CAIR Intertwines with US-based, Terror-Linked Fuqra Group

Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, the radical head of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist organization fronted in the U.S. by Muslims of the Americas.

Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, the radical head of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a terrorist organization fronted in the U.S. by Muslims of the Americas.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 9, 2016:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “moderate” image is suffering from a self-inflicted wound now it has become intertwined with the Muslims of the Americas, a radical anti-Semitic front for the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group.

CAIR’s Massachusetts chapter now shares an official with MOA and two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference.

The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR recently chose MOA’s general counsel, Tahirah Amatul Wadud, as a board member. CAIR, a U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity banned for its own terror links in the UAE, wisely omitted mention of MOA. It described her generically as a “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.”

Wadud reportedly posted an article by MOA’s Pakistan-based leader,Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, on her Facebook claiming the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is a puppet of the British government and a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated the attacks on Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001. The Clarion Project was the first to report on the inflammatory article.

“There was no need for America to go to war against Hitler. Hitler was not the enemy of America or the American people. There was a mutual animosity between Hitler and the Jews. So, the American people paid a very heavy price for fighting someone else’s war,” Gilani wrote.

Two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s InternationalIslamophobia Conference, which included a poster featuring the faces of the “American Taliban” that included Clarion Projectnational security analyst Ryan Mauro. They were CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid and CAIR-ArizonaExecutive Director Imraan Siddiqi. Walid was one of the CAIR officials who have questioned whether Muslims should honor fallen U.S. servicemen on Memorial Day, sparking a backlash from Muslims who appreciate the U.S. military.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra is led by Gilani. It is best known for a series of terrorist attacks and plots in the 1980s and early 1990s and for setting up “Islamic villages” across the country, including at least two that were shut down by the authorities. These “villages” are known to have been used for guerilla warfare training. Fuqra now goes primarily by the name of Muslims of the Americas (MOA), among other names. The group says it has 22 such “villages” in the U.S.

The Clarion Project obtained video of female members receiving basic paramilitary instruction in military fatigue at its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York. The date of the footage is cut off, only stating “Jan. 28 20,” presumably meaning it was made in 2000 or after. The best explanation MOA members have come up with is that it was a “self-defense class.”

View the video here:

The Clarion Project identified a Fuqra “village” in Texas in 2014 and retrieved an FBI intelligence report from 2007 that stated MOA “possess an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” and “the documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”

The FBI also said “members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Gilani.” In 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas P. Gallagher testified in court that “individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, N.Y., and if they pass the training in Hancock, N.Y., are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani.”

After Clarion Project identified the Texas site and published the FBI report, a dozen Muslim groups have signed a statement calling for Fuqra’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Of course, CAIR isn’t one of them. CAIR actually came to Fuqra/MOA’s defense.And now CAIR and Fuqra have shared leadership through CAIR-Massachusetts and hold events together.

MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference took place at the Muslim Community Center of the Capital District in Schenectady, New York. CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi is listed as a member of the Board of Directors, indicating he played more than a speaking role in setting the MOA event up.

The MOA’s event featured delegates representing the U.S., Canada, Pakistan, Senegal, India, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Egypt. Siddiqi was the delegate representing India. MOA flyers also list headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela and Las Lomas, Trinidad & Tobago. The MOA claims it had nearly 300 attendees and thousands watched online. It announced it would start a new political coalition named the “International United Muslim Forum.”

Ironically, MOA has tried to excuse itself from its terrorist and criminal history by claiming that it was infiltrated by Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood operatives who were sent to undermine Sheikh Gilani. It even claims that one operative was a shape-shifter who could go “through physical changes before speaking to people as if he were Sheikh Gilani.”

And now MOA is collaborating with a known Muslim Brotherhood entity. You can read our documented profiles of CAIR and MOA here and here.

Listen to great interview of Ryan Mauro on Voices of Global Freedom Radio

audio ryan mauro

Voices of Global Freedom, Jan. 29, 2016:

Today Roy Backpack Baron and Yoda have another interview with Professor Ryan Mauro is the National Security Analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the threat of Islamic extremism and provides a platform for voices of moderation and tolerance within the Muslim community. Clarion Project films have been seen by over 50 million people. Learn more at

Don’t miss this high energy, entertaining, informative show covering current threats to our liberty and how to survive and thrive in these dangerous troubled times.

Kent State Fired Prof for ‘Road Rage;’ Keeps Jihad-Tied Prof

Prof. Julio Pino (Photo: Video screenshot)

Prof. Julio Pino (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 1, 2016:

Kent State University is refusing to terminate Professor Julio Pino, despite his documented support for terrorism including Al-Qaeda and ISIS and ongoing FBI investigation.

However, while KSU’s tolerance for free speech extends to advocacy of terrorism and genocide, it apparently doesn’t extend to non-violent road rage. Last April, the university fired a professor of 10 years after a video emerged of his involvement in a confrontation with a driver that he says nearly struck a girl because he was texting while driving.

Yes, you read that correctly. Kent State University fired a non-tenured professor after he was charged with a misdemeanor for losing his temper at another driver. Yet, the university is refusing to fire a pro-terrorism tenured professor who violates faculty rules, isunder FBI investigation for possibly recruiting students for ISIS and is arguably guilty of the same misdemeanor as the terminated professor (see below).

The terminated professor, Linden Adkins, says he confronted the driver after he saw him texting while driving, drove through a stop sign and a student had to jump out of the way. Akins is seen yelling that the driver is a “moron” and leaning onto the windshield, at which point it sped away and knocked him to the ground. Adkins says he did so to see the face of the driver more clearly than through the side window that was tinted.

“I didn’t get violent. I didn’t get threatening. But I did want to make my point to him…Maybe I shouldn’t have been quite as intense, but at the same time, is it possible that my being that intense saved a future life?” he said.

Adkins was charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor of “aggravated menacing.” Ohio law defines the violation as when someone “knowingly cause[s] another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.”

It continues, “the other person’s belief may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.”

Shouting “Death to Israel” at a former Israeli diplomat on campus hosted by the Jewish Studies Program at KSU—as Pino did in 2011—certainly fits that definition of “aggravated menacing.” So does several other outrageous activities of his, such as a threatening letter to pro-Israel academics, support for suicide bombings of Jews, and support for Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists who target all Americans. But Pino has tenure and wasn’t charged.

In another related development, the Beacon Journal obtained performance reviews of Pino. While the “vast majority were positive,” the negative ones are shocking.

Six complaints came from one class last year and referred to offensive sexual jokes made in the classroom. One wrote, “No professionalism at all considering every class he mentioned how he was going to get high and drunk and find 18-year old girls to have sexual relations with.”

Another wrote, “No respect shown when he talks about being high and drunk and raping little girls.”

Two others more broadly called him “obnoxious” and “rude.”

As we wrote previously, other students complained about Pino’s extremist beliefs (including support for violence and torture committed by other countries), disrespect for the KSU leadership and repeated use of the word “nigga [slang for nigger].” There are also more generic complaints posted online.

Pino responded to the negative performance reviews by saying they are “fabrications and falsifications,” a denial that brings to mind his claim that his social media posts are merely “entertainment” open to interpretation.

KSU has more than enough reason to terminate Professor Pino or to at least put him on an extended leave of absence. Yet, the school didn’t even increase security after news broke that the FBI was investigating him as a possible ISIS recruiter.

Thankfully, students and others in the area see the seriousness of the situation. The danger is not lost on Kent State student Sophia Witt, who is studying global strategy with a minor in Jewish studies and founded Students Supporting Israel on campus. Here is her well-stated summary of the problem:

“You can tell that there’s something off about this guy from his comments that he’s previously made and the anti-Semitism that he’s been known for. I’m fearful for campus, especially the pro-Israel community.

“The problem is you can’t ensure someone’s safety when it comes to terrorism. A person can grab a knife right now and stab someone. [KSU] President Warren doesn’t have the say-so of whether someone does that.

“I feel that it’s the university’s duty as an establishment to ensure the safety of its students and I don’t feel like that’s being done. It’s really disheartening and it shows a little bit of a lack of integrity for Kent State.”

For further background on this developing controversy, please read the Clarion Project‘s previous reports here:

Clarion Project Research Shows Extremism of Prof Investigated by FBI for ISIS Ties

“The Kelly File” Covers Clarion Project Research on Prof. Pino

 Kent State Students Speak Out About Prof’s Terror Support, Professionalism

Kent State Prof Violates Faculty Rules by Supporting Terror, Keeps Job

 Kent State Honored Prof After His Support for Terrorism Became Known

Kent State Fails to Increase Security Despite Investigation into Pro-ISIS Prof

ISIS Issues Dabiq Magazine #13: Gitmo, Trump Not Mentioned

A graphic image from the Islamic State's Dabiq magazine issue #13

A graphic image from the Islamic State’s Dabiq magazine issue #13

The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) has released the 13th issue of its English-language magazine, Dabiq. Here are six points that stand out:

There is not a single mention of Guantanamo Bay, which President Obama says is a recruiting poster for ISIS, or of Donald Trump, who Hillary Clinton says is the biggest recruiter for ISIS.

The terrorist group seems to disagree because  the 56-page magazine is almost entirely about complex theological arguments.

Dabiq-13-CoverThe contents of Dabiq exposes the error of assuming that the extremism of Islamists is a byproduct of anger over perceived mistreatment of Muslims by the U.S. The Islamic State does see anti-Muslim sentiment as suiting its purposes and it does cite actions by the U.S. to justify its views, but the foundation of their ideology is an Islamic interpretation. The worldview, including its political grievances, are shaped by those detailed interpretations presented in Dabiq.


Jihad against the Shiites got the most focus.

 ISIS spent more time justifying the killing Shiites than any other enemy, by far. The biggest point of emphasis was that Shiites qualify as apostates and not as fellow Muslims, and therefore any and all of them can be killed. The emphasis suggests that ISIS does not agree with the many Sunnis who consider average Shiites to be Muslims or, at least, not deserving of being murdered.

Taking aim at Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir.

 This issue of Dabiq goes the extra mile to make the case that ISIS is setting up a functional state in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. A significant amount of space is dedicated to presenting the area as ISIS’ biggest opportunity for growth. A minor mention was made of “pleasant news” coming from Kashmir soon. It appears that ISIS is hoping to present itself as the Sunni shield against the Indian Hindus, much like it presents itself as the Sunni shield against the Shiites in Iraq and Syria.

ISIS repeatedly refers to the Taliban as the “nationalist Taliban” (ISIS holds that nationalism is incompatible with Islam). It also accuses the Taliban of not implementing sharia, betraying the faith by getting too cozy with Iran and being puppets of Pakistani intelligence.

This issue of Dabiq is also dismissive of Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan, saying it has only a few members there.

Assassination plots against Saudi imams. 

One of the first declarations in this issue of Dabiq is a call to assassinate Saudi clerics. the Islamis State is hoping to win over followers of the Saudi brand of Islam (often referred to as Wahhabism) by claiming that the Saudi Royal Family and its supporting religious establishment are disregarding the guidance of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

ISIS feels threatened by the argument that jihad is not permissible because it is counterproductive. This issue spends a noticeable amount of time deriding scholars who argue that Muslims should only wage jihad against its enemies when the time is right. The Islamic State argues for perpetual jihad against its enemies, saying that Allah will bring victory over any militarily superior enemy if the jihad is justified.

“Jewish” Shiites and the mahdi-messiah.

As it almost always does, ISIS ties its jihad to the fulfillment of End Times prophecy. A major portion of this issue claims that Shiite Islam was created by Jews pretending to be Muslims as part of a plot to corrupt the faith and divide the Muslim world. It says that Christianity was corrupted the same way.

It then goes further. Not only is Shiite Islam a plot of the Jews, ISIS claims, but the Jewish messiah and Shiite Islam’s version of themahdi (the “Hidden Imam“) are the same person. This mahdi-messiah is actually the “Antichrist,” or the Dajjal.

In other words, in the minds of ISIS, never mind Israel’s worry about Iran’s pledges to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Iran and Israel—Shiites and Jews—are one. And so the Taliban and other Muslims who play nice with Shiites are complicit with the Antichrist’s agenda.

ISIS doesn’t just make this up out of thin air. They argue their points theologically and devote a significant space doing so. The magazine even ends with a map of Iran and a hadith quoting the Prophet Mohammed as saying that the Antichrist (Dajjal) will be followed by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan, a city in Iran.

In sum, the key takeaway is that jihadists like ISIS will always believe the U.S. and others are at war with Islam no matter what we do because that “fact” is considered an inarguable part of doctrine and prophecy.

Clarion Project documents the Islamic State propaganda magazine in order to expose their hateful ideology. Read every issue of Dabiq here.

Also see:

UK Review of Muslim Brotherhood: Top 13 Quotes

Muslim Brotherhood supporters (© Reuters)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters (© Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Jan. 7, 2016:

The U.S. government rejected the conclusions of the British government’s 18-month review of its intelligence and policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood, concluding that the Islamist group is linked to terrorism and extremism. The comprehensive study welcomed outside contributors, of which the Clarion Project was one.

The British government rejected the myth that the Brotherhood is “moderate” and the patently false notion that it is “non-violent.” The Brotherhood and its ideology are now rightly seen as adversarial and measures will be taken to counter its threat. While the UK stopped just shy of banning it as a terrorist group, Prime Minister David Cameron said it will “keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.”

Here are the top 13 quotes from the British government review and Prime Minister Cameron’s official statement in no particular order:

1. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterizes Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.”

2.  “Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”

3.  “From its foundation the Muslim Brotherhood organized itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure, with an elaborate induction and education program for new members…This clandestine, centralized and hierarchical structure persists to this day.”

4.  “The Hamas founding charter claims that they are the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood treat them as such. In the past ten years support for Hamas (including in particular funding) has been an important priority for the MB in Egypt and the MB international network.”

5.  “From at least the 1950s the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also developed an international network, within and beyond the Islamic world. Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.”

6.  “The wider international network of the Muslim Brotherhood now performs a range of functions. It promotes Muslim Brotherhood ideology (including through communications platforms), raises and invests funds, and provides a haven for members of the Brotherhood who have left their country of origin to continue promoting Brotherhood activity.”

7.  “[F]or the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamization is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”

8.  “Muslim Brotherhood organizations and associated in the UK have neither openly nor consistently refuted the literature of Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb which is known to have inspired people (including in this country) to engage in terrorism.”

9.  “[The review] concluded that it was not possible to reconcile these [MB] views with the claim made by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in their evidence to the review that ‘the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently adhered to peaceful means of opposition, renouncing all forms of violence throughout its existence.'”

10.  “In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organizations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret.”

11.  “[MB fronts] became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections…sought and obtained a dialogue with Government….were active members in a security dialogue with the police.”

12.  “The Muslim Brotherhood have been publicly committed to political engagement in this country. Engagement with Government has at times been facilitated by what appeared to be a common agenda against al Qaida and (at least in the UK) militant Salafism. But this engagement did not take into account of Muslim Brotherhood support for a proscribed terrorist group and its views about terrorism which, in reality, are quite different from our own.”

13. “Senior Muslim Brotherhood figures and associated have justified attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The U.S. government, without even conducting any kind of review of its own, issued a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism rejecting any ban or even any “de-legitimizing” of the Brotherhood at all.

“Political repression of non-violent Islamist groups has historically contributed to the radicalization of the minority of their members who would consider violence…The de-legitimization of non-violent political groups does not promote stability and instead advances the very outcomes that such measures are intended to prevent,” the U.S. government statement claims.

In other words, the U.S. position is this: Be held hostage by the so-called “non-violent Islamist groups.” Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood has a wing named Hamas that the U.S. officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization but it could be worse—at least not all of the group’s members are engaging in violence.

Accept them as “moderates” as they wish, even at the cost of better Muslim alternatives. Don’t confront them. Don’t even “delegitimize” them for their radicalism and ideology because that might push them over the edge.

That’s not a mindset that understands what the threat is and certainly is not one that can defeat it.

Fireworks at GOP Debate as Candidates Debate Nat’l Security

Republican-Debate-Las-Vegas-HPClarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Dec. 16, 2915:

The fifth Republican presidential debate took place last night and focused on national security. It was filled with substance discussions of how the U.S. should fight Islamist extremism, highlighting important differences on handling Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, democracy promotion and an almost universal desire to ally with Muslims who stand against Islamist extremism.

You can read the Clarion Project’s factsheets on each Democratic and Republican presidential candidate’s positions related to Islamist extremism here.  These factsheets do not reflect new positions taken during last night’s debate. Here is a round-up the specific issues discussed by the candidates last night:

Identifying the Ideology

All the candidates defined the enemy with different variants of “radical Islam,” as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s definition of it as “jihadism” and President Obama’s choice of “violent extremism.” A few of the candidates displayed a greater knowledge of the nature of the Islamist ideology.

Rick Santorum identified the core threat as a “theocracy doctrine” emanating from the fact that Islam originated as a dual religious-governmental system under sharia law.

He said this feature makes Islam “different” from other major faiths. “Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political governing structure. The fact of the matter is that Islam is a religion but it is also sharialaw; it is also a civil government; a form of government. And so the idea that that is protected under the First Amendment is wrong. And, in fact, that political structure is what is the big problem. The imposition of sharia law adherence in fundamental Islam, as it was practiced in the 7th Century. There has to be a line drawn,” he said.

Santorum also said the conflict has evolved into World War  III because U.S. policy has “lit the fuse of a nuclear Iran.”

Mike Huckabee stated that he agreed with Santorum’s assessment of Islam. He later said that the objective must be to defeat “every form of radical Islam,” which is an expansion from the exclusive focus on ISIS and Iran.

Ted Cruz said that the U.S. is not at war with the faith of Islam but with a political-theocratic Islamic ideology. He pointed to India, a country with a large Muslim population, to show that the West is not at war with the entire Muslim world. However, Cruz said that being a “Woodrow Wilson democracy promoter” is not the answer and mocked democracy-promoters for touting moderate Muslim forces that are like “a purple unicorn” and end up being jihadists.

Proposed Ban on Muslim Immigration

Donald Trump stood by his call for a halt to all entry of Muslims into the United States, though he has clarified in recent days that there would be a small number of exceptions such as Muslims who serve in the U.S. armed forces. His proposal was rejected by each of the other candidates.

Lindsey Graham directly addressed the estimated 3,500 Muslims serving in the U.S. military to thank them for their service and said that U.S. strategy needs to work with those within the faith of Islam to defeat the extremists. He told the following brief story to make his point:

“I was at the second presidential election in Afghanistan. The guy guarding me was an American-Muslim sergeant in the Army who grew up in Kabul, left when he was—he graduated high school, joined the U.S. Army, went back to his high school where they were doing polling, people voting. He took me there and cried like a baby. And I cried like a baby. He is the solution to this problem, folks. He is not the problem. Leave the faith alone.”

Graham said that Trump’s language has done the “one single-most thing you should not do—declare a war on Islam,” adding that “ISIS would be dancing in the streets [at Trump’s language]—if they believed in dancing.”

George Pataki condemned the proposed ban and Trump’s overall attitude towards Muslims, accusing him of demeaning millions of Muslim-Americans. He described Trump as a modern-day version of the Know-Nothing Party that opposed Catholic immigration. Pataki said the U.S. should embrace Muslims who oppose jihad within the U.S. and abroad.

Mike Huckabee pointed out that the ban is also impractical. A jihadist who desires to kill will certainly be willing to lie about whether they are a Muslim when attempting to enter the country.

Resettling of Syrian Refugees inside America

All of the candidates opposed President Obama’s plan to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. in some way.

Several pointed out that the female ISIS terrorist who participated in the San Bernardino terrorist attack expressed her desire on social media to commit violent jihad and still passed through the Department of Homeland Security’s vetting process for a K-1 visa to come to the country. Shockingly, immigration officials are prohibitedfrom reviewing social media postings of visa applicants. Only now is the Department of Homeland Security revising its vetting process to include social media activity.

Ben Carson said that the best solution is to help the Syrian refugees resettle in the region and in safe zones inside Syria. He said that an alliance of Syrian Kurds, Christians and moderate Sunnis have come together (referring to the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces) that oppose both Assad and ISIS and is creating such a safe zone in the Hasakah Province in Syria.

Rick Santorum added that the Department of Homeland Security should be able to consider a broader range of indicators of Islamist radicalization when granting visas to enter the country, such as whether the applicant attends a mosque with a history of extremist preaching.

Santorum also said that bringing in persecuted religious minorities into the U.S. as refugees isn’t the preferred option because then they lose their ancestral homeland. He said it also means the U.S. has less moderate Muslim allies in the area, so it’s better to assist with setting up refugee camps.

Carly Fiorina explained some of the flaws in the Department of Homeland Security vetting process. She said that names are checked against databases of suspected terrorists, but that would not necessarily include terrorist sympathizers. She pointed out that parents and employers regularly review social media accounts of other people but the security officials cannot.

John Kasich emphasized that he is opposed to an eternal ban on resettling Syrian refugees but that a pause is needed as the vetting process is reviewed in light of discovered flaws.

Mike Huckabee took strong offense to the notion that opposing the resettlement of refugees is a hypocritical position for a Christian to take.

Homeland Security

Ted Cruz explained his opposition to the NSA’s collection of phone metadata and his vote in favor of the USA Freedom Act to stop the bulk collection. He argued that the act actually expand the amount of counter-terrorism intelligence available to authorities, reduce information overload that inhibits operations and expand the surveillance of other phones used by terrorists.

Marco Rubio defended his support of the NSA’s bulk collection of phone metadata and said the changes under the USA Freedom Act means that federal authorities have lost valuable intelligence. He alluded to the fact that his position in the Senate gives him access to classified information that would vindicate his position.

Rand Paul sided with Cruz in opposing the NSA’s metadata collection program on the grounds of civil liberties and that it results in information overload for the authorities.

George Pataki most strongly spoke about Islamist extremist networks within the U.S. aside from terrorist cells. He cited the NYPD’scontroversial counter-terrorism intelligence-gathering as a model of success because it focused on mosques, community meetings and social media where radical ideologies are present. In the past, he has said he’d apply the same standard to any houses of worship or public venue where it is known that violent extremism is being advocated.

Pataki said that the advocating of violence against Americans, including support for jihad against the U.S., is not protected free speech and should be prosecuted. He has previously stated that non-profit organizations that promote terrorist groups or incite violence against Americans should lose their tax-exempt status.

Pataki said that the U.S. must work with Muslims who oppose violent jihad abroad and at home, implying that the U.S. has not done enough to support moderate leaders domestically like the newly-announced Muslim Reform Movement.

He twice emphasized the need for a law to force communications companies to have a backdoor key so the authorities can decode any encrypted message sent through their service, pointing to how 109 encrypted messages sent by an ISIS supporter who committed a shooting in Texas have still not been deciphered by the FBI.

Carly Fiorina opposes a federal law like Pataki talked about, saying that private companies will cooperate if asked as she did when she led Hewlett-Packard. She recalled an incident where she responded to the NSA’s request for assistance.

John Kasich spoke about the need to enable the federal authorities to decode the encrypted messages of terrorists.

Mike Huckabee agreed with Pataki that it is not a violation of the Constitution for the NYPD and other agencies to attend public venues just like any American citizen can, whether it’s to listen to a sermon at a mosque or a church. Huckabee questioned the motives of Islamic groups that oppose such practices. He said that a house of worship with a true message of peace would be okay with anyone attending and would hope of winning a convert.

Ben Carson says he supports the authorities monitoring anywhere that shows signs of radicalization, including mosques and Islamic schools. He explicitly referenced a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum that was released during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Carson mentioned how the memo indicates that the Brotherhood planned to use political correctness against us.

Rick Santorum, as mentioned above, said that the political-governmental aspects of Islam should not be treated the same way as the solely religious part of Islam. He said the former is not protected by the First Amendment in the same way.

He supports the NSA’s bulk phone metadata collection and emphasized that the data is not the content of conversations and has no personal identifiers unless someone’s phone number is linked to a phone number used by an overseas terrorist. His argument is that the collection of more anonymous data enables less intrusive intelligence collection that raises privacy issues.

He opposes a measure by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to prevent the purchase of guns by those who are on the no-fly list because of constitutional concerns. The individual is denied a right by being placed on a secret list without recourse. He said that a better option is stronger coordination between the government agencies so background checks detect suspected terrorists trying to purchase guns.

Lindsey Graham supports the NSA’s metadata collection program. He added that once an American’s phone number is found in a terrorist’s phone, a court order is still needed in order to authorize a wiretap of that American citizen’s communications.

Chris Christie emphasized that he worked as the U.S. Attorney for N.J. and prosecuted terrorists using controversial programs like the Patriot Act and maintained his support for them. He said he worked successfully with the Muslim community in his state on counter-terrorism efforts.

Jeb Bush sounded dismissive of the need for broader authority to monitor radicalization within the U.S. He said that the FBI and other agencies are already watching anti-American activity and it shouldn’t even be a part of the public discussion.

War Against ISIS in Iraq and Syria

Lindsey Graham remains the only candidate calling for a major U.S. ground offensive against the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS/ISIL) involving 10,000 troops in Iraq and 10,000 in Syria. He said that only 10% of the troops in Syria would be American, with another 90,000 coming from Turkey and neighboring Arab countries. He believes that the Syrian-Russian airstrikes have eliminated the option of supporting Syrian rebels on the ground to do the fighting for us.

His plan would involve a long-term occupation of territory and nation-building, including building girls’ schools in villages, in order to counter the radical Islamic ideology. His plan is opposed by Santorum and Pataki.

Rick Santorum supports increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and providing trainers in Syria but would not deploy combat troops to Syria because it risks “crossing a tripwire theologically that could turn on us.” He accurately explained that ISIS’ propaganda is that it is fulfilling apocalyptic End Times prophecies and that luring U.S. troops into Syria and a “particular town” (referring to Dabiq) would vindicate its claims.

He said that Islamic teachings compel Muslims to follow thecaliphate and ISIS has the first one since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. He believes that the key to defeating ISIS is that Islamic law teaches that a caliphate’s defeat means it does not have Allah‘s blessing, so forcing it to lose territory to Kurds and Iraqi Sunnis would destroy its legitimacy.

George Pataki supports increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and brought attention to the success of Iraqi Sunni tribes who are advancing against ISIS in Ramadi and want more U.S. assistance. He said he would not direct aid through the central Iraqi government in Baghdad to ensure speedy delivery.

In Syria, Pataki advocates supporting the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in northern and eastern Syria that defeated ISIS in Kobani. He favors working with Turkey to establish a no-fly zone along the Syrian border to stem the flow of refugees. Russian aircraft that violated the no-fly zone would be targeted.

He opposes a long-term occupation as described by Graham. He pointed out that the 2003 invasion of Iraq took a turn for the worst once the population viewed U.S. troops as long-term occupiers instead of liberators, particularly when U.S. forces were hosted inside of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces.

He recommended working with Saudi Arabia because it justannounced an alliance of 34 Muslim countries to combat terrorist organizations and promoters of violent ideologies (even though alliance members included known sponsors of extremism).

Marco Rubio described ISIS as the most sophisticated terrorist group the U.S. has ever faced and warned that it is growing in Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen and has Jordan “in its sights.” He warned that ISIS is winning the propaganda war and that the U.S. needs a strategy that exposes the hardships of life under the ISIS caliphate and broadcasts our successes so that they no longer look invincible to recruits.

Rubio, like Santorum, referred to the apocalyptic brand of radical Islam practiced by ISIS. He said that the perception that ISIS is succeeding furthers their propaganda that they are waging a war foretold in prophecy that will end with the West’s defeat.

Jeb Bush said that the U.S. must arm the Kurds directly and go around the central Iraqi government’s authority, as well as establish a no-fly zone over Syria. He would embed U.S. forces within the Iraqi security forces to improve their effectiveness and “get lawyers off the backs” of the U.S. military so there’d be less restrictions.

Mike Huckabee said he supports increasing U.S. troops in Iraq and would be comfortable with an addition of 10-20,000 troops. He would dramatically increase the air campaign against ISIS, pointing out that President Obama boasts of 9,000 air sorties against the group over 18 months but 3,000 sorties happened daily during the Gulf War. He would also loosen the rules of engagement.

Ted Cruz similarly said he would use “overwhelming air power” to defeat ISIS and would directly arm the Kurds. He made a similar statement as Huckabee did but with different numbers. He claimed that there were 1,100 air attacks per day during the Gulf War and today it is only between 15 and 30.

Ben Carson spoke in support of arming certain groups inside Syria that oppose both Assad and ISIS and emphasized destroying ISIS’ ability to raise money through black market oil sales. He claimed that ISIS is able to recruit disaffected people by offering money, indicating he believes that there is a connection between poverty and Islamist terrorism.

Carly Fiorina said that she’d involve Arab partners like Jordan and Egypt to fight ISIS and would bring back the best military minds like General Keane, General Petraeus, General McCarthy, and Lt.-General and former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn.

John Kasich likewise pointed to Saudi Arabia’s announcement of an alliance against terrorist groups and ideologies and said the U.S. must work closely with it. He called for a major international ground offensive like what happened in the Gulf War.

Donald Trump said the U.S. should have a cyber warfare team that takes down the Internet over parts of Iraq and Syria where ISIS operate. He also criticized the media for glorifying ISIS terrorists as “masterminds” of plots. Trump also defended his idea to kill or punish the families of ISIS terrorists since they desire to lose their own lives.

Rand Paul was the most direct opponent of using U.S. combat forces in the region, saying that only Arab troops should partake. He also does not support arming Syrian rebels against ISIS because they are allies of Al-Qaeda and other jihadists.

He criticized Trump’s idea of killing or punishing the families of terrorists by saying it would require that the U.S. withdraw from international treaties like the Geneva Convention.

Toppling the Pro-Iran Syrian Dictatorship

Lindsey Graham said it is “imperative” that Assad be removed from power because he has killed nearly a quarter-million Syrians and the civil war will not end until he leaves. He also said that supporting Assad is akin to supporting Iran because he is their ally and a sponsor of terrorism.

Rick Santorum agrees that the U.S. must force Assad out of power, partially because of a dangerous perception in the region that the U.S. has chosen to ally with Iran and Shiite extremists against the Sunnis. He said that ISIS uses this as powerful anti-American propaganda.

Marco Rubio supports removing Assad from power because his reign is a “main reason” why ISIS exists. The Assad dictatorship’s oppression caused and sustains the civil war that enables ISIS to find safe havens. He also mentioned that Assad is an anti-American ally of Iran who sponsored terrorists in Iraq to kill U.S. servicemen.

Chris Christie supports removing Assad and says his rule is interconnected with the strength of ISIS. He said that ISIS recruits from the oppression of Sunnis by Assad and Iran.

John Kasich supports a policy of removing Assad from power with the help of regional allies like the bloc announced by Saudi Arabia.

Rand Paul opposes a policy of removing Assad from power and removing secular dictatorships more generally, arguing that history shows it leads to the rise of radical Islam. He said that supporting Syrian rebels means supporting the allies of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Paul also criticized proposals for a no-fly zone over Syria, saying it would risk World War III if Russian aircraft violated it and were shot down.

Donald Trump made a similar argument in opposing overthrowing Assad and reminding the audience of his opposition to the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya. He said the U.S. should seize the oil of Iraq and use the revenue to pay those that served in the war.

Ted Cruz said that he would not have a foreign policy of democracy promotion, involvement in civil wars removing Assad from power. He predicted that ISIS would take over the rest of Syria if Assad falls.

Mike Huckabee indicated that he does not support a policy of removing Bashar Assad from power because he is not killing Americans. He compared supporting the Syrian opposition to the Obama Administration’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


All of the candidates oppose the nuclear deal with Iran and the debate did not highlight their differences on whether they would immediately withdraw from the deal, alter it in cooperation with allies or only abandon it if Iranian violations are detected.

George Pataki argued that the deal does not technically exist and so the U.S. is not required to abide by it any longer. He said it was not ratified as a treaty by the Iranian government and they already violated the agreement by testing long-range ballistic missiles. The U.S. would therefore not be withdrawing from the agreement.

Rick Santorum said that the deal is effectively over because the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed in a recent report that Iran is still withholding information about its past nuclear weapons work.

Mike Huckabee said he would sanction Iran and stop unduly pressuring Israel, accusing the administration of putting more pressure on Israel over building bedrooms in Judea and Samara (also known as the West Bank) than on Iran for building nuclear weapons.

Muslim Brotherhood

Ted Cruz made sure to describe the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group when he criticized those who supported the removal of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Ben Carson explicitly referenced a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum that was released during the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Carson mentioned how the memo indicates that the Brotherhood planned to use political correctness against us.

Mike Huckabee criticized the Obama Administration for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


Ted Cruz blasted the Obama Administration and his Republican rivals who supported the NATO intervention in Libya’s civil war to topple the Gaddafi dictatorship. He characterized Gaddafi as a counter-terrorism partner. Cruz contrasted their argument that he would be replaced by moderates with the current instability and ISIS presence in Libya.

Marco Rubio countered that the U.S. did not start the revolution in Libya and that inaction would have brought results similar to what we see in Syria, where extremist militias and terrorists grow in power as the civil war continues. He pointed to Gaddafi’s record of sponsoring terrorism against the U.S., including the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and the bombing of a club in Germany frequented by U.S. troops.

Rand Paul opposed the U.S. involvement in Libya’s civil war that removed Gaddafi from power, describing it as an example of a flawed strategy of undermining secular dictatorships in Muslim countries.

Lindsey Graham did not directly say whether he would deploy U.S. troops to Libya to fight ISIS’ advances in that country.

Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

‘Jihad Olympics’ Take Two: Al-Qaeda Shows Its Muscle in Mali

Security forces rescues hostage in Mali (Photo: Video screenshot)

Security forces rescues hostage in Mali (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov. 26, 2015:

When al-Qaeda struck a hotel in Mali exactly one week after the Islamic State’s attacks in Paris, it was another competition in what we’ve dubbed the “Jihad Olympics.” Al-Qaeda’s latest assault also doubled as an attack ad against the Islamic State (ISIS), contrasting its relative mercy towards Muslims with the Islamic State’s complete disregard for Muslim casualties.

Watch Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst, Prof. Ryan Mauro, on FOX News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom” as news broke of the attacks in Mali and the anchor noted our correct prediction of Al-Qaeda’s responsibility:

Responsibility for the attacks was claimed by two al-Qaeda branches: al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Al-Mourabitoun. The Macina Liberation Front, a group that has links to Al-Qaeda but has not formally sworn allegiance, later also took credit.

Aside from the obvious fact that al-Qaeda believes it is required by Allah to carry out attacks like what we saw in Mali, the timing strongly suggests it wanted—and desperately needed—to show it still has a pulse. Success is seen as Allah’s endorsement, so al-Qaeda’s decline since 2001 and the rise of the Islamic State since 2014 have potentially existential consequences for the group.

Success wins arguments between Islamists. There are lengthy debates between Islamists referencing Islamic scripture and legal rulings and scholars’ interpretations, but at the end of the day, there’s no stronger argument than success (a.k.a. Allah’s blessing).

Temporary setbacks may be shrugged off as tests of faith, but undeniable defeat will cause even the most confident-sounding jihadist to privately question how he has offended Allah. This can be seen in letters between senior al-Qaeda leaders and public criticism from former al-Qaeda supporters, including a mentor to Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

A second purpose of the Mali attacks was to serve as the jihadist equivalent of a political attack ad against the Islamic State. al-Qaeda made sure to release hostages who could recite verses from the Quran in order to minimize Muslim casualties, regardless of whether those Muslim hostages support the group or not.

Al-Qaeda supporters online immediately pointed this out. al-Qaeda derides the Islamic State as being equivalent to the Khawarij (or Kharijites), a puritanical Islamic sect that waged war against the ruling caliph and branded rival Muslims as apostates deserving of death. The comparison stings ISIS enough that its propaganda regularly addresses it.

Of course, the parallels can just as easily be seen with al-Qaeda and all the Muslim blood it has on its hands. The private communications of al-Qaeda leaders indicate they believe that its targeting of Muslims was frowned upon by Allah and so decided to calibrate their massacres. Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban’s condemnation of the Pakistani Taliban’s massacre of Muslim children in Peshawar is an example of this course correction.

The “Jihad Olympics” can produce the desired headlines, such as news that al-Qaeda has delivered a “severe blow” to the Islamic State in the Golan Heights area by suicide bombing the leadership of one of its militias (the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigades). But the terrorist-on-terrorist violence comes with a price.

Attacks like those in Paris and Mali are benchmarks in the competition that each group must achieve, especially as its capabilities are doubted. The Islamic State attacked an Italian priest in Bangladesh not only because he is a legitimate target in their minds, but because Bangladesh is a focal point of a new al-Qaeda affiliate that attacked two publishers there only weeks earlier.

The competition and inter-jihadist bloodshed only raises the pressure on each group to attack Western targets. And the gold medal in this “Jihad Olympics” will unfortunately be won by whoever does the most damage inside Western countries, especially the United States.

Radical Mosques in America: Is There One Near You?

Radical-Mosques-US-HPClarion has identified over 80 Islamist orgs/mosques in the US, resulting in prominent media coverage on FOX News and the Daily Caller website.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov. 26, 2015:

The Clarion Project has identified over 80 Islamist organizations including mosques in the United States, resulting in prominent media coverage on FOX News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” and theDaily Caller website.

Watch Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst, Prof. Ryan Mauro, on “Fox & Friends” discussing four of the radical mosques and the need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization:

The four organizations discussed in the segment are:

The segment follows the Daily Caller’s creation of a map of over 80 radical mosques based on Clarion’s research. This is about four percent of the estimated 2,106 mosques in the U.S., the news site wrote.

In addition to those 83 sites, there are many other Islamist organizations operating in the U.S. and mosques due to be written about. You can learn about Islamist groups in your state by searching the Islamist Organizations in America section of our website that is continuously updated.

The North American Islamic Trust’s (NAIT’s) website says it owns mosques in 42 states and has stated that it owns the titles to over 325 properties.

Click here for a partial list of mosques owned by NAIT

In January, a prominent Muslim leader in the United Kingdom with links to the Muslim Brotherhood estimated that half of the mosques in America were founded by Brotherhood members.

Senator Ted Cruz has introduced important legislation to help get the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The House version of the bill was introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and is now endorsed by five additional representatives.

We encourage readers to ask their congressmen and Senators (and presidential candidates) for their statements on this legislation and/or their general position on designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

Please send us any written or recorded statements so we can update our website to document where our leaders stand.

Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

A woman takes part in a vigil in front of the French Consulate in Los Angeles as a show of solidarity with the people of France. (Photo: © Reuters)

A woman takes part in a vigil in front of the French Consulate in Los Angeles as a show of solidarity with the people of France. (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov. 15, 2015:

The coordinated attacks in Paris and suspected Islamic State bombing of a Russian airliner raises the risk that Islamic State supporters in the U.S. and other Western countries will spur into action. The opening of a new phase in Islamic State (ISIS) terror will also result in a fresh wave of recruits radicalized by the appearance that the Islamic State is quickly ascending.

You can watch Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro discuss this increasing threat on FOX News’ “America’s News HQ” on Saturday afternoon below:

First, there is a risk of “copycat” attacks by the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorist supporters, including those who are loyal to Al-Qaeda and want to show that the group hasn’t become a “has-been” in the jihadist world. It is hard to express the excitement that an aspiring jihadist will feel at two breakthrough moments in the war against the West in such short order. At this sensitive time, any kind of an attack—even a simple shooting or pipe bombing—takes on much greater significance.

If an Islamist terrorist is planning or considering an attack, it is difficult to resist the temptation to strike now. Even a relatively minor attack becomes part of a bigger story, rather than being forgotten amongst the wave of headlines about acts of violence. On an egotistical level, a jihadist will want to attach his name to this dramatic story.

Secondly, there are those who will worry that they might now lose their chance to strike and earn their ticket to Paradise by dying in jihad as a “martyr.” Supporters of the Islamic State have every reason to expect Western governments to become extra aggressive in rounding up possible terrorists. ISIS supporters who believe they are on the authorities’ radar could choose to act sooner instead of patiently preparing their plot and risk being foiled.

The attacks in Paris and on the Russian airliner show that the threat from the Islamic State is greater than ever, and we’ve entered a new period where they’ve moved towards more sophisticated, Al-Qaeda-style attacks in the West. They are engaging in pre-planning and dispatching teams of operatives instead of just hoping to inspire a random supporter into committing violence independently. This upgrade in quality is a powerful tool in the Islamic State’s propaganda arsenal.

The organization’s ability to recruit is largely based on the appearance of success. No one wants to join an organization whose recent history is filled with losses. Moreover, success is seen as Allah‘s endorsement; the ultimate winning argument in a theological debate among those dabbling in Islamist extremism.

Just as the Islamic State’s burst onto the scene with the capturing of Mosul in 2014 earned it a wave of recruits, these attacks will also earn it a wave of recruits and it will encourage the millions of Islamic State supporters who have yet to take up arms to finally act upon their beliefs.

It is critical that the West push back against the Islamic State’s convincing narrative of success. Those in the region understand the importance of this. We saw many tweets from people in the Middle East directed towards ISIS that told the group that their attacks in Paris cannot erase their setbacks elsewhere.

Dramatic events like these make recent losses like the killing of “Jihadi John” and the Kurds recapturing Sinjar seem like distant memories, but they deserve to be a part of the news coverage and U.S. government’s international messaging. Instead of focusing on single events that the Islamic State hopes will grab our attention, we must put them into a broader context that the Islamic State is less eager for the public to know about.


Also see:

Russian Plane Downing: A “Turbocharge’ for ISIS

(Photo: Screenshot from an Islamic State video)

(Photo: Screenshot from an Islamic State video)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov.5, 2015:

U.S. intelligence now believes that the explosion of a Russian airliner over Egypt that killed 224 people was due to a bomb planted by the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) on the plane. If you thought the terrorist group was strong before, then get ready for what one terrorism expert is predicting will be a “turbocharged” ISIS.

The current assessment is that the Islamic State had an operative working inside the Sharm al-Sheikh airport who planted the bomb.  Officials say that intercepted communications lead the U.S. to believe that the Islamic State was indeed responsible. Whereas Al-Qaeda has focused on developing innovative bombs that can make it past airport security, ISIS has apparently succeeded by infiltrating the security.

It is still possible that the bomber simply exploited holes in security. Experts and officials say that it was known that the airport had inadequate protective measures, yet one expert told CNN that the airport’s screening of luggage is above average.

Former CIA case officer Robert Baer said that the Islamic State could have received advanced bomb-making skills from former members of Iraqi intelligence who joined Al-Qaeda (and later ISIS) after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. He also said that he spoke with a technician who reconstructs explosive devices about the possibility that a bomb could get through the TSA screening process. The technician said that—even with good airport security—there is a 65% chance that it’d get through.

Shortly after the explosion, the Islamic State released a poor quality video that was uncharacteristic of the group, therefore raising doubts about its claims of responsibility. The video didn’t have any slick editing or narration for context. The statements were vague and said the group would not disclose how it destroyed the airliner at this time, making it seem like a desperate plea for attention.

If the Islamic State has a plant inside airport security or a unique method, it makes operational sense to delay giving details until the operative escapes or the method is compromised. After all, they would assume that enemy governments will conclude it was an attack in the matter of days.

CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said that if ISIS is indeed responsible, the successful attack would “turbocharge their popularity.” Baer said that ISIS has “widespread support across the Middle East” already.

Cruickshank is right that such an attack will increase their popularity among jihadists because the group’s appeal comes from success and the appearance of Allah‘s endorsement. But it also could spur action by the millions of Islamic State supporters who have yet to actually pick up arms. My analysis of multiple polls showed that the Islamic State likely has 22 million strong supporters in the Arab world; a number that increases to around 42 million if those who view the group “somewhat positively” are included.

A confirmation of the Islamic State’s responsibility could also be a decisive moment in its caliphate competition with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The symbolism of the Islamic State destroying a Russian airliner is powerful. Al-Qaeda hasn’t destroyed an enemy airliner since 9/11 so the Islamic State will be able to say that Al-Qaeda’s time has passed and Caliph al-Baghdadi is the true successor to Osama Bin Laden, not Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The 224 civilians, including 17 children, are the most immediate victims of this apparent attack on Russia, but it is also an attack on Egypt. This could be a mighty blow to Egypt’s tourism industry. It is certainly an embarrassment for the Egyptian government as it touts progress against the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and other jihadists in the Sinai Peninsula.

If the Islamic State destroyed the Russian airliner as is now thought to be the case, it will be a hallmark achievement for the group and it will force a chilling realization: Over a year after the U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State began, the group’s ability to commit international terrorism is greater than ever.


Also see:

Cruz Proposes Bill to Label Brotherhood, CAIR as Terror Orgs.


CAIR’s Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R); National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

‘We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance,’ said Cruz.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Nov. 4, 2015:

In what may be a seminal moment in the fight against radical Islam, presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has introduced legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The impressively-detailed bill identifies three Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The Muslim Brotherhood is not currently banned in the U.S. because it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Remarkably, its Palestinian wing—Hamas—is designated, but the group a whole is allowed to operate in the U.S. You can read my thorough rebuttal of the Brotherhood’s purported “non-violence” policy here.

The legislation reviews the Brotherhood’s terrorist history and how it has been banned by the governments of Egypt, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria. Egypt has released videos showing the Brotherhood’s involvement in terrorism and the Egyptian government’s website warns about the Brotherhood lobby in the United States.

The legislation quotes FBI director Robert Mueller as testifying in 2011 that “I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here [in the U.S.] and overseas have supported terrorism. To the extent that I can provide information, I would be happy to do so in a closed session. But it would be difficult to do in an open session.”

The legislation discusses the successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, a confirmed Brotherhood front that was shut down for financing Hamas. The Justice Department  labeled three U.S. groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial and identified them as “entities” of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s pro-Hamas operation: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).  Read our profiles of each group’s extremism by clicking on the links.

The legislation explains that the Muslim Brotherhood set up secret “Palestine Committees” in countries around the world to covertly assist Hamas terrorist activity with “media, money and men.” The three groups mentioned are subsections of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, with ISNA and NAIT being “intimately connected with the Holy Land Foundation and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas,” in the words of a 2008 court ruling.

A mountain of documentation shows that CAIR’s role in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee is media and political influence. Two of CAIR’s founders were present at a secret meeting in 1993 that was wiretapped by the FBI where they were instructed to deceive American audiences. (“War is deception,” they said at the meeting.)

The legislation states that Congress’ assessment is that the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. It gives the secretary of state 60 days to provide a detailed response as to whether the Brotherhood fits the criteria or not.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) is introducing the House version of the legislation.

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance…We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the media outlet.

No other presidential candidate has explicitly called for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

Last month, GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson called on the IRS to revoke CAIR’s non-profit status for allegedly violating regulations by demanding that he end his campaign. Carson’s petition did mention CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Over the summer, GOP presidential candidate George Pataki told me he’d revoke the tax-exempt status of CAIR and other groups that support terrorist groups.

Cruz’s standing in the Republican presidential primary is increasing and he is now in fourth place nationally with 7.5% in an average of recent polls. He is in third in Iowa with 11%; sixth in New Hampshire with 7% and fourth in South Carolina with 7%.

Voters should see this as a make-or-break moment for presidential candidates and all members of Congress on national security. If a policy-maker does not understand the Muslim Brotherhood, he does not understand radical Islam.

The Clarion Project will update you every time that a presidential candidate takes a position on the issue and as members of Congress take a stand. Readers can view our factsheets on all the presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism here.


Many people wonder why the Justice Department never followed through with trying the un-indicted co-conspirators from the Holy Land Foundation trial findings. That trial ended in 2008 when Obama was elected and Eric Holder was appointed to head the DOJ.

Pamela Geller explains:

If this goes through, it could have impact on one of the foremost Muslim Brotherhood entities in the U.S.: Hamas-CAIR. According to an internal document entered into evidence in the largest terrorist funding trial in our nation’s history, Hamas-tied CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood entity, working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house….”

Many of Muslim Brotherhood-tied CAIR’s leadership have been convicted of jihad-related crimes. They attack and dismantle America’s greatest freedoms through litigation jihad. They smear and destroy the voices of freedom via their well-paid hacks in the media. Over the past decades they have expended hundreds of millions of dollars to buy media and elected officials.

Some of the evidence indicting CAIR:

IPT: … [in] the trial for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) ..the mountain of evidence presented by prosecutors demonstrates, in detail, the existence of a grand Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States dating back to the 1960s. A segment of this network, the self-designated “Palestine Committee,” sought to financially, politically, and morally support the efforts of HAMAS to destroy the “Zionist enemy.”

One exhibit – the Palestine Committee’s 1991 bylaws – reveals a web of key organizations tied to the Committee that were tasked with promoting HAMAS’ agenda, each in a particular field. Six groups were listed, the most prominent being HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR).

It is a committee which operates through the Association [IAP] for now. It is hoped that it will become an official organization for political work and its headquarters will be in Washington, Allah willing. It represents the political aspect to support the cause politically on the American front.

An organization headquartered in Washington, DC, tasked with political activism, born out of the IAP? […]

Fast forward to July 30, 1994, just weeks after the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded. APalestine Committee meeting agenda lists several issues to be discussed, including a review of the reports of the “working organizations.” Listed among these organizations right beside HLF, IAP, and UASR – all members of the Palestine Committee as listed in the bylaws – is the word “CAIR.”

As a result of that trial, it was understood that these groups were be indicted and prosecuted as well. But …. Obama was elected, and Eric Holder and his DoJ scuttled those prosecutions. Eric Holder refused to answer a Congressional inquiry about evidence in scuttled prosecutions of jihadist groups, CAIR, ISNA, ICNA in America’s largest terrorism financing trial .Nonetheless, the Department of Justice is sitting on “a mountain of evidence” against these subversive jihad groups.

Maybe the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization will get that prosecution moving again — if an American President is elected in 2016.

But will the Muslim Brotherhood’s friend in the White House move to stop this designation?



Send them the following link to the‘‘Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015’’

Reframing the Arab-Israeli Conflict

“The art of reframing is to maintain the conflict in all its richness but to help people look at it in a more open-minded and hopeful way.”  – From Bernard Mayer’s “The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution”

Can we look at what is going on in Israel today – and the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole – “in a more open-minded and hopeful way”?

After all, the current trouble is nothing new. Arabs have been stabbing and murdering Jews for 100 years, long before the modern State of Israel came into being. The Hebron Massacre in 1929 is just one incident that springs to mind.

And with no substantial political or military solution on the horizon, how can we possibly reframe things?

Well, the popular way of looking at the conflict is to see it simply as a dispute over land. This narrative accuses Israel of occupying the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. And if Israel will just give these areas back to the Palestinians, they will instantly lay down their stones and knives and Jews and Arabs will live together happily ever after.

Of course though, every time Israel has “given back” land, the Arabs use it to launch further attacks on Israel, with Hamas tunnels and rockets from Gaza being the most obvious and recent example.

Yet, strangely enough, most of the world’s leaders and media still buy into this theory.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said at Harvard University said last week, “a massive increase in settlements” has led to the current “frustration and violence.”

But that concept is as flawed as the failed peace process itself.

The Arab-Jewish conflict was ablaze long before Israel came along. For example, Arab rioters with knives, pistols and rifles ran rampant through Jaffa on May 1, 1921, beating and murdering Jews and looting Jewish homes and stores. They killed 27 Jews and wounded another 150.

And because similar conflicts rage in more than 25 other countries today – Afghanistan, Angola, Nigeria, Syria, to name but a few – the symptoms indicate a more serious problem.

This is not a common cold to be cured by a Jewish country evacuating this piece of land or agreeing to that concession.

It’s a cancer of the most virulent strain…spreading rapidly throughout the entire free world.

Let’s face facts.

This conflict is not primarily about land at all.

Those malignant cells terrorizing Israel today are infected with the same disease as the forces destroying 2,000-year-old archaeological treasures in Syria, beheading, raping and massacring Muslims and non-Muslims across the Middle East and detonating suicide bombs in Turkey, Bali, Indonesia. And the list goes on.

The bad guys – whom the world refuses to acknowledge as such – are out to impose radical Islam on the world. They want to obliterate Israel, America, Christianity and even other anti-Islamist Muslims – “infidels” in their eyes. And that includes innocent Palestinians suffering at the hands of Hamas & Company.

In short, the entire civilized world is at risk.

I’m talking about ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the PKK, Hezbollah and dozens of similar organizations.

An entire society – connected to a daily drip of vitriol and hate from birth, brainwashed by a well-oiled system of education, media and religious rhetoric – ready and willing to kill and die in the name of the anti-Semitic Jihad of Intolerance.

And that’s why the current situation in Israel is not a localized “few days of rage,” “a wave of terror” or even “a Third Intifada.”

What’s happening is yet another symptom of a global Third Jihad.

The first jihad lasted from 622 – 750 AD, after Mohammad’s armies conquered all of Arabia and most of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain.

The second jihad started in 1071, when Islamic armies conquered Constantinople and spread into Europe, India and further into Africa. It eventually began to peter out when the Muslim Ottoman army was vanquished at the Battle of Vienna in September 1683.

And radical Islam’s pursuit of world domination has never stopped.

Countries and cultures ignored the threat or reacted too slowly and were swallowed up by the relentless radical Islamic monster. So much so that there are now 57 countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC.

The Third Jihad is upon us.

This is the deeper, more sinister nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is not simply a war over settlements, land or the Temple Mount.

It’s a religious battle. A clash of two diametrically opposed world views.

Between the sanctity of life and the culture of death.

And that definitely removes the conflict from the Middle East, away from the Israeli government, rolling responsibility to the feet of anyone who believes in a just and righteous world.

Is that “more open-minded and hopeful”?

Well, it could be. Continuing the cancer analogy, things will get worse until someone – preferably sane world leaders and a responsible media – makes the correct diagnosis.

Also see:

Evangelicals Embrace Islamists at Maryland Interfaith Event


Messages of interfaith tolerance against bigotry are always welcome. But Islamists, who use these platforms deceitfully, are anything but tolerant.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Oct. 7, 2015:

Major evangelical leaders are teaming up with Islamist activists for the Spreading Peace Convocation at a church in Maryland on October 22. Messages of interfaith tolerance against bigotry are always welcome, but attendees should be aware of the incendiary records of the Islamists who will use this platform as proof of their “moderate” credentials.

One of the main speakers is Mohamed Magid, former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and current head imam of the ADAMS Center of Virginia. The Justice Department identified ISNA as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood when it designated ISNA in a terrorism-financing trial. One of ISNA’s fellow components in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network was successfully prosecuted for financing Hamas.

Magid is currently listed (with a different spelling of his name) as one of the experts of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a hardline Islamist group whose extremism is not hidden. Magid also is a signatory to a letter that received positive media coverage for condemning the Islamic State but endorses all kinds of radicalism, such as sharia governance, rebuilding the caliphate and jihad against perceived oppressors of Muslims.

Another listed speaker is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who is described as the most influential Muslim-American but also endorsed the aforementioned letter. He also has a history of inflammatory preaching and founded Zaytuna College with other extremists. At one Zaytuna event, Yusuf called for prohibiting speech that “mocks” religion because of the dangers that free speech allegedly creates. What he was calling for was moving the U.S. towards compliance with Islamist blasphemy laws.

And yet another is “Suhail Webb,” presumably referring to Suhaib Webb of the Islamic Society of Boston’s sister mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. According to its own website, the Cultural Center is run by the Boston branch of the Muslim American Society. Federal prosecutors confirmed in 2008 that Muslim American Society was “founded as the overt of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

The Islamic Society of Boston has a radical history that includes being founded by an admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who was convicted on charges related to terrorism-financing. He also vocally supported Hamas and Hezbollah.

The organization’s second mosque in Roxbury, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, also listed the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yousef al-Qaradawi, as an official. In addition to fundraising for the mosque, Qaradawi is ferociously radical and supports Hamas. The Treasury Department blacklisted a network of charities he oversaw for financing Hamas.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance have more documentation of the mosque’s extremism here and here. The ideology was so extreme at the mosque that one Muslim activist, Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, said, “Their writings and teachings were fanatical. I left and refused to go back to pray. I left Egypt to escape the Muslim Brotherhood, but I had found it there.”

Webb also says Muslims should refuse to work with the FBI unless the FBI restores its relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI severed ties with due to evidence tying it to Hamas.

He also condemned secularism as a “radical, lunatic ideology…we’re talking about the loss of holy power in politics. It’s very difficult to find any place in the world now that is ruled by someone who is ruling by divine authority.” He said that only the Islam of Prophet Mohammed’s era is equipped for political rule today.

Two of them evangelical leaders are Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Church in Texas and Pastor Joel Hunter of Northland Church in Florida. Hunter sits on the boards of the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Alliance. The two previously went on an interfaith trip to Iran to meet with regime-approved clerics and came back regurgitating its propaganda. Roberts also had a major Islamist-filled interfaith event in Texas and Hunter has his own unsettling history of political activism on issues related to Islamism and the Middle East.

Other Christian leaders include Pastor David Anderson of Bridgeway Community Church, Dr. Rick Love of Peace Catalyst International and Pastor John Jenkins of First Baptist Church Glenarden, who is hosting the event.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents show the network was instructed to embrace interfaith allies for political purposes. One such file is a 1991 memo that describes its “work in America as 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.”

When the Brotherhood says “their hands,” they are referring to non-Muslim hands in the U.S. It then tells its network to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption,’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.” It then lists ISNA as the very firstcomponent of this network—yes, the same ISNA that was led by one of the event’s main speakers.

Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, work with interfaith partners to develop political alliances, broaden their platform and solidify their status as the “moderate” Muslim-American leadership.

They then use this platform to deflect legitimate concern about Islamism, manipulating it to defame their critics. Radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood tar opponents with the “Islamophobe” label that they even slap onto their fellow non-Islamist Muslims.

Muslims who stand against Islamism have condemned the dishonesttactic.

These interfaith partners are deployed to accuse opponents of being anti-Muslim bigots, even holding church events to warn of their baneful influence. They are also utilized for undermining Christian support for Israel and protesting counter-terrorism investigations and policies.

Constructive interfaith dialogue requires knowledge and honesty. Participants should be aware of their partners’ histories and views and, when it comes to Muslim involvement, be as inclusive as possible to make sure that the anti-Islamist Muslims who often struggle for a platform are not left out.

12 Hair-Raising Facts from Congressional Terror Report

Islamic-State-Victory-Parade-HP_3Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Sep. 30, 2015:

Yesterday, the House Homeland Security Committee released the final report of its Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel and its conclusions weren’t pretty. The following are a dozen hair-raising facts from the bipartisan report:

“Today, we are witnessing the largest global convergence of jihadists in history.”

If you consider how the jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets impacted the terrorist threat to the West, then we’re in for a heap of trouble due to the jihad in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

About 10,000 foreign fighters joined the jihad against the Soviets over roughly a 10-year period, with only 3-4,000 fighter joining at once. Today, over 25,000 foreign fighters are currently in Syria and the civil war is only four years old. When it started in 2011, the number of foreign fighters was a mere 1,000.

“We have largely failed to stop Americans from traveling overseas to join jihadists … Several dozen also managed to make it back into America.”

This stunning conclusion will add ammunition to efforts to revoke the passports of Americans who are believed to have joined jihadists overseas. Aside from constitutional objections, one rebuttal has been if the government has the evidence to show an American has joined terrorists, then it can simply arrest them if they try to re-enter. The report shows that these American traitors have been able to evade detection and come back home to potentially carry out attacks and/or radicalize others.

“The U.S. government lacks a national strategy for combating terrorist travel and has not produced one in nearly a decade.”

This statement, unfortunately, speaks for itself.

“The unprecedented speed at which Americans are being radicalized by violent extremists is straining federal law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept suspects.”

Over 250 Americans have joined or tried to join the jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria, including around 30 females. They come from 19 states, with 26% coming from Minnesota, 12% from California and 12% from New York/New Jersey.

“There have now been twice as many ISIS-inspired terror plots against the West in 2015 than there were in all of 2014.”

This conclusion is unsettling—and charitable. A review by terrorism expert Patrick Poole found that the number of Islamist terrorism cases in the U.S. this year was double that of the previous two years combined. And that was as of about four months ago.

“[ISIS] is believed to have inspired or directed nearly 60 terrorist plots or attacks against Western countries, including 15 in the United States.”

“Military officials estimate airstrikes have killed over 10,000 [ISIS] extremists, but new foreign fighters replace them almost as quickly as they are killed.”

This substantiates the admission that the U.S. fight with ISIS was at a “stalemate.” Our analysis of the numbers led to thesame conclusion back in May. If you look at ISIS’ membership and territorial expansion, the U.S. is barely making a dent.

Additionally, optimistic claims of success exempt ISIS’ growth outside of Iraq and Syria. The Committee mentions reports that there are “hundreds, if not thousands” of ISIS members in Afghanistan now and the Libyan government believes it is dealing with 5,000 of its own jihadist foreign fighters now.

“Gaping security weaknesses overseas—especially in Europe—are putting the U.S. homeland in danger…”

The report raises several warnings about European security procedures, a pressing issue considering that about 1,550 fighters from France, 700 from Germany and 700 from the United Kingdom have joined the jihad in Syria and Iraq. The Committee found that counter-terrorism checks at European borders and airports are insufficient.

One-third of the international community does not issue fraud-resistant E-Passports or utilize the INTERPOL databases that contain the names of terrorists.

“In short, information about foreign fighters is crossing borders less quickly than the extremists themselves.”

The report emphasizes that intelligence-sharing remains a severe problem. There isn’t even an international comprehensive database of foreign fighter names.

“The federal government has failed to develop clear early intervention strategies—or ‘off-ramps’- to radicalization—to prevent suspects already on law enforcement’s radar from leaving to join extremists.”

Someone who is actively trying to join a group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda is probably too far gone to be rescued, unless they get a brutal wakeup call when they see the caliphate first-hand. The report states that 80% of foreign fighters download extremist propaganda and/or engage a jihadist online. It is critical that we target the ideology that precedes the violent act.

“Few initiatives exist nationwide to raise community awareness about foreign fighter recruitment and to assist communities with spotting warning signs.”

The report says that 75% of foreign fighter arrests in the U.S. happen due to the involvement of a confidential informant who is close enough to the suspect to provide the critical evidence. Presumably, this would be a Muslim in most cases. This is why Islamist propaganda that demonizes the FBI and its informants must be rebutted, such as when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims that the War on Terror is “made up” by the FBI and its informants are paid to frame innocent Muslims.

“The Administration has launched programs to counter-message terrorist propaganda abroad, but little is being done here at home.”

The report isn’t exactly kind to our ideological strategy abroad, either. It says the U.S. government has not exploited the opportunity presented by “jaded jihadists”—Islamist terrorists who join the caliphate, realize it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be and flee. For example, a State Department video featuring such testimonies had only 500 views over two months.

Muslims of America terrorist training compounds

gillani-crusade1American Thinker, By Carol Brown, Sep. 20, 2015:

While the Middle East remains a hotbed for terrorists, we’ve got our own jihad training compounds set up in rural areas across the United States. They are run by an organization called Muslims of America (MOA). Law enforcement describes these compounds as “classically structured terrorist cells.”

If you visit the MOA website, you’ll get a hefty dose of taqiyya. The home page has an image of a large American flag along with a banner advertising one of their offshoot organizations called the United Muslim Christian Forum. The goal of this bogus group is to find common ground between Muslims and Christians, including mutual hatred of Jews. The web site also features a slick 16-minute propaganda video.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from what the MOA is publically peddling is the non-taqiyya version of who they are. Otherwise known as the truth.

Let’s start with the founder: El Sheikh Gilani. Prior to MOA, he founded Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terror organization. MOA is the American version of ul-Fuqra.

Gilani is also the man Daniel Pearl had set out to interview on that fateful day when Pearl was kidnapped. (May Daniel’s soul rest in peace.)

Per the Northeast Intelligence Network, Gilani emigrated from Pakistan around 1980. He settled in Brooklyn, NY, where he began preaching at a mosque frequented by African-American Muslims. This is where he started to recruit for jihad in Afghanistan, often targeting black criminals who converted to Islam in prison — a source of recruits for jihad that continues to this day.

Then Gilani took things a step further and set up a terror-training compound in a rural area of upstate New York. There are now numerous MOA compounds across the United States. Estimates vary regarding how many there are, ranging from 22 to 35. As of this writing, states where MOA has set up shop are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

In other words, they’re just about everywhere.

In some states there is more than one location. New York’s “Islamburg” (located in the town of Hancock) is the largest operation and serves as the headquarters. The MOA compound in Colorado was the site of a 1989 seizure by federal authorities of firearms, explosive devices, forged documents, military manuals, and data on potential targets. (See here, here, here,here, here, here, and here for more information on MOA locations, including maps.)

There is no doubt that MOA is a terror organization operating on American soil. It is well documented by the FBI whose records state that MOA has the infrastructure to plan and carry out terror attacks (here, and overseas) and that MOA leaders urge their members to commit jihad against enemies of Islam.

In addition to the FBI, there are courageous individuals and private organizations on the bleeding edge of investigating and exposing this deadly organization, including the Christian Action Network (CAN), with founder and author of Twilight in America, Martin Mawyer, leading the way. (Interview with Mawyer, here.)

Two reports by CAN reveal MOA’s insular communities that thrive on brainwashing, deception, hate, and violence. These reports are summarized below.

  • MOA trains men, and women, to become jihadists poised to attack Americans when Gilani gives the order. Toward this end, MOA maintains a stockpile of illegal weapons. Residents are taught that jihad is their life’s purpose and have been indoctrinated to believe Gilani can travel through space and time to spy on them. After recruits are trained here, many are then sent to Pakistan for more paramilitary training.
  • Compounds are completely insular, with their own stores, mosques, and graveyards, as well as guard posts to intercept visitors. Living conditions are typically poor. Many locations are near lakes where jihadists-in-training shoot weapons across the lake (standing behind the 2nd amendment when confronted about it) in addition to learning other means of attack such as slitting throats and strangulation. All members follow Sharia law and consider themselves to be above local, state and federal authority.
  • Large families and government dependence are encouraged with much of the money sent to Gilani, who is now back in Pakistan. Welfare fraud is rampant as children are urged to commit crimes against non-Muslims and to engage in scams, including welfare fraud and drug-related crimes (with drug money sent to Gilani). Members often use aliases and spelling variations of their names.
  • There are as many as four generations of people living in these camps, all of whom have been taught from the outset to distrust Americans and to prepare for jihad. For some members, life in the camp is all they’ve ever known. In addition to those who were born at the compound, MOA openly recruits through social service organizations, with many new members coming from the prison system.
  • Discipline in the camps is ruthless and is used to exact punishment and intimidate members from leaving. If members break a rule, they may be tied to a tree and beaten. In addition, women are routinely raped and children are physically abused. Girls are denied an education, such as it is.

Per the Northeast Intelligence Network, MOA members have been suspected and/or convicted of a variety or crimes, including assassinations, fire bombings, and fraud. Money has been laundered through Muslim front organizations established by Gilani, including an Islamic university and private elementary schools.

So how does MOA get away this?

Two former FBI agents (Tim Clemente and John Guandolo) reported on factors that reflect a combination of deception, political correctness, and public policy that inhibits the FBI’s ability to do their job. First, the FBI wants to avoid the appearance that it is scrutinizing Muslim organizations and/or is infringing on religious freedom. Second, MOA sets up religious/charitable causes to mask their illicit activities, intertwining good with bad. This enables them to play the victim card during investigation attempts.

In other words, suicidal political correctness overrides our safety as United States law enforcement allows itself to be intimidated by faux charities that provide cover for terrorists.

But perhaps the most significant barrier to our ability to take action is the fact that our State Department refuses to designate ul-Fuqra a terrorist organization despite unequivocal evidence that they are. In addition, as Ryan Mauro, national security researcher for CAN stated back in 2009: “law enforcement authorities do not have the tools they need to search these compounds…members involved in terrorist and criminal activity are being treated as if they are isolated incidents; rogue followers of an otherwise innocent cult. Legislation on the state level also needs to be passed to permit the authorities to search these compounds.”

So we’ve got jihad training camps and sleeper cells scattered all across the United States ready to attack. And what are we doing about it? Precious little.

Who among us will be the next to fall victim to Gilani’s directive?

“Act like you are his friend. Then kill him.”

(To learn more about MOA, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Videos here, here, and here.)

Hat tips: Bare Naked Islam, The Clarion Project, Counterjihad Report, Facing Islam, Law Enforcement Today, The Conservative Papers, Sharia Unveiled, Jihad Watch, The Blaze, Front Page Magazine