis to do the executions. There’s a reason why these videos recruit thousands more Western jihadis who go through Turkey, our ‘ally,’ that John Kerry just praised; an ally that refuses to allow the US to use its military bases, an ally that won’t shut down the black oil market that ISIS now gains $1.5 million a day in black oil market sales. So the reality is that our allies that the administration praises – Turkey and Qatar – are sabotaging our campaign against ISIS while the President has basically angered good allies lie Egypt, which really could be participating in a very meaningful way because it is significantly and ideologically against the Muslim Brotherhood which [ISIS] has in its origins..”

Judge Jeanine: Steve I’m still amazed. Thirty-five million Egyptians hit the streets, grandmothers, kids, everybody saying, ‘We don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood, we don’t want sharia law. We may be Muslims, 80% of us, but we do not want this extremism.’ But let me move along here. You just said a few minutes ago that that video might be an incentive for other people to join. We know that Ali Muhammad Brown, 29 – and you know I talked about this a few weeks ago – charged in the murders of four men. He says that he and two other people killed to avenge the US actions in the Middle East. Is this homegrown radical Islamic terrorism?

Emerson: Absolutely. I think that most people have no clue about what happened. Here was a man, Ali Muhammad Brown, who killed four people, the last one being a 19-year-old man in New Jersey, Brendan Tevlin. He was charged, [in New Jersey]; three previous murders were committed in Washington State. He [Brown] was arrested in July in New Jersey. In his confession to the New Jersey prosecutors, state prosecutors, he openly stated that his motivation for killing them was his, quote, his belief that the United States was evil because what they were doing to Muslims in the Middle East, that they were carrying out massacres of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore it was his duty to punish Americans and to kill them. This was a direct confession admitting that he was carrying out a jihad. He should have been prosecuted for terrorism. No charges of terrorism were brought against him. The FBI was denied, was told to stand down, not get involved. No federal prosecutors were involved. This is the Obama administration basically denying the opportunity, denying the obligation to prosecutors the opportunity to bring federal terrorism charges because they don’t want to basically disturb the notion that there’s radical Islam in the United States.

Judge Jeanine: I’ve got to tell you something Steve. As a local DA, as an elected DA, I got to tell you the Feds jump in whenever they can. The fact that they didn’t tells me that this is huge, that they did not want to touch the terrorism piece. You’re absolutely right. But let me, let’s talk about. Now there’s an attempted attack on a US embassy in Uganda thwarted by police; another terrorist group now, al Shabaab. What about them? Do we have to worry about them now?

Emerson: We have to worry about all of these groups. And that’s the problem. All of these Islamic terrorist groups – al Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda still, al Qaeda in Yemen – all of these groups have a common denominator. They’re all radical Islamic groups. Yes, they’re located in different areas. Some of them have regional grievances. But they have a common denominator – they believe in the sharia, they believe in the imposition of Islamic hegemony, and they believe in the hatred of the West and the hatred of the infidels. The bottom line here is the administration has compartmentalized all of these groups into different entities not believing that they’re connected. And so we have different strategies. In the press conferences delivered yesterday and today by press spokespeople for the State Department, they talked about Hamas as if it was a political entity. They talked about Turkey, a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled country, as if it was an ally of the United States when it sabotages the US. They [had previously] talked about Egypt as if it was an enemy because it’s against the Muslim Brotherhood.

Judge Jeanine: Crazy. Steve Emerson, thanks so much.

New York Times Censors Ad Decrying Islamist Censorship

by Steven Emerson
IPT News
June 5, 2014

Note: This article originally was published by the Daily Caller.

The New York Times has become complicit in a stealth jihad against free speech in the United States undertaken by Islamists and their sympathizers who masquerade as “civil rights” groups.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) recently bought a full-page advocacy adin the print edition of the Times. It discussed extensively the need for the media and government to directly address the reality that many acts of terrorism are rooted in radical Islam — as articulated by the terrorists themselves — and that Islamist groups attempt to deflect attention from radical Islam’s role.

A similar yet more concise version of the ad was scheduled to run on the NYT website the following day. However, something happened from one day to the next that caused the Times to demand that the IPT change the language immediately, or it would pull the ad.

Asked about the new demand, the Times replied: “In addition to being inundated with customer complaints. [sic] I have been asked for the immediate change by the publisher.”

The NYT ordered us to insert the word “radical” before the term “Islamist groups,” so that it read, “Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty and free speech.”

An “Islamist” is not simply an individual who privately observes Islam as his faith. An Islamist is an individual who blurs the ideological lines between personal religion and the nation state — a boundary upheld as one of America’s founding principles and sustained in the First Amendment — to foster a governmental system that relies upon the supremacy of Islam.

“Islamic,” on the other hand, is an adjective that describes an idea or element derived from or inspired by Islam. Islamists promote an Islamic agenda, though some do it more subtly than others.

Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are Islamist, hiding behind their Muslim faith and a veneer of “civil rights” as they seek to mainstream an agenda that elevates Islam above other faiths. Their agenda subjugates democracy and supports overseas terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and various individuals such as Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Qaradawi, who inspires suicide attacks and other forms of violence.

The NYT’s directive to add the word “radical” is a seemingly minor, nuanced change. But here’s why it matters: IPT’s ads hold Islamist groups like CAIR accountable for refusing to acknowledge what many terrorists themselves acknowledge — that their acts of violence were motivated by Islamic text.

That the publisher saw fit to order changes at such a late stage — after the ads had already been approved, purchased by the IPT, and were running on nytimes.com — and that the demands for change escalated so quickly is unusual.

We have to wonder who exactly exerted what kind of pressure.

We can only conclude that the same Islamist forces that the IPT devoted its full-page ad to discussing were at work again — abetted by media sympathizers — in this case, the publisher of the newspaper of record.

CAIR would probably have preferred that the Times shut down the digital ad altogether — as part of its longer-term campaign to paint the IPT as anti-Islam and Islamophobic, while portraying itself as moderate. In a letter to the Times about IPT’s ad, CAIR said, “[IPT's] new ad takes up this defamatory theme by bizarrely attacking the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, for rightly stating that ‘Islam is not the problem; extremism and violent extremism is the problem’ when it comes to terrorist attacks.”

The IPT never said Islam is the problem in its ads. IPT suggested that radical Islam is a problem, and that CAIR — and other Islamists like them — are a problem, for their unwillingness to call out other members of their own faith who use Islam to justify their atrocities. IPT’s print ad specifically lauded those Muslim voices who criticize Islamists. Our digital ad used the word “Islamists” rather than Muslims on purpose.

The very attempt to discuss the role of radical Islam in motivating terrorists spawned a campaign to shut the debate down.

America is not at war with Muslims or Islam. The U.S. remains a welcoming and tolerant nation – one in which Muslims are freer and more secure to practice their faith than anywhere else in the world.

The censorship of free speech by Islamist groups and their media apologists continues to prevent America from addressing the core threat of radical Islam. Recognizing reality is not an attack on Islam or Muslims. Those who say otherwise are the ones of whom we — and, particularly, those in the media such as the NYT — should be wary.

Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Steven Emerson: The effort to censor our NYT ad by pro-Islamist forces makes our point for us

The New York Times: Making the world safe for terrorism

CAIR Again Shows It Can’t Stand Other Muslim Viewpoints

IPT, By Steven Emerson:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) waged a new attack Tuesday on anti-Islamist Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, asking that a federal commission investigate Jasser’s financial supporters.

Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, also serves on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). CAIR and other Islamist groups tried to block that appointment in 2012. Now, CAIR wants the USCIRF to investigate Jasser’s donors, who also give to other groups CAIR doesn’t like. The AIFD received $45,000 from the Abstraction Fund from 2010-12, a letter from CAIR’s Corey Saylor said.

The New York-based fund also gives money to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Middle East Forum and Jihad Watch. All, Saylor claimed, play an “active role in spreading anti-Islam prejudice.”

“At issue here is the reasonable concern that arises regarding Dr. Jasser accepting financial support from anti-Muslim groups while he is serving on a commission advocating for religious freedom,” Saylor wrote.

What a load of nonsense. As we have shown, CAIR and others toss around accusations of “Islamophobia” as a means of stifling criticism and deflecting attentionfrom their own shady records. Jasser is a devout Muslim who repeatedly points out that Muslims are freer to practice their faith in the United States than anywhere else in the world. He calls out the victimization narrative promoted by CAIR and other Islamist groups.

In response to CAIR’s attack Tuesday, Jasser posted a link to a 2011 IPT reportshowing CAIR solicited money from Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad praised Gaddafi’s rambling, 100-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly for having “an impact in the hearts of many people in the world.” Awad later sought financial help from Gaddafi to underwrite a program to give away 1 million Qurans to government officials and the general public in America and to help start up a new foundation.

In addition, State Department records obtained by the IPT show CAIR solicited huge donations during 2006 trips to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Despite that, CAIR continues to label information about its foreign financial support as “Internet Disinformation.”

“CAIR’s operational budget is funded by donations from American Muslims,” its website says. (To see a debunking of CAIR’s “disinformation” claims, click here.)

Tuesday’s letter was CAIR’s second to the USCIRF about Jasser in the past month. It also took statements Jasser made during a recent television appearance to argue that he would “deny religious rights to Muslim military personnel.” In fact, Jasser – a Navy veteran – said that during his service “I was able to practice my faith, fast, pray, and I never saw the need for” new policies allowing for beards, turbans and other religious garb for active duty military members.

It’s fine to debate that point. But CAIR’s ongoing campaign to strip Jasser of his position shows they don’t want debate. They want a monopoly on determining what is acceptable for American Muslims to believe.

IPT Exclusive: Records Prove MB Delegates Skipped Airport Inspections

CAIR’s Ayloush Gives Dishonest, Bullying Answer to Hamas Question

Steven Emerson interviewed on Fox News about latest film “Jihad in America: the Grand Deception”

se

Bill Hemmer: A stunning new documentary now revealing the rising influence it believes of the Muslim Brotherhood not in Cairo, Egypt but here in the United States. It’s called Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. It describes the Islamic group’s real mission they believe here in the U.S. Here is a clip discussing a secret document found by the FBI. Watch it and you’ll hear from the producer of this film.

Film Narrator: It was titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” It’s dated May 22, 1991.

Jeff Breinholt [Dept. of Justice Deputy Chief, Counterterrorism 2002-2007]: “The process of settlement is a civilization-jihadist process with all the word means. The Ikhwan, which is what the Brotherhood uses to describe themselves, must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” That’s pretty clear as to how they viewed their own objective. And this is, they’re talking about the United States here.

Hemmer: Wow. Steve Emerson is the film maker. Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. He is my guest now out of Washington. Steve, good morning to you. You’re gonna get a lot of attention for this film. I think you know that and I think you know it’s coming. Why did you make the film, first off?

Steve Emerson: Well my organization, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, has been investigating the whole network and infrastructure of radical Islamic groups in the United States, but not necessarily those that preach jihad openly or on television. Those that do it behind closed doors but pretend to be civil rights groups. So what we have and we’ve discovered is a massive deception perpetrated by these groups. It would be like David Duke parading himself as a civil rights organization and getting accepted and legitimized by the White House, by Hollywood, by the elite media, by Congress. And so I think this is a real corrosive effect on our democracy, on –

Hemmer: I want you to back up some of these claims, ok? Take them one at a time, you said a lot in your first answer there. Inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood they enjoy considerable influence in the United States. How and where?

Emerson: They operate under fake names or false names. They don’t call themselves the Muslim Brotherhood. And this was all laid out in various documents or even secret tape recordings that we actually portray in the film, or we reveal in the film. The document that viewers just saw talked about their ulterior agenda of infiltrating and destroying the U.S. from within. So all these groups, and I’m not exaggerating to say that there are scores of radical Islamic groups hiding under the pretension of being civil rights organization or simply a religious organization, but in fact have an ulterior agenda. And the film itself actually portrays what goes on behind closed doors with these organizations, whether it’s Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, whether it’s Hizballah. All of these groups have organizations in the U.S. and they portray themselves as simple, innocent civil rights organizations –

Hemmer: You take it a step further. They’re deceiving American leaders, deceiving law enforcement, media, universities across the country. That again is a big claim.

Emerson: Well unfortunately it’s true and don’t take my word for it, look at the film. The film can be purchased on Amazon or its being shown in New York this next week. Or go to the web site www.granddeception.com. Look and listen to a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood who appears in the film for the first time and renounces his membership and talks about the deception. Look at the clip of a major imam who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, appears before Congress giving the invocation. Look at the way Hollywood –

Hemmer: Let me pause you right there because you brought it up. I think it hits at the 13 or 14 minute mark in the 70 minute film. I’ll ask you to explain this next. Watch.

Siraj Wahhaj before Congress: “In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful, guide the leaders of this nation who have been given a great responsibility in worldly affairs. Guide them, and grant them righteousness and wisdom.”

Narrator: Siraj Wahhaj, a sometime leader and prominent speaker at events hosted by American groups connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, was chosen to give the first Muslim invocation before Congress in 1991. Here he is after his Congressional appearance.

Wahhaj: They want to defend this country. You know what this country is? It’s a garbage can, filthy, filthy and sick.

Hemmer: Who is he and why was he invited to speak on the floor of the House?

Emerson: Well I can’t tell you why he was invited because I wasn’t around in 1991 when he was invited, but I assume it was in the spirit of ecumenical outreach. What the congressman who invited him didn’t do was the due diligence, was to show exactly what he says behind closed doors in contrast to what he says openly. What he says behind closed doors is what we captured in the film, along with many other groups who say preach peace and preach non-violence openly in front of TV cameras and say they condemn terrorism, but when you ask them will they condemn Hamas or Hizballah they don’t consider them terrorist groups. And behind closed doors they actually promote these organizations or tell their constituents like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which the FBI itself called a Hamas front, is routinely interviewed in major newspapers, the Associated Press, appears on television – just appeared the other day on network television as if they were a legitimate civil rights group.

Hemmer: But Muslim Brotherhood would say hey we’re here to help promote our religion, we’re here to help promote communities, we’re here to help promote education. In the thirty seconds I have left, can you prove that they’ve had success doing the things that you just described to us over the past several minutes, Steve?

Emerson: I think I can and I think I would let the viewers watch the film. But I think to the extent that they’ve been able to infiltrate law enforcement, to stop the FBI from actually circulating materials on the Muslim Brotherhood because “it was offensive to Islam.” It wasn’t offensive to Islam, it was offensive to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the same thing goes on in terms at the Department of Justice, where prosecutions have been quashed into terrorist financing because it might be considered offensive. And I think we need to get beyond this because we want to empower genuine moderates in the Islamic community, Bill.

Hemmer: It’s called The Grand Deception: Jihad in America. Steve Emerson is its producer. Steve, thank you.

Blockbuster Interview With Steven Emerson on the Glazov Gang

download (21)Front Page:

Steven Emerson recounts his career as a journalist from its beginnings in 1978 through the beginning of his focus on radical Islamic groups in the US after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The accumulation of massive amounts of data which resulted from research for his first documentary “Jihad in America”  led to the creation of the Investigative Project on Terrorism in 1995. His organization has become the world’s largest archival data center on radical Islam. As an investigative agency, Emerson says, “We are not a think tank, we are a “do tank”.

 

In this second video Emerson talks about CAIR and much more. He does not mince words and there are some explosive comments like “Eric Holder is a hit man and a thug and corrupt…and should be indicted. Information on his corruption will be coming out in the next few months and it will be pretty shocking”

 

You can follow Steve Emerson on twitter @TheIPT where he engages members of CAIR and others, lately using CAIR’s #LegislatingFear to rain on their parade.

 

IPT Video: Islamists Stigmatizing Their Critics

IPT News
August 28, 2013