Benghazi, Agency Scandals and Syria: The Most Perverted Shell Game Yet

20130617_SHELL_GAME_SCANDAL_LARGEby JOHN BERNARD:

The stories of government agency corruption and the blurring of Constitutional guidelines have certainly caused a storm of consternation and outright anger in the past many weeks. It seems each day has provided us with yet one more glimpse into the seedy world of a government that has clearly lost its way, and shed even the appearance of concern for maintaining the public trust.

While the debacle in Benghazi had dominated the national media stage for a few months, it was quickly shifted to the back burner to make room for far more salacious tales starring State Department appointees and prostitution as well as a litany of stories detailing every manner of corrupt behavior.

Learning that the IRS abused its power and deliberately targeted groups with a very specific political leaning was just one more.  Certainly the American public has a right to be concerned when the single most powerful agency in government shamelessly exerts its influence and authority against the very Americans it collects money from in order to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

It was as disconcerting to learn that the Department of Justice was gleaning Associated Press documents for who knows what purpose, as it was ironic that the media which has acted as a pro-bono ad agency for this Administration and its agencies should take issue with this particular infringement on our Constitutional “Rights”.

The NSA digital surveillance program really isn’t news except to those who haven’t been concerned about it since the last time it was discussed some 6 or 7 years ago. The fact is, that program really hasn’t changed, it just happened to come to light again but this time in the midst of a list of other abuses of authority and power, levied during this seemingly Teflon coated administration’s second term.

There is no doubt that all of these things give reason for concern. It does however remain to be seen which, if any, of these things will be deemed to be truly illegal or unconstitutional if not arrogantly applied.

The real problem is, these things, while troubling have served a much darker purpose and it appears that purpose is now all but accomplished; Weapons to the Syrian Rebels.

It seems just a little too convenient that all of these “scandals” should appear on the scene right in the middle of Congressional hearings to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi. And being as Congress has yet to learn how to multi-task, they have been oh so easily side-tracked from that most important investigation to these sideshows. What this has managed to do is take the spotlight from Benghazi and away from any suggestion of Administration guilt in order to focus on what may be determined to be not much more than poor judgment in some cases and horrible supervision in others.

Since September 11, 2012, Benghazi has been a mine filled with potential evidence of wrong-headed vision, Administration malfeasance, upper echelon military incompetence, Pentagon and Administration collusion, Administration protectionism and a list of bald face lies.

Read more: Family Security Matters

 

Questions Surround U.S. Gunrunning To Syrian Rebels

rebels_mortar_reutersBy Kerry Picket:

The CIA is gearing up to send weapons to rebel groups in Syria through Turkey and Jordan, the Washington Post reported on Friday. This is an expanded program over the effort during the past year to maintain supply routes into the war torn country for nonlethal material, U.S. officials told the Post.

But U.S. officials involved in the planning of the new policy of increased military support announced by the Obama administration Thursday said that the CIA has developed a clearer understanding of the composition of rebel forces, which have begun to coalesce in recent months. Within the past year, the CIA also created a new office at its headquarters in Langley to oversee its expanding operational role in Syria.

“We have relationships today in Syria that we didn’t have six months ago,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said during a White House briefing Friday. The United States is capable of delivering material “not only into the country,” Rhodes said, but “into the right hands.”

The confidence conveyed by Rhodes’s statement is in contrast to the concerns expressed by U.S. intelligence officials last year that the CIA and other U.S. spy agencies were still struggling to gain a firm understanding of opposition elements — a factor cited at the time as a reason the Obama administration was unwilling to consider providing arms.

Although the Obama administration policy is touted as new, in January, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony on Capitol on the terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi if the CIA was involved in a gun-running operation through Turkey.

“Is the U.S. involved in any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, transferring weapons to Turkey?” he asked.

Senator Clinton responded, “To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

“It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?” the Kentucky Republican asked Clinton.

“Well, Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex and I will see what information is available,” Clinton said.

“You’re saying you don’t know,” Paul clarified.

“I do not know. I don’t have any information on that,” Clinton answered.

Additionally, questions regarding Congress’ knowledge of any U.S. gunrunning going to the Syrian rebels prior the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi remain. Only members of the House and Senate’s “Super 8” (consisting of both parties’ leaders in both chambers, along with House and Senate Select Intelligence committee chairs and ranking members) would be required to be briefed on such an operation. Any information they receive from these briefings are classified.

On January 24, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told talk radio host Laura Ingraham in response to Paul’s remarks on gunrunning, “I’m somewhat familiar with the chatter about this and the fact that these arms were moving towards Turkey, but most what I know about this came from a classified source and I really can’t elaborate on it.”

Read more at Breitbart

A Radical Imam’s Infiltration of Philadelphia

0-450x337By Ryan Mauro:

Radical Imam Siraj Wahhaj isn’t who comes to mind when you think of interfaith partnerships, but two of his associates have served at the Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia. The two are colleagues of Wahhaj and they lead their own Islamist groups, one of which even used to go by the name of International Muslim Brotherhood.

Wahhaj’s notable quotes include, “America is the most wicked government on the face of the planet Earth” and “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” He is also listed as “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Wahhaj is the Amir of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA). Two of its Shura Council members have served on the board of the Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia. The Interfaith Center boasts that in 2010 it “served nearly 10,000 individuals, partnered with more than 150 local religious congregations and institutions and two dozen civic and service organizations…”

MANA Shura Council member Anwar Muhaimin is on the Interfaith Center’s board of directors and is one of its founders. He is also a member of the Interfaith Center’s Religious Leaders Council of Philadelphia, which organized the inaugural prayer services for Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. Muhaimin currently leads the Quba Institute, previously called the International Muslim Brotherhood.

Although Muhaimin was educated in Saudi Arabia, he says he is not a Salafist and that his group is not affiliated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. However, its website has said that it’s been long partnered with the Muslim Students Association, a group that a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo lists as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” More alarmingly, the Quba Institute’s former website said that Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood cleric Hasan al-Turabi was “instrumental in contributing instruction.” Al-Turabi has been called the “The Pope of Terrorism.”

Other supporters of the Quba Institute/International Muslim Brotherhood include Abdul-Hamid Abu Sulayman, former rector of the Islamic University of Malaysia and Medhat Hassanein, former Egyptian Finance Minister. The website used to acknowledge that they and al-Turabi “added their voices and their efforts to replenish and support International Muslim Brotherhood’s educational agenda.”

The former website of Muhaimin’s organization also said it rejects “’jihad al-saif’ (armed warfare) under one condition: unless in the context of self-defense or guarding the sacred, holy lands of Islam.”

Read more at Front Page

Dynamite interview with Gohmert on FBI investigation into the Boston Bombing Suspects

downloadLouie Gohmert, who has a way of putting things, manages to pack a lot of information into a short interview.

 ”Cair, which is cited by the fifth circuit court of appeals as a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, has forced our administration to purge materials that reference anything that might be offensive to the radical Islamists who want to kill us” 

National Defense vs. the Ideology of Jihad

MBUSASealsby Clare M. Lopez:

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the deliberate blinding of our homeland security defense capabilities, perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in close cooperation with the witting, willing assistance of our own national security agency leadership , is propelling the U.S. towards catastrophe.

Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole has compiled a meticulously-documented record of disastrous U.S. policy behavior that is as chilling as it is comprehensive. In “Blind Terror: The U.S. Government’s Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy,” published 4 June 2013 in the MERIA Journal, Poole describes the aggressive efforts of successive U.S. administrations dating back at least to the Clinton years to forge conciliatory relationships with American Muslim individuals and groups that are legally, openly on record as known supporters of jihadi terrorism and Islamic shariah law.

While Poole’s superb analysis focuses on the catastrophic results of such policies for U.S. national security and that of our regional friends and allies – policies still unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region — an equally catastrophic potential attends to these policies domestically, in the homeland. The methodical blinding of the intelligence community, its seventeen aggregated agencies, and security and law enforcement units across the country is the unavoidable result of this kind of “outreach” to jihadists, who are determined to outlaw consideration of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor for terror attacks. At some point, if allowed to continue, such blinding must necessarily result in the effective neutralization of these front line defenses such that they are incapable of responding in a timely manner to prevent high-casualty terrorist attacks.

U.S. capitulation to the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah was set, perhaps irrevocably, by President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Speaking at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2001, where he was flanked by some of the top Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the country, Bush declared: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace”.

But as Poole’s careful research chronicles, during the Obama administration, the Muslim Brotherhood’s decades-long infiltration campaign of targeting senior policy-making levels of the U.S. government not only accelerated, but arguably reached critical mass. In a stunning sequence of events beginning in late 2011, and at the urging of identifiable affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, all U.S. government training curriculum that explained the irrefragable connection between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism was literally purged of such content. Additionally, subject matter experts identified as “enemies” by the administration’s Muslim advisors henceforth were summarily banned from providing truthful training about Islam to U.S. government employees or for U.S. government-funded classes. At the same time, a critical Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) policy based on the so-called “Touchstone” document went into effect that says mere membership in a violent (that is, terrorist) organization that also demonstrates “legitimate (advocacy)…objectives” should not result in a conclusion that members endorse the “illicit objective(s)” of that organization. The Touchstone policy clearly was meant to place the administration’s Muslim Brotherhood advisors beyond the reach of criticism, even when such criticism is based on public court records such as the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial documents and unindicted co-conspirators list. Touchstone effectively immunizes these advisors, these agents of influence for a power openly hostile to this country, Constitution, and society, from the legal and security scrutiny and suspicion to which they otherwise rightly would be subject.

The inescapable effect of this policy is to permit a growing vulnerability to terrorist attack in the American homeland. And not just permit: the Touchstone policy literally ensures circumstances that make such attacks inevitable. National, regional, and local security forces that are not permitted to know the enemy, or understand what motivates that enemy to move from hostile belief to terrorist action, have a diminished chance to pre-empt Islamic terror attacks and are relegated to reliance on hit-or-miss sting and surveillance operations — or post-attack law enforcement investigations in the aftermath of another Boston Marathon bombing. To the extent that the insinuation of the Touchstone policy into U.S. national security strategy was the calculated effort of this country’s jihadist enemies — undetected by those responsible for U.S. counterintelligence — the safety and security of American citizens slip inescapably under the threat of more attacks.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Islamic Supremacist Nominated as UC Student Regent

reg-338x350By :

A UC Berkeley senior who is a venomous supporter of the jihad against Israel and member of several Islamic supremacist groups with links to jihad terror has been nominated to become the University of California student regent for the 2014-15 academic year.

The student regent participates in a board that sets policies for the entire University of California system, which consists of ten campuses throughout the state. Sadia Saifuddin is expected to be confirmed as student regent by the full Board of Regents next month.

The hijabbed Saifuddin would be the first Muslim student regent. “My faith,” she explained, “is a big part of my life. What I love the most about Islam is that it preaches tolerance and love, which is the reason that I have close friends and networks outside of the Muslim community as well.”

Yet Saifuddin’s record at UC-Berkeley is hardly one of tolerance and love. She co-sponsored a BDS resolution in the Berkeley student Senate, calling on the entire University of California system to divest companies that do business with Israel, based on the spurious premise that Israel is “occupying” Palestinian territory.

Saifuddin, a member of both Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA), also spearheaded “A Resolution Condemning Islamophobic Hate Speech at the University of California,” which the student Senate passed unanimously. Saifuddin herself wrote the resolution, which claimed that “since September 11, 2001, Islamophobia has become the latest ‘hazing’ technique across the United States and has created a chilling effect for Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians in their communities, work-environments, and campuses,” and that “according to a Gallup Study, 60% of of [sic] Muslim Americans say that Muslims face prejudice from Americans.”

In fact, the very concept of “Islamophobia”  is a blunt instrument in the hands of Islamic supremacists, designed to intimidate non-Muslims into thinking that resisting jihad terror is “hateful.” And reality does not back up its existence: the British journalist Brendan O’Neill gave the truth behind such claims in the Telegraph last April, in the wake of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings:

In the years since 9/11, the American public has been admirably tolerant towards Muslim communities. According to federal crime stats collected by the FBI, in 2009 there were 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes; in a country of 300 million people that is a very low number. In 2010, a year of great terrorism panic following the attempt by Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad to detonate a car bomb in Times Square in NYC, there were 160 anti-Muslim hate crimes. In 2011, there were 157. To see how imaginary the Islamophobic mob is, consider a state like Texas, fashionably mocked as a backward Hicksville full of Fox News-watching morons: there are 420,000 Muslims in Texas, yet in 2011 there were only six anti-Muslim hate crimes there. It simply isn’t true that mad racist Yanks are biting at the bit to attack Muslims.

No actual hate crimes are ever justified. In light of her hysterical exaggeration of the supposed “climate of hate” against Muslims in America since 9/11, however, clearly Saifuddin is joining Islamic supremacist advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in using hate crimes to deflect attention from the reality of jihad activity and bully Americans into thinking that it is wrong and bigoted to oppose jihad terror and Islamic supremacism. Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have not hesitated to fabricate “hate crimes.” CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

Read more at Front Page

 

The Not-So-Veiled Threat to Non-Muslims in Tennessee

20130609_KILLIAN_tennessee_LARGEby JANET LEVY:

The attempted snow job by the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC) of Tennessee which sponsored the joint Department of Justice/FBI event, “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society,” Tuesday night in Manchester, Tennessee, did not work with the 2,000 attendees. Claims that American Muslims are loyal citizens, partners in counterterrorism investigations, part of radicalization prevention efforts, and an integral part of American society for centuries fell flat, especially coming from the host organization that was formed only two years ago in response to anti-shariah legislation in the Volunteer State.

A well-informed crowd responded with calls of “taqiyyah” when members of AMAC, a group that bills itself as “a bridge between the Muslim community and law enforcement,” touted Muslim contributions to U.S. society and their dedication to upholding American values. (Taqiyyah doctrine obligates Muslims to deceive infidels as part the required effort or jihad to institute Islamic doctrine or shariah). In actuality, Muslim organizations have specifically instructed Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement and have demanded that all counterterrorism-training materials be expunged of critical references to Islam and Muslims, as well the training instructors fired or retrained who fail to follow along.

When it became clear at Tuesday’s event that the promulgation of lies was falling on deaf ears, one AMAC speaker resorted to shaming the audience for their alleged rudeness and intolerance. In the crowd’s defense, the passionate response was one of righteous anger against a doctrine that increasingly threatens Western civilization and values in the wake of the Boston bombings and the murder and beheading of British soldier Lee Rigby. That indignation was also a response to the hypocrisy of a program designed to falsely portray Muslims as victims of prejudice in dire need of special civil rights protection from hate crimes. No mention was made of jihadist acts, honor killings, demands for special accommodations, and the Muslim disinclination to assimilate to American cultural norms.

To further insult the crowd, the AMAC speaker showed a condensed version of the video “Welcome to Shelbyville” in which Tennesseans were portrayed as ignorant, bigoted rednecks. The rejection of the Muslim presence in Tennessee was explained away by previous resistance to integrating blacks and Hispanics. The situation was addressed as one of racism and fear of the unknown rather than a very real fear of what Islamic doctrine requires Muslims to do. This was an educated crowd well aware that Islamic doctrine clearly states that Muslims must not befriend non-Muslims and are required to wage jihad to establish a global Islamic government under shariah. Attendees appeared very familiar with the enemy threat doctrine, Muslim aspirations to replace the Constitution with shariah, and ubiquitous calls from Muslims for “death to America” and “death to Christians and Jews.”

It is particularly telling that no other group in the United States has been the focus of such a degree of attention and outreach, although FBI religious hate crime statistics from 2009 indicate that Jews are more than eight times more likely to be victims of religious hate crimes than Muslims. Yet there is no special protection afforded to Jews, no events announcing the prosecution of individuals who post material offensive to Jews, nor outreach programs to the American Jewish community to better serve their interests. When it comes to Jews and Christians, offensive remarks and portrayals are permitted under the First Amendment.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Former US Ambassador: “Benghazi Was Not Just a Mid-level Bureaucratic Failure. It Was a Failure of Leadership.”

Obama.Benghazi1-450x348By Daniel Greenfield:

That’s the conclusion of  Ambassador Richard S. Williamson writing about Benghazi.

“Thirty years ago, I assumed post as chief of mission in my first ambassadorship. One thing I learned from the able foreign service officers with whom I served was that if there was a legitimate security issue, all I needed to do was send a cable to the State Department’s undersecretary for management and the problem would be addressed promptly, professionally, and effectively. We now know that did not happen in Benghazi. America’s full arsenal of security assets was not deployed to protect Ambassador Stevens. Why not? How has the culture changed where legitimate security requests from a U.S. ambassador go unheeded by the State Department?” Williamson asks.

That’s one of the important questions to ask about Hillary’s time there. Under her watch, US diplomatic facilities were helpless as they came under siege and major abuses were covered up.

The State Department was run like Hillary’s campaign, instead of a professional organization dedicated to achieving serious national goals.

I’ve served four secretaries of State in a variety of positions in the State Department and in various ambassadorships. I’ve seen how the building works. Benghazi was not just a mid-level bureaucratic failure. It was a failure of leadership. The secretary of State sets the tone and the bureaucracy responds. If the secretary makes a priority of keeping American diplomats safe and secure, then the bureaucracy responds by doing the same. I know and have worked with Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy; he is an able man. But I also know that if the secretary of State had made security for our diplomats a priority, more would have been done.

And that’s the bottom line. The buck stops with the leadership. Leaders set goals and priorities. Their people carry them out. Hillary’s goals and priorities did not involve keeping diplomats safe. Whatever those goals really were, they treated people on the ground as disposable.

From the moment the Obama administration brought up the video, it was self-evidently a MacGuffin. The ugly video had been out on the Internet for months. Why had this little-seen and little-noted video launched spontaneous demonstrations around and attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts throughout the Middle East? Oh yes, it was September 11th! Now, what exactly is the significance of September 11th? And is it remotely credible that spontaneous demonstrators bring along missile launchers? As Albert Camus once wrote, we should set “ideological reflexes aside for a moment and just think.”

Why were the president and his political operatives so anxious to divert the attention of the media and the American people? Just think. It was the final phase of a hard-fought election campaign and these events pulled back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz, revealing that a pillar of the president’s reelection campaign was smoke and mirrors.

GM was alive and government subsidized, but in Syria, so was Al Qaeda.

The president and his campaign were desperate to keep a lid on Benghazi because it fundamentally challenged their narrative. It simply could not withstand close scrutiny. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. And the facts were that Islamic extremists willing to engage in terrorism were on the march across North Africa. Benghazi was but one of the developments that revealed this fact for anyone willing to look. The president’s statements about Benghazi during the foreign policy debate revealed a lawyerly slipperiness and a contortionist’s ability to bend the truth to his immediate political advantage.

There is a significant difference of opinion on how to best prosecute the war on terror. There are good people of experience and sound judgment on both sides of this debate, and it is a debate that must be joined. But it was not a debate the Obama campaign wanted to have during the 2012 presidential campaign. By all indications, it is not a debate the Obama administration ever wants to have.

No it doesn’t. Obama has reverted to Clinton era terror policies while burying the rise of Al Qaeda beneath the occasional drone strike and Bin Laden’s corpse.

Read more at Front Page

 

‘Islamophobia’: A Strategy Devised Before 9/11

images (1)In a meeting in the 1990s, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups decided to ‘play victim’ for the purpose of ‘beating down critics.’

By Ryan Mauro:

Clarion Project reader sent us an intriguing article that shows how the cries of “Islamophobia” were used to win the affection of top officials as far back as 1996 – five years before 9/11.

In this case, Hillary Clinton became the first wife of a sitting President to address a Muslim organization outside the White House. Perhaps unbeknownst to her, the group she honored was founded by Muslim Brotherhood supporters, including one who said her name would be “written in history in letters of light to the deed.”

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the group that Clinton addressed, was founded by Hassan and Maher Hathout, two brothers that were imprisoned in Egypt for their membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan Hathout called himself  a “close disciple” of the Brotherhood’s founder and said they came to America to spread the “Islamic Movement” inspired by him.

Maher Hathout, currently MPAC’s Senior Adviser, has said that he has had no foreign links since arriving in the U.S. It is true that a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo does not identify MPAC as one of its fronts. However, a 1989 document from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Financial Committee refers to a man named “Hathout” that is “in the field,” likely referring to one of the Hathout brothers.

From the beginning, MPAC was working in unison with the identified U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities. For example, in September 1993, MPAC signed a joint condemnation of the Oslo Accords with five other groups, each being one of the Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The statement said that “to recognize the legitimacy of that crime [the creation of Israel] is a crime in itself…”

First Lady Clinton came to a joint event of MPAC and the Muslim Women’s League to give them the honor of being the first Muslim groups to be addressed by a First Lady outside the White House.

“When our country becomes what we dream and when our society becomes warmer and more inclusive … it will be written in history in letters of light that the first First Lady who took a major step to greet, include and to communicate with Muslims is First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,” said Maher Hathout.

Interestingly, “Islamophobia” was used as a rallying cry even back then, five years before the 9/11 attacks: The article quotes MPAC’s leaders inferring that Muslims are a persecuted minority. Clinton herself even said Americans “[must] stand up against our own voices of hatred and division.”

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

GOP lawmaker: US Muslim leaders ‘complicit’ in terrorist attacks

Mike-Pompeo-550x229

 

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) on Tuesday said the failure of Muslim leaders to repudiate acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam makes them “potentially complicit” in these attacks.

“When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith,” Pompeo said on the House floor.

“Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts, and more importantly still, in those that may well follow.”

Pompeo said a religion that claims to be one of peace must “reject violence that is perpetrated in its name.” However, he said that while many Muslims oppose terrorist attacks against the U.S., many mosques and many Muslim leaders across the country are not taking a stand on terrorist violence.

“[T]he silence in the face of extremism coming from the best-funded Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across America is absolutely deafening,” he said. “It casts down upon the commitment to peace by adherents to the Muslim faith.”

He said that in cases where extreme Christians or Jews have used their religion to justify violence, leaders of these religions have taken stands against these justifications.

Read more at The Hill