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 Independent.co.uk 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.”

The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America

4255460656

Secure Freedom Radio, June 15, 2015:

With Jim Simpson

JIM SIMPSON, investigative reporter and author of The Red-Green Axis:

  • What Simpson learned from his early years in economics and politics
  • The so-called “Red-Green Axis”
  • The Islamist’s alignment with the left-wing

PART TWO:

  • The Red-Green alliance’s use of the United Nations to erase the American agenda
  • The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s role in determining which refugees are sent to the US
  • Why majority-Muslim nations are not accepting Muslim refugees

PART THREE:

  • The United Nation’s role in developing the “Human Settlement Programme”
  • Grants available to immigrants paid for by US tax payers
  • The Left’s mutation of the refugee designation
  • Exposing the Red-Green alliance in the US government

PART FOUR:

  • The “Welcoming America” grassroots initiative
  • Government and corporate funding of resettlement programs
  • How to combat the refugee resettlement agenda
Refugee Resettlement: A Clear and Present Danger to Our Nation by James Simpson at American Thinker, June 15, 2015

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

Islamic Terror in an Age of Individual Jihad

20150504_texassuspectsshotmohammed.siFamily Security Matters, by Clare Lopez, May 7, 2015:

Anyone who thinks that what happened at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX on 3 May 2015, when two Muslim terrorists tried to attack a “Draw Muhammad” art contest, was an isolated incident, needs to think again. Although the two jihadist shooters, both affiliated with the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (a Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque), were quickly shot dead by security at the site, it’s their modus operandi that we need to understand. This is what the future jihad in America is going to look like. It is called ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn) and it is not just doctrinally-authorized in Islam, but is aggressively being encouraged, even commanded, by the Islamic State (as the Caliphate) through its online magazine, ‘Dabiq,’ as well as a flurry of other statements and videos by both IS and al-Qa’eda.

As the Center’s Senior Fellow (and author of the newly-released “Catastrophic Failure”), Steve Coughlin, points out, 2015 is the final year of the “10 Year Programme of Action” for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The top action item for that decade has been criminalization of the criticism of Islam – that is, pushing for legal measures to bring U.S. and other Western societies into compliance with Islamic blasphemy and slander laws. Those laws impose the death penalty for anything considered ‘offensive’ to a Muslim. Some think that just avoiding anything that might remotely be thought ‘offensive’ to Muslims is the best way to deal with the situation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly did all she could during her tenure to collaborate with the OIC through the Istanbul Process and UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. But it’s never enough and never going to be enough until all of humanity is subjugated to shariah; so now, in this final year of the ‘Programme,’ we are beginning to see the physical enforcement of those Islamic speech codes across the Western world, including in our own homeland. That enforcement increasingly is taking the form of individual acts of jihad terrorism.

Prior to 9/11, as al-Qa’eda took aim at ‘the far enemy,’ the key perpetrators-Usama bin Laden and other top leaders of AQ, Hizballah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban-met to plot, plan, and direct that attack. It was very much a top-directed operation. Today, the Global Islamic Movement is dispersed, institutionalized, and operationalized. Myriad jihad groups as well as unaffiliated individual jihadis seek to instill terror across the world, even as AQ and IS compete with Iran for leadership of the kinetic vanguard role. The OIC functions at the Islamic head-of-state institutional jihad level. And the Muslim Brotherhood provides the civilization jihad indoctrination, infiltration, and subversion operations within target governments and societies.

These three jihad levels – kinetic vanguard, Islamic institution, and civilization jihad – work in synergistic tandem to undermine the West, sap our will to resist, and play the siren song of submission as the easiest, most reasonable way out of this nightmare. Violent jihad attacks by Muslim terrorists against Western free speech targets have proliferated throughout the first half of 2015. In early January 2015, two Muslim gunmen murdered twelve staff members of the French satirical magazine, ‘Charlie Hebdo.’ Three police officers were executed as well and another four people were killed by a third jihadist shooter who targeted a Jewish deli market in Paris. Then, in February, a jihadist gunman attacked a Copenhagen event called “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression” where Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks was speaking, killing one civilian and injuring two law enforcement officers (although Vilks himself escaped harm). And now they’ve taken aim at Pamela Geller, the courageous founder of Stop Islamization of America, also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The body count is rising, but that’s not really the objective: free speech is. Free society and free-thinking individuals governed by consent of the governed under rule of man-made law are. Simply by existing, such individuals and such societies block the forces of jihad from achieving their obligatory shariah objective, which is the global imposition of shariah. Free speech is the most important, first line of defense against that onslaught because shariah cannot reign unchallenged as long as free people may speak their minds.

Taking shape, then, is a concerted jihad campaign to instill terror among those who dare to resist shariah. Especially via online messaging and social media, the Islamic State has been urging faithful Muslims to make the hijrah to Middle East battlefields but specifically encourages those who cannot or choose not to, to wage individual jihad in place, wherever they live. Thanks to misguided federal refugee resettlement policies that are channeling thousands of all-too-often poorly-vetted Muslim immigrants into the U.S., combined with official refusal to recognize Muslim Brotherhood operatives, groups, and Islamic Centers as the jihadist threat they actually are, there is a now a ready pool of indoctrinated jihad recruits living among us, whose numbers the FBI admits it has no way to manage or even monitor. From this pool in coming weeks and months will emerge the individual jihadis, converted, inspired, and trained by Brotherhood imams and mosques who will answer the IS call to jihad issued by recruiters lying in wait for them all over the Internet.

Understanding and confronting this dynamic that is taking direct aim at the American right to free speech is imperative for both the engaged citizen and an informed law enforcement community. It is the only way to stay free.

Garland Police Stop “Known Wolf” Jihadists but Free Speech Threat Remains

6850320CSP, by Kyle Shideler, May 4, 2015:

Sunday night, May 3rd, outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland Texas, two would-be jihadists attempted to launch an attack against a free speech event being held by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). Thanks to the swift response by local security and GPD, the two suspects were killed, while an officer was wounded, but soon released from the hospital.

One of the suspects was identified as Elton Simpson, an Arizona man convicted in 2011 for lying to federal agents regarding his attempt to travel to Somalia to join a terror group. On a twitter page reportedly connected to Simpson, the author swears an oath of allegiance to Islamic State leader AbuBakr Al-Baghdadi just moments prior to the attack taking place, with the hashtag #Texasattack. An investigation is currently underway to determine who the second suspect was, identified in Simpsons’ twitter page only as “the bro with me.”

There is no doubt that many in the media will attempt to paint the responsibility for this attack on the hosts of the event, for having the temerity to hold an art exhibit featuring a number of drawings (both contemporary and historical) of Islam’s prophet Mohammad. But an examination of Simpsons’ earlier trial documents make clear Simpson was committed jihadist. From the Court quoting transcripts from the audio recordings submitted by the FBI:

In that recording, Mr. Simpson told Mr. Deng that Allah loves an individual who is “out there fighting [non-Muslims]” and making difficult sacrifices such as living in caves, sleeping on rocks rather than sleeping in comfortable beds and with his wife, children and nice cars. Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away.” Mr. Simpson then said:

“[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”

Simpson went on to describe the importance of Shariah law, and the willingness to fight to establish it:

They’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws. That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.”

As we have noted previously, Shariah blasphemy laws call for death for perceived insults to either Allah or Mohammed, and multiple Muslim-majority countries maintain the death penalty for blasphemy, and in many others extrajudicial killings are routine. The attempted attack on the Curtis Culwell Center should likewise be viewed as an attempt to enforce a foreign system of law against the constitution, through violence. It is not an irrational act by those “angered” or offended by a display, but one attack in a campaign targeting America’s system of governance.

Such attacks do not occur in isolation, but are part of a larger political effort to impose Shariah over American law. This is done first by equating the act of speech with the violence directed against the speakers. As we noted at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris:

The Organization of the Islamic Cooperation has led the charge to see the criminalization of defamation of religion (interpreted by the OIC to mean Islam only) enforced by governments. Unfortunately the U.S. State Department has cooperated with implementing these efforts under the “Istanbul Process” for the past several years. Wickham’s claim that because violence against the speaker will inevitably result, the publication of images of Mohammad are not protected speech is the exact line of thinking represented by the Istanbul Process’s“test of consequences” concept and shows how successful the OIC’s effort to peddle this narrative has been.

This same line was adopted by the Islamist organizers of the “Stand With the Prophet” Rally, also held in Garland, Texas. From a Free Beacon article covering the event:

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. “Fuming over extremists like ISIS who give a bad name to Islam? Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

“When real events warrant, like the Danish Cartoon controversy, Sharia ban, Quran burning, Boko Haram kidnappings. [Islamic State] brutality, etc., we articulate fresh talking points and content quickly, and in a timely manner, working with professionals to disseminate it through community spokespersons and our allies,” organizers state on their website.

The publication of cartoons and other acts of free speech are being directly equated here with kidnapping, brutality and terrorism as part of an intentional effort to permit the banning of free speech that offends Islam. It’s the same logic that led Congressmen Andre Carson and Keith Ellison to demand Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders be barred from the country. Wilders attended and spoke at the Garland event.

Sadly this rhetoric has clearly caught on, and was on hand following the Garland shooting as journalists, bloggers and “Countering Violent Extremism” analysts lumped the AFDI and those who attempted to murder them together as “extremists.”

We should all be thankful that swift action by the Garland police put down a violent threat to free speech and the Constitution on Sunday.  But we should all respond equally swiftly to the political threat to free speech by loudly and unapologetically insisting that the Constitution trumps Sharia law, and free speech trumps  “so-called” blasphemy.

And there’s nothing extremist about that.

BOOK RELEASE: Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America


MUSLIM COLONIZATION OF AMERICA: THE HIJRA AND THE HIJACKING OF AMERICA’S REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM

Center for Security Policy, April 21, 2015:

Washington, DC — Last week, the chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, wrote the Department of State demanding that it halt the resettlement of refugees in the city of Spartanburg in his district.  In his letter dated April 15, 2015, Congressman Gowdy objected to the “lack of notice, information and consultation afforded to me and my constituents” and posed seventeen pointed questions, including (as paraphrased by Politico):

  • Why and when was his district approved [as a refugee resettlement site]?
  • What steps were taken to notify local government officials and whether they approved the plan, and where funds for the office and the refugees will come from?
  • When are the first refugees expected to arrive?
  • What benefits are they entitled to?
  • How many will be resettled?
  • What is their country of origin?
  • Who is responsible for housing, employment and education services for them?

Rep. Gowdy was particularly concerned about the security implications of this immigrant migration.  He asked: “Do any of the refugees to be resettled in the Spartanburg area have criminal convictions? If so, for what crimes has each been convicted?” And “Please explain the background-check process performed on refugees scheduled to be resettled in Spartanburg.

The necessity for such congressional oversight has been underscored by an important new monograph by Ann Corcoran entitled, Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America, which was published today as part of the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series.

Ms. Corcoran documents that Muslim immigration as a form of jihad via colonization called hijra dates back to the time of Mohammed.  In fact, she quotes hadith sources that assert that migration is a religious obligation for Muslims to spread Islam and build the Islamic state.  She also cites longtime Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi, who once said that Europe would be conquered without guns and swords, but with Muslim migrants overrunning the continent.  A powerful new documentary by Martin Mawyer called “Europe’s Last Stand; America’s Final Warning” illustrates just how accurate this prediction is proving to be.

Federal_Immigration_Policy_amazonbutton-684x1024As practiced today, the hijra strategy is an important part of a covert, pre-violent “civilization jihad” pursued by the Muslim Brotherhood. The UN High Commission on Refugees – which, like the rest of the United Nations, is dominated by the dictates of the Islamic supremacist organization known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – is complicit in the process of bringing Muslim refugees to America.  Interestingly, no Muslim refugees are ever resettled in wealthy, low-population density Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.

Particularly troubling is the evidence that Ms. Corcoran compiles concerning the secrecy surrounding this U.S. refugee resettlement program.  She provides estimates of how many Muslim immigrants have been quietly resettled in American communities with no local input.  And she discusses the State Department’s primary targets in the United States for Muslim resettlement and showcases models to be found in communities that are resisting this program.

In her book, Ms. Corcoran recounts her personal trajectory from typical, uninformed citizen to a national authority on refugee resettlement policies and programs, the focus of her highly acclaimed blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch.  It began in 2007, when large numbers of Muslim Meskhetian Turks were quietly resettled by the U.S. State Department in her hometown in Western Maryland, prompting her to research intensively what was afoot.

Although the author and other concerned local residents succeeded in that instance in blocking the dumping of immigrants that are, as a practical matter, unlikely ever to assimilate, the episode led Ms. Corcoran to the discovery of a frightening pattern: Across the United States, the federal government is attempting stealthily to relocate Muslim immigrants into unsuspecting and often unsuitable rural communities. She found that the affected locals, and even states, are totally by-passed in a resettlement process effectively driven by the United Nations, with U.S. agencies playing a clearly subordinate and non-sovereign role.

In addition, Ms. Corcoran has documented how U.S. officials stubbornly refuse to answer affected communities’ questions about Muslim resettlement. In fact, the State Department went so far as to stop holding townhalls and meetings in Washington, DC to discus after local community representatives began to attend.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said of the new Civilization Jihad Reader:

Ann Corcoran’s report is required reading for anyone worried about the threat to America from the global jihad movement.  She has provided shocking details of how a stealth effort by jihadists to advance their stated goal of “destroying Western civilization from within” is being abetted by the U.S. government.

It is to be profoundly hoped that Ms. Corcoran’s analysis will raise awareness of this problem and that, especially with the concern being expressed by influential legislators like Congressman Trey Gowdy, it will help force U.S. officials to halt a dangerous refugee resettlement program.  Her suggestions about what average citizens can do to catalyze such changes amounts, moreover, to a real public service.

Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America is downloadable for free on the Center for Security Policy website, www.securefreedom.org, and available for purchase via Amazon.com.

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 http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/civilization-jihad-reader-series/

Buy Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America at Amazon.

Click here for quick bullet points on this new volume

 PDF of the newly released monograph 

***

Citizen researcher: Get “the plan” for your community before it goes to Washington

Video: Robert Spencer on Hillary Clinton’s War On Free Speech

11436The following is the video of Robert Spencer’s recent talk at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club on April 14, 2015.

He discussed “Hillary Clinton’s War On Free Speech”:

Islam’s Message to “Islamophobes” – Shut Up or Else

imagescaok312n (2)UTT, by John Guandolo, April 16, 2015:

In a number of interviews and presentations recently, Understanding the Threat (UTT) has received questions about how our enemy uses the label of “Islamophobe” to silence and threaten those who speak honestly and factually about the threat of the Islamic Movement here and abroad.

In a brief attempt to review, we will simply look at three key pieces of information:  the Islamic Law of Slander, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Cairo Declaration, and the OIC’s 10 Year Programme of Action.

In Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as to say anything about a Muslim or Islam he would dislike. (Umdat al Salik, Holding One’s Tongue).  Veracity of the statement is irrelevant.  Therefore, to factually explain to people that Sharia obliges Muslims to wage jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until the entire world is under the rule of Sharia, can be considered “Slander” because the Muslim community does not want non-Muslims to know this right now.  You will know everything you need to know about Sharia when you are under the weight of it.

Slander is a capital crime in Islamic Law.

The OIC is the largest international body in the world, second only to the UN, and is made up of all 57 Islamic States on the planet.  Yes, 57 states.

In 1990, during the OIC’s Extraordinary Session, the Heads of State and Kings of every Muslim nation on earth approved the Cairo Declaration.  This document states that the entire Muslim world agrees with the International Declaration of Human Rights, insofar as it does not contradict Sharia.  To quote Articles 24 and 25:  “ARTICLE 24 – All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.  ARTICLE 25 – The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

In other words, the Muslim world does not adhere to the rest of the world’s understanding of “Human Rights.”  In 1993, the OIC served the Cairo Declaration to the UN, thus putting the world on notice that beheading Christians, killing homosexuals, and subjugating women, were all in accordance with Islamic “Human Rights.”

In 2005, the OIC published their “Ten Year Programme of Action” in which they make “Combatting Islamophobia” a main focus of their plan.  It specifically highlighs the need to “combat defamation” of religion (read: “Islam”).  The Programme states:   “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”  Punishments for speech the Muslim world doesn’t “like.”  Here they are tying “Islamophobia” to the Islamic Law of Slander and demonstrating their desire to punish violators.

At the international level this is a gross assault on our rule of law, the foundational principles of Western civilization, and basis decency.  Nothing surprising here from a global Movement which beheads 8 year olds and puts their heads on spikes to line the roads, sets fire to people, and calls for the death of all Jews so they can go to Paradise.

Also see CJR’s page on the Threat to Free Speech

The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Silencing Truth and Lying as a Strategy

behead_those_who_insult_islamUTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 20, 2015:

This is the third in a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

The truth always offends those who do not have it.

In the Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as follows:  “To mention anything concerning a person (Muslim) that he would dislike (Um Dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, r2.2).”   The Quran, the Hadith, and a consensus of the Muslim scholars all agree that anyone who insults the Prophet and/or Islam must be killed (e.g. Surah 9:12, Hadith – Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i, from Ibn-‘Abbas).  The punishment for Slander in Islam is death.

Currently, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – the largest international body in the world second only to the UN, made up of all 57 Islamic nations on the planet – is officially calling for “deterrent punishments” (Section VII, para 3) for anyone who offends Islam, and continues to petition the United Nations for such action.  This campaign is called “Islamophobia.”

Islamophobia is the imposition of the Islamic Law of Slander.  To be called an “Islamophobe” is to be threatened.

Islamophobia

Book R of the Um Dat al Salik (Islamic Sacred Law) is entitled “Holding One’s Tongue.”  Section 8 is “Lying” with a sub-section titled “Permissible Lying.”  This alone is telling.  The Sharia quotes the Prophet Mohammad from the authoritative Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim:  “I did not hear (the Prophet) him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things:  war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife.”

The law is clarified further:  “It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory (ibid, r8.2).”  Jihad is obligatory.

The Political Left around the globe, and especially in the United States, also uses lying, deceit, and the destruction of those who speak the truth as weapons for their own ends.

The current “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit”  is a tremendous example of the deceit of the Obama administration.  The U.S. CVE program was adopted from our British allies who created this program in tandem with the British Muslim Brotherhood (MAB and MCB).  This ongoing effort identifies “Violent Extremists” as the threat to America.  Yet, our enemy self-identifies themselves as “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the Cause of Allah” in order to impose “Sharia” and establish the “Caliphate” (global Islamic State).  The Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the federal level forbid the use of the above-quoted terms.

If you cannot define the enemy, you cannot defeat the enemy.

It is worth noting that the DHS CVE Working Group has Muslim Brothers Imam Mohamed Magid and Arif Alikhan as members, as well as Muslim Sister Dalia Mogahed.  Magid was the VP then President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which is the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support arm for Hamas, according to documents entered into evidence at the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas 2008).

Imam Magid continues as the Executive Director of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia, which is one of three primary outreach partners with the FBI (along with MB group MPAC).

Another lie peddled by this administration is that Muslims were an important part of America’s founding, which is utter nonsense and historically untrue.  Two notable occasions where this lie was repeated:  March 6, 2011 at aspeech given by the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough (now the President’s Chief of Staff) at the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia where he thanked MB leader Imam Mohamed Magid for leading prayers at the White House Iftar Dinner (the end of Eid – the celebration of the first Islamic military victory over non-Muslim forces, but I digress).  He continued, “A dinner which, as the President  noted at the time, is a tradition that goes all the way back more than two centuries when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House.”

Thomas Jefferson waged war on the Islamic states (Barbary states).  We built up the U.S. Navy to “meet the menace” of the Islamic jihadis, and Jefferson himself, as the Ambassador to France – along with John Adams in a letter to Congress – explained the Muslims were waging war on America’s ships and citizens because it was acommand from Allah to do so.

In a speech this week, the President said, “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

One has to ask, what is the purpose of the President of the United States and his senior advisors repeating an easily refutable lie other than to soften the response from Americans to an overt threat from the Islamic Movement, and aid our enemies.

The President, Attorney General, leadership of both political parties, Cabinet Members, and others all parrot the phrase that this war “has nothing to do with Islam.”  Yet, our enemies say Jihad is an obligation Islam commands them to undertake.  Either our government is extremely ignorant, naive or this is an intentional move to deceive the public about a massive threat to our security.

Those who speak the truth about this threat are attacked, not just by the jihadi organizations like ISNA, CAIR, and Islamic Centers across the country (not to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU who overtly defend the jihadis), but by the administration.

The Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) previously had one of the best programs in the nation educating senior military officers on the threat of the Global Islamic Movement until ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others petitioned the White House, deeming the training “offensive” to Muslims.  This action was initiated after a Muslim, who was not even a part of the course, complained.  The proctor for the JFSC course, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, was publicly chastised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey who stated, “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound.”

It would be nice for the General to provide the public with any of the evidence, doctrine or facts taught about the Islamic Movement or Sharia that were not locked down in truth.  He cannot.  I know, because I was one of the instructors at that course.

Together, the Political Left and the Islamic Jihadi Movement are silencing those who speak the truth about a real threat to our Republic.  The very Muslims and Islamic organizations our government is directly working with are ideologically and practically aligned with ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other jihadi organizations we claim we are fighting.

We are being lied to by both sides of this unholy marriage.

Report: Anti-ISIS Propaganda Head Tied to Muslim Brotherhood

AP748496654624-640x480Breitbart, by EDWIN MORA, 17 Feb 2015:

The Obama administration is revamping its efforts to combat Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) propaganda. ISIS and its supporters produce “as many as 90,000 tweets and other social media responses every day,” reports The New York Times.

An empowered Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, currently a small component of the U.S. State Department, will spearhead the new campaign to fight the ISIS propaganda machine.

Rashad Hussain, a Muslim American with close ties to the White House, will replace Alberto Fernandez, the center’s director, according to The Times.

Hussain, who has reportedly participated in events linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, currently serves as Obama’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. He will take over when Fernandez retires in April.

“Hussain, a devout Muslim, has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood,” reported Cal Thomas in an article published by Townhall.

Citing Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that Hussain “maintained close ties with people and groups that [the magazine] says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America.”

Some critics describe Hussain as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. He is not a confirmed member of the group.

An added component called the Information Coordination Cell will be part of the newly revamped center.

It will be “staffed by intelligence and Pentagon analysts among others” and “will be responsible for the broader coordination functions.”

“Skeptics of the new [anti-propaganda] campaign voiced concerns that the program is an attempt by the White House to end a long-simmering turf war with the counterterrorism center’s director, Alberto Fernandez, and exercise more control over the kinds of messages that are produced and coordinated with domestic and international partners,” notes The Times.

“Other officials questioned whether even a newly empowered center at the State Department would be up to the task. Operating the center on a shoestring budget of about $5 million a year, Mr. Fernandez, a respected Middle East specialist and career Foreign Service officer, and his supporters have long complained that neither the State Department nor the White House fully supported or properly financed the center’s activities,” the article adds.

The Obama administration plans “to harness all the existing attempts at counter-messaging by much larger federal departments, including the Pentagon, Homeland Security and intelligence agencies,” explains The Times.

The Times added:

The center would also coordinate and amplify similar messaging by foreign allies and nongovernment agencies, as well as by prominent Muslim academics, community leaders and religious scholars who oppose the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL, and who may have more credibility with ISIS’ target audience of young men and women than the American government.

About 80 people will staff the newly-empowered center.

“We’re getting beaten on volume, so the only way to compete is by aggregating, curating and amplifying existing content,” Richard A. Stengel, the under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, said on Monday, NYT reports.

He admitted that anti-ISIS propaganda efforts by the Obama administration “could have been better coordinated,” adds the article.

In its arsenal, the U.S. government has “more than 350 State Department Twitter accounts, combining embassies, consulates, media hubs, bureaus and individuals, as well as similar accounts operated by the Pentagon, the Homeland Security Department and foreign allies,” points out The Times.

The report points out that the details of the campaign are still in the works, but Obama officials are expected to reveal “broad outlines” of the effort during a summit sponsored by the White House.

Starting on Tuesday, the White House is hosting a three-day summit on “Countering Violent Extremism” to “highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence.”

The White House did not mention “Islamic extremism” in announcing the event. It has not fully revealed who will participate in the summit.

Hussain’s attendance to Muslim Brotherhood-linked events was defended by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross in an article that appeared in The Long War Journal.

Also see:

Islam: Banned for Blasphemy?

By Raymond Ibrahim, Feb. 12, 2015:

Soon after Muslim gunmen killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo offices, which published satirical  caricatures of Muslim prophet Muhammad, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the “collective voice of the Muslim world” and second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations—is again renewing calls for the United Nations to criminalize “blasphemy” against Islam, or what it more ecumenically calls, the “defamation of religions.”

Yet the OIC seems to miss one grand irony: if international laws would ban cartoons, books, and films on the basis that they defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the entire religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively and unequivocally defame other religions, including by name.

To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC cynically maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam (even as Muslim governments ban churches, destroy crucifixes, and burn Bibles). Disingenuous or not, the OIC’s wording suggests that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Koran itself— which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Koran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say God is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Koran 5:72 says “Infidels are they who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Koran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of God … may God’s curse be upon them!”

Considering that the word “infidel” (kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western cartoon appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Koran defames Christians and Christianity.

Indeed, it is precisely because of this that some Russian districts are banning key Islamic scriptures—including Sahih Bukhari, which is seen as second in authority after the Koran itself. According to Apastovsk district RT prosecutors, Sahih Bukhari has been targeted because it promotes “exclusivity of one of the world’s religions,” namely Islam, or, in the words of Ruslan Galliev,  senior assistant to the prosecutor of Tatarstan, it promotes “a militant Islam” which “arouses ethnic, religious enmity.”

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus (“Prophet Isa”) will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, once ordered someone wearing a cross to “throw away this piece of idol from yourself.”  Unsurprisingly, the cross is banned and often destroyed whenever visible in many Muslim countries.

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in Mecca’s Ka’ba—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islamic teaching defames the Christian Cross.

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and copulating with the Virgin Mary.

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s “favorite” wife, Aisha—the “Mother of Believers”—as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Koranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

Nor is such defamation of Christianity limited to Islam’s core scriptures; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame and mock Christianity. “Islam Web,” which is owned by the government of Qatar, even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.  (The Qatari website also issued a fatwa in 2006 permitting burning people alive—only to take it down after the Islamic State used the fatwa’s same arguments to legitimize burning a Jordanian captive pilot.)

The grandest irony of all is that the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed around the world—revolves around things like cartoons and movies, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Koran 9:29).

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.

‘Defeat Jihad Summit’ Challenges Islamic Supremacism – And The Obama ‘Strategy’and A.U.M.F. That Disregard It

33480681301Center for Security Policy, Feb. 11, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah. Among the noteworthy participants in this roundtable discussion were:

  • Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
  • former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
  • S. Senator Ted Cruz
  • Representative Steven King
  • Representative Mike Pompeo
  • Representative Scott Perry
  • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
  • Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.)
  • Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame
  • Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders
  • Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard
  • Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson
  • Israeli Amb. Yoram Ettinger
  • former Muslim Nonie Darwish
  • Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
  • Australian pastor Mark Durie

Highlights of the Summit included:

  • A discussion of the nature of our jihadist enemies and the mainstream – not extremist –character of their inspiration: the politico-military-legal shariah doctrine derived from the sacred texts, institutions and authorities of Islam. There was widespread agreement that we mustunderstand and be able to name our foes, not pretend that they and their motivations are unknowable.
  • The global jihad takes various forms including: the violent kind; civilization (or cultural, stealthy and subversive) jihad; institutional jihad (employing entities like the multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations under the OIC’s influence); individual jihad (its perpetrators are mistakenly being described as “lone wolves”); and material support (which, under shariah, is prized as highly as the service of those who take up the sword).
  • America urgently needs a strategy for countering all such jihadist endeavors – one that brings to bear all instruments of national power to achieve a decisive correlation of forces and our victory. We face a truly existential threat from the global jihad movement, as do other nations of the Free World now under assault for sharing our values and love of liberty.
  • The  unveiled last Friday by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force being proposed by the administration are wholly inadequate. The former compounds the inadequacies of the President’s “lead-from-behind” approach with an even more passive one: “strategic patience”; the latter appears calculated to fail and to embolden, rather than defeat, the Islamic State or any other foe.

The Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., moderated the nearly six-hour summit. Afterwards, he commented:

The participants in the Defeat Jihad Summit have rendered a real public service. Their insights, analyses and recommendations concerning the threat from shariah-adherent Muslims and the need to empower and join forces with others in the Muslim community who eschew that brutally repressive ideology create the basis for a far more sound, effective and durable national security strategy.

We at the Center for Security Policy look forward to working with them and all those benefitting from the livestreaming and other products that will disseminate the fruits of this summit, far and wide.

To view videos of the summit’s presentations, go to www.SecureFreedom.org. For more information about the Summit, contact Samantha Nevore at sam@anelisgroup.com or 703.504.8856.

The event was live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm. The event in its entirety is embedded below. Video highlights to follow shortly:

Telling the Truth About Muhammad to the Bleeding Hearts


main-qimg-d0a7e7c524eb284f87b13ecd2ab69821By Eric Allen Bell:

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of the piction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all.

Anyway, that young multibillionaire is named Mark Zuckerberg and his social network is called Facebook. At the time this article was written, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Facebook members and the average time a member spends on Facebook is 55 minutes a day. So, whatever policy Facebook decides to adopt is kind of a big deal – in some ways it has more of an impact than what the United Nations decides.

Currently the United Nations has approximately 57 nations which make up what is called the OIC, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  The OIC is trying to make it an international law that criticizing the Prophet Muhammad become illegal. Vice President of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, here in the United States, Syrian immigrantAbdou Kattih, said he supports such a law.  But the OIC are lightweights compared to the power of Facebook. There is an argument to be made that the world went inside the internet and became the world.

Today as I write this, there have been about 25,000 acts of terrorism committed, just since 9/11 alone, in the name of the Prophet Muhammad.  That is several per day – approximately 2 million people actually.  But you can’t say that on Facebook. A new Facebook educational page went up this morning, called “Exposing the Prophet Muhammad” and was taken down, hours later, as it violates Facebook’s policy concerning anything that offends the followers of the Prophet Muhammad.

What did that Facebook page post that was so offensive?  It posted a video that referenced all of the Islamic scripture that tells the story of how Muhammad took Aisha as his wife when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.  Oh, and it referenced the Islamic law that states that anyone drawing a picture of the Prophet be killed.

What does this mean for you and me?  It means that in the Information Age, the most powerful force on the internet has agreed to follow the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad.  Islamic Law is also called “Sharia”.  Do you still think the Sharia scare is some crazy Right Wing conspiracy theory?

Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser living in Los Angeles, California.  While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing for Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.

CAIR Mourns Charlie Hebdo, Yet Advocates Censorship

Cair posterAmerican Thinker, By Andrew E. Harrod, Jan. 25, 2015

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-derived “civil rights” group, “repeated its defense of freedom of speech” in a baffling January 7 press release that “condemned” the Paris jihadist Charlie Hebdo massacre. A trip down a bad memory lane, though, is necessary in order to evaluate critically CAIR’s commitment to free speech rights with proverbial grains of salt equivalent to the Dead Sea’s renowned salinity.

CAIR, an unindicted terrorism coconspirator, and “defense of freedom of speech” simply do not match. CAIR, for example, has unsuccessfully tried to stop critical commentary on Islam in an American public library and school. CAIR has also harassed a Michigan individual who opposed a mosque construction with frivolous subpoenas, ultimately quashed. One 2012 article on the CAIR-Chicago affiliate website discussed how the First Amendment has “been manipulated to make America the catalyst for unjust hate.”

Nihad Awad

Nihad Awad

Accordingly, CAIR executive director Nihad Awad sounded an uncertain free speech trumpet when presenting the press release that noted Charlie Hebdo’s “derogatory references to Islam and its Prophet Muhammad.” Awad equated “extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions,” placing thereby Charlie Hebdo’s victims on a level with their murderers. Similar analysis had appeared in a 2006 CAIR press release concerning the Danish cartoons, even as CAIR, the 2015 press release recalled, “rejected the sometimes violent response to Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.”

“We all value freedom of expression,” Awad had written to the Danish ambassador in 2006. “But we should also use good judgment and common sense to avoid actions” that are “intentionally insulting” or “promote hatred.” Awad proposed CAIR “as a bridge between the Muslim community worldwide and the government of Denmark” in “offering proactive educational measures.” CAIR could therefore exploit the affair to present Islam in a positive manner and effectively proselytize.

At the same time, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR’s then chairman and a Hamas/Hezbollah apologist who had also extended a speaking invitation to a neo-Nazi while leading CAIR’s Florida chapter, expressed support for blasphemy laws. Ahmed wrote on his website that a “connection between terrorism and a venerated religious figure such as Prophet Muhammad transgresses all bounds of decency.” “Free speech, like every other freedom, comes with responsibility,” Ahmed intoned, and the “affair was avoidable had all sides approached the issue wisely.” Ahmed demanded the “same zero tolerance for Islamophobia as… anti-Semitism” while painting dark scenarios of speech inciting violence. He feared “plunging the world into the abyss of a clash between civilizations.”

Ahmed Rehab, CAIR-Chicago’s director and a similar Hamas and Nazi apologist, also discussed “racism targeting Muslims” during a 2008 radio interview on republishing the Danish cartoons. “The majority of Muslims are both against the cartoons and, of course, against death threats,” was Rehab’s immoral equivalence. America does not have “absolute freedom of speech” allowing pornography on daytime television, for example, but a “responsible tradition of free speech.”

The Danish cartoons were a “red flag” for Rehab who, like Ahmed, falsely analogized criticizing Islam to anti-Semitic prejudice. “Long before there was any indication of gas chambers,” European Jews confronted bigoted “freedom of expression.”  The “demonization of a particular faith community or race-based community,” Rehab hyperbolically warned, can incite “further violence against that group or… discrimination.” “Just because one has a right” to speak, Rehab added online in 2010, “does not make it the right thing to do” under a “standard of decency.”

The strategies of CAIR et al. to equate criticism of Islamic ideas with prejudice against individuals and warn of non-Muslim speech inciting Muslim violence have not been without effect. President Barack Obama condemned the Charlie Hebdo assault as an “attack on our free press,” but in 2012 an Obama spokesperson had doubted the magazine’s “judgment” in publishing Muhammad cartoons. Days later Obama infamously declared before the United Nations General Assembly that “future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s fifty-seven member states, meanwhile, have advocated for years legal suppression of “Islamophobia” as a “crime against humanity” resembling anti-Semitism. Countries like Denmark have obliged with hate speech prosecutions against Islam’s critics, something not protested by CAIR. Private news organizations also often refrain from showing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while showing no such scruples towards Christians.

Under CAIR’s standards, individuals touching the third religious rail of Islam might escape with their lives, but not their liberty. If social ostracism does not suffice to silence those irreverent towards Islam, groups like CAIR will not refrain from seeking where possible legal instruments of censorship. While trying to talk a good talk on liberty, CAIR’s past shows all too clearly where it is heading.

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points