Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign

ipt2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
December 2, 2016

Confronted by his own words and facing a direct threat to his bid to become the next Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison flagrantly lied Thursday. We are releasing the full audio and transcript to prove this.

Two days earlier, the Investigative Project on Terrorism released audio of Ellison during a 2010 political fundraiser, criticizing what he saw as the inappropriate and disproportionate influence Israel carries over American foreign policy.

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million,” said Ellison, D-Minn. “Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

In a statement Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it found Ellison’s comments “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” That’s because, “whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives.”

In an open letter to the ADL, Ellison falsely claimed that “the audio released was selectively edited and taken out of context.” He also claimed that he was merely “responding to a question about how Americans with roots in the Middle East could engage in the political process in a more effective way.” And then he chose to attack the messenger.

None of Ellison’s comments are true.

We have released the full audio of his remarks (click here to hear them and to read a complete transcript) to show no edits were made and to show the full context. Let him also explain this other clearly anti-Semitic comment he made: “But it makes all the sense in the world when you see that that country has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.”

Ellison and Context

As we reported, Ellison’s 2010 comments came during a fundraiser for Esam Omeish’s state assembly campaign. Omeish is a former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. In 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia immigration panel after the IPT produced video of him praising Palestinians in 2000 for learning that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” A second video, shot two months earlier, shows Omeish congratulating “our brothers and sisters in [Palestine] for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah.”

Just this week, Omeish posted a paean to the Muslim Brotherhood on Facebook.

Nihad Awad, the only executive director the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has ever had, also attended the Omeish fundraiser. Court records show Awad was a member of a Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas support network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. So was CAIR, the organization he leads.

Awad attended a pivotal 1993 gathering of committee members in Philadelphia, convened to discuss ways to “derail” the U.S. brokered Oslo Accords.

Palestine Committee members opposed it because it included recognition of Israel’s right to exist and because it empowered the secular Fatah movement over the Islamists in Hamas. We know this because the FBI secretly recorded the meeting.

He has never explained why he joined the otherspresent in referring to Hamas in the agreed-upon, yet crude code of reversing the spelling and speaking about “Samah.”

Six months later, Awad appeared in Miami, where he publicly stated that, after some research, “I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.”

When Keith Ellison stands before Omeish and Awad and asks whether it makes sense that America’s Middle East policy “is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” or when he says “that country [Israel] has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America,” the context seems pretty clear.

Democrats should choose the candidate they think can best lead their party to success in the future. They might decide Ellison fits that description.

They do so armed with greater understanding of Ellison’s true feelings toward an issue pivotal for a lot of voters of all political persuasions.

Dar al-Hijrah Board Member Pens Muslim Brotherhood Tribute

omeishIPT, by John Rossomando  •  Dec 2, 2016

A politically connected, longtime board member at the Falls Church, Va., based Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center effusively praised the Muslim Brotherhood in a Facebook posting Wednesday.

Esam Omeish was forced to step down from a state immigration commission by then Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine in 2006 after video of him praising Palestinians for fighting the “jihad way” became public.  He also served as president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

While MAS officials denied that connection, Omeish praised the Egyptian-based organization with ultimate designs on a global Islamic state.

“We have not known of the people of Islam … those more just in understanding, wider in approach and closer in application than the Muslim Brotherhood,” Omeish wrote. “We have not known of humane brotherliness and its people, (and we are affiliated with all men whom Allah has created a propensity for love, mercy, an upright disposition, good morals and honorable character) better in ethics, of gentler parts, deeper in adherence to duty, nobler in morals among all their sons, and everyone of their actions than the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Omeish was responding to a posting by Hani Elkadi, co-founder of Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice and Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights. Elkadi seemed to admit his own Brotherhood affiliation on Facebook in a March 9, 2015 Facebook post showing an cartoon of a man holding a sign with the Brotherhood logo and the words which translate to, “I am [Muslim] Brotherhood and I’m not threatened.”

Omeish visited the White House and State Department numerous times and posted pictures of himself with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry on his Facebook page. State Department officials featuredOmeish in a 2008 video about American Muslims.

In February, Omeish sent an open letter to President Obama asking him to support the al-Qaida linked Revolutionary Council of Derna.

He endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood branch in his native Libya in a 2012 IRIN News article, saying that although it came in a distant second in Libya’s 2012 elections, it “may be able to provide a better platform and a more coherent agenda of national action.”

9/11 Mastermind Reveals Trump’s Plan to Fight Terrorists Works

rdw

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows anti-war leftists were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield,  December 2, 2016:

The left aided Islamic terrorists most not with street protests, but by embedding counterintuitive narratives into the framework of counterterrorism. These narratives turned reality on its head.

In counterterrorism, counterintuitive narratives transformed inaction into a virtue.

One of the most pervasive myths was that Islamic terrorists actually wanted us to fight them and that we could only defeat them by ignoring them. The irrationality of the myth that terrorists wanted us to bomb and kill them was exceeded only by its persistence among experts and political officials.

Popularly known as “Playing into their hands”, the goal of this counterintuitive narrative was to make the ostrich approach appear prudent and masterful while flipping around patriotism by accusing national security hawks of playing into the hands of the terrorists by killing them.

Only the appeasers had the secret to defeating Islamic terrorism while the patriots were truly traitors.

Trump faced repeated accusation from Hillary and her proxies that he was playing into the hands of ISIS with calls to get tough on Islamic terrorism. And you can expect the smear that he’s playing into the hands of the terrorists by bombing and killing them to recur throughout his administration.

But the myth has been shredded by James E. Mitchell’s book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America.” As the man who helped the CIA break terrorists, Mitchell had written the “book” on effective methods for fighting Islamic terror. And now he actually wrote the book on what the terrorists really wanted and fear.

And no, they didn’t want to be bombed. We weren’t “playing into their hands” by killing them or by making it harder for them to come to America. It was the left that was playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

And that still is.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, revealed that Al Qaeda shared the leftist panic and disaster over Bush’s “cowboy” approach to fighting terrorists. The United States had backed down from Islamic terrorists so many times that they had come to take our defeatism for granted. Al Qaeda didn’t have a masterful plan to lure us into Afghanistan, as the left liked to insist, instead it expected President Bush to follow in Clinton’s footsteps by delivering an empty speech and then writing it off as a law enforcement problem. Much as Obama had done with Benghazi.

It wasn’t expecting the roar of jets over Kandahar.

“How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whined.

“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks”, but instead Al Qaeda and its plans for the next wave of attacks were crushed “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

Like Saddam’s WMDs, the left has made great sport of the lack of major follow-up attacks by Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda couldn’t follow up because it was under too much pressure. Unsurprisingly, killing terrorists actually worked. Unknown numbers of American lives were saved because President Bush believed that killing terrorists was more effective than appeasing them.

The left had always insisted on treating 9/11 as a law enforcement matter. That is why Obama aggressively pushed to move Islamic terrorists into criminal courts. Even his Osama bin Laden bid was only an effort to capture the top Al Qaeda terrorist so that he could put him on trial in a criminal court.

“My belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda,” Obama had argued, showcasing a typical counterintuitive narrative myth.

Osama’s death proved to be a lucky political break for Obama, but he hadn’t been trying to fight terror. Instead he was working to appease it.

Various counterintuitive narratives were invoked in defense of this bad policy, including the “Playing into their hands” myth. But now we know that it was leftists who were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

The mastermind of 9/11 wanted us to send the cops after Al Qaeda. He wasn’t looking to dance with an A-10. And had Bill Clinton turned over the White House to Al Gore instead of George W. Bush, 9/11 would have been far more devastating as the opening round of a series of major Islamic terror attacks.

Another great counterintuitive myth is that Islamic immigration, which provides fertile recruiting ground for foreign terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their Jihad on America using operatives already embedded in the country, is actually the best way to fight Islamic terrorism.

When Trump called for a ban on Muslim migration, counterintuitive narratives were deployed that accused him, once again, of playing into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Islamic immigration, the counterintuitive myth claimed, disproved the claims of Islamic terrorists about America. The more Muslim migrants we took in, the more Muslims would come to love us and reject Islamic terrorism.

But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed that he did not oppose Islamic immigration. He viewed it as the certain way for Muslims to defeat America and the free world. Islamic terrorism was a short range gamble. The “moonshot” of Islamic conquest wasn’t terrorism, it was Muslim migration to the West.

And even in the short term, Islamic terror was still enabled by Islamic immigration.

“Jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws’ while continuing their attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted.

While the counterintuitive narrative deeply embedded in CVE insists that Islamist “civil rights” groups like CAIR are our best “partners” in fighting Islamic terrorism and that extending every possible legal protection to Islamic terrorists will help discredit them, Mohammed saw Islamic migration and the whole Islamist civil rights scam enabled by the radicals at the ACLU and elsewhere, as cover for Islamic terrorism.

All of this is obvious to any thinking person who possesses enough common sense to come out of the rain. So why did so many important people fall for the counterintuitive myths of counterterrorism?

The strange seductiveness of counterintuitive narratives lies in their rejection of common sense solutions. Instead they follow the standard leftist pattern of descending into the matrix of a logically illogical system which is internally consistent, but makes no sense when applied to the real world.

Counterintuitive narratives make elites and experts feel smart for appearing to transcend common sense to grasp deeper insights into human nature and how the world works. Such gnostic revelations are a big part of the left’s appeal, particularly to college students, but these mythologies are a myth.

The left loves to play with language, but word games don’t change reality. They just seduce those who consider themselves bright into believing that their cleverness is more meaningful than reality.

But eventually the ivory towers fall, the sand castles are washed away by the tide and the lies die.

Common sense was always right. Killing terrorists works. Appeasing them doesn’t. Terrorists are broken through pressure, not milk and cookies. Trump’s proposals work. Those of the left only enable terrorism.

“America will expose her neck for us to slaughter,” Mohammed predicted. And it did.

But just as the mastermind of September 11 had not anticipated what President Bush would do, Islamic terrorists never saw President Trump coming.

***

A good follow-up on the manipulation of language to achieve political ends:

***

Brian Kilmeade recently interviewed Dr. James Mitchell on his new book. “‘Enhanced Interrogation”:

Why secretary of state contender John Bolton strikes fear in the hearts of establishmentarians

Christopher Halloran | Shutterstock

Christopher Halloran | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, December 2, 2016:

John Bolton has again emerged as a contender for secretary of state in the Trump administration. He is set to meet with President-elect Donald Trump in Trump Tower Friday afternoon, reports have confirmed.

The former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. now joins former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn (F, 45%), retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, and former CIA Director David Petraeus as reported “finalists” for the available Cabinet position.

The Critics

As a veteran of the Reagan and both Bush administrations, Bolton has served extensively in the State Department and Department of Justice. A mere mention of the man on Capitol Hill is sure to stoke strong opinions.

He will undoubtedly strike fear in the hearts of the Washington, D.C., foreign policy establishment, which has endorsed the same policy guidelines on many crucial issues for decades.

Establishmentarians fear Bolton won’t go along with their agenda. When he was ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton broke the status quo and demanded to see change on the institution’s much-maligned record and progress on human rights. He rebuked the authority of the U.N.’s so-called Human Rights Council, which is, in reality, an institution for the world’s dictators to shield themselves from repercussion.

“The United Nations was founded on the principle that nations must cooperate with each other to alleviate human suffering. In the coming years, it would be judged on whether it created a United Nations machinery that was strong and capable of doing that effectively. That no longer characterized the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,” Bolton said in 2006, explaining America’s decision not to seek a members’ seat in the council.

For Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (A, 92%), who promotes a much more anti-interventionist stance on foreign affairs, Bolton is too hawkish to be trusted. Paul has promised to vote against Bolton, should he be nominated by Mr. Trump. Sen. Paul prefers one of his colleagues, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 45%), who helped President Obama clinch a nuclear deal with the radical regime in Iran.

The Supporters

Supporters of the former U.N. ambassador say that first and foremost, he’s a truth-teller. Recognized for decades as one of the nation’s top foreign policy minds, Ambassador Bolton comes with perhaps the most impressive resume of all the candidates for the position.

Having served three presidential administrations, John Bolton comes with a plethora of experience in the world of foreign affairs — a claim that cannot be made by Romney or Giuliani.

His unapologetic support for American exceptionalism is sure to provide a direct contrast to the current leadership at the State Department.

This week, the influential conservative pundit Cal Thomas threw his hat in for Bolton. That followed Bolton’s endorsement for the position from the National Review editorial board.

The former U.N. ambassador “does not engage in wishful thinking, or project American morals on those who don’t share them in the vain hope they might be contagious,” Thomas wrote, expressing that Bolton holds a realist worldview.

Critics often harangue him as a supposed “architect” of the second Iraq War. But Bolton was not involved in the planning of the war. He did support the war, as an administration official, but so did almost every other Republican. The Iraq War Resolution was supported by over 97 percent of congressional Republicans in 2002.

As former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz recently explained, Bolton was simply “not involved in any decision-making or planning for the Iraq War.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage refused to share information with Bolton in the run-up to the war, and effectively “froze” him out of the planning process, Fleitz claims.

The Philosophy

John Bolton’s realist tendencies also emerge when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has taken a stance far varied from his eventual predecessors. Republican and Democrat administrations alike have, for decades, held onto the proposal for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. Bolton, though, has advocated for an American foreign policy that supports Israel and its security, calling the two-state proposal a “non-starter” and a “delusion.” He argues it “would inevitably lead to a terror state on the other side of … Israel.”

The once-rumored GOP presidential candidate adamantly opposed the nuclear deal with Iran, recently arguing that the only suitable policy for the U.S. is to support regime change in Tehran. This position has led some of his critics, such as Sen. Paul, to make unsubstantiated claims that Bolton advocates direct military intervention to force regime change.

While Bolton has previously endorsed the military targeting of Iran’s nuclear installations, he has also advised that regime change does not need to come as a result of direct conflict.

We live in a world where a newly emboldened Iran is racing toward nuclear weapon capabilities, ISIS and the global jihad proliferates worldwide, and the great-power nations of Russia and China continue their aggressive power projection and anti-American posture.

With his experience, supporters say John Bolton would be uniquely ready on Day 1 to battle on all fronts.

***

Frank Gaffney believes John Bolton is the best choice for SOS:

Donald Trump has begun fleshing out his Cabinet and has made a series of tough choices that will not only help determine his success, but the future of the country. So far, so good.

One candidate for Secretary of State stands out as singularly capable of helping President Trump make America great again: former UN Ambassador John Bolton.

He is an experienced and principled public servant and diplomat – a brilliant advocate for freedom, with a proven record of putting America first as it leads the world.

John Bolton also knows how to compel the State Department bureaucracy to carry out presidential direction. Absent that, its denizens will sabotage Mr. Trump at every turn. [emphasis added]

Consequently, they and their allies will make a Bolton confirmation process difficult. But it is far better to fight them now, than under some less-capable Secretary throughout a Trump presidency.

***

This video is from the American Freedom Alliance conference “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” held August 21st in Los Angeles, California. AmericanFreedomAlliance.org

Iran Threatens to Walk Away From Nuke Deal, Retaliate Against U.S. for New Sanctions

Ali Khamenei / AP

Ali Khamenei / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, December 2, 2016:

Iran is threatening to walk away from the nuclear deal with the United States and pursue forms of retaliation, including a national boycott of American goods, as a result of Congress’s overwhelming vote on Thursday to level new sanctions against Iran for another 10 years, according to multiple comments by senior Iranian officials.

Following the Senate’s 99-0 vote to renew economic sanctions on Tehran, senior Iranian officials said the United States is in violation of last summer’s nuclear deal and that Iran is prepared to retaliate, which could include abandoning the agreement.

The comments come as the Obama administration scrambles to preserve the deal in its final months in office, ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has been assembling a cabinet filled with fierce opponents of the accord.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn’t see any necessity to reveal this issue [its reactions] but we have made necessary predictions before, meaning that we are well prepared to show reaction,” Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, was quoted as saying on Friday in the country’s state-controlled press.

The new sanctions, Salahi said, “explicitly violate the nuclear deal.”

Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani hotly criticized the United States during Iran’s weekly national Friday prayer service, urging the country’s leaders to retaliate against America.

“Nothing but hostility is expected from the U.S., but as said before, now it’s time for retaliation,” the cleric was quoted as saying.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei offered similar remarks last month, as the Obama administration was working behind-the-scenes to prevent Congress from pursuing the new sanctions.

“If this extension is implemented and comes into force, it will certainly be a violation of the nuclear deal and they should know that the Islamic Republic of Iran will certainly show reaction,” Khamenei said at the time.

Iran’s Parliament is now taking steps to counter the sanctions by enacting its own national boycott of U.S. goods.

The “double-urgency plan” would ban all U.S. consumer goods from Iran.

“Given the U.S. hostile measure, meaning extension of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) for another 10 years, a double-urgency plan to ban purchase of the U.S.-made consumer goods has been prepared in the parliament,” Mohammad Reza Tabesh, a senior Iranian parliament member, was quoted as telling Iran’s state-controlled press on Friday.

The plan is expected to overwhelmingly pass Iran’s Parliament.

Iran’s military is also taking increasingly hostile steps on the heels of the sanctions vote.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp’s naval faction is increasing patrols outside of Iranian waters in a bid to stop any vessels from coming near the Islamic Republic.

“The Iranian Navy, along with the IRGC Navy, are monitoring all moves by the regional and trans-regional states in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman, and the Northern parts of the Indian Ocean, and do not allow any vessel to approach the Islamic Republic of Iran’s borders or inflict damage on our interests and resources,” Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, the commander of Iran’s Navy, said during a Friday speech.

The comments come as Iran makes provocative maneuvers against U.S. forces in the region. Late last month, Iranian vessels pointed an anti-aircraft weapon at U.S. helicopters that were flying nearby in a move the Pentagon described as highly provocative and dangerous.

Also see:

Escape From the Life of Julia

Attendees say the Pledge of Allegiance before the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump during the first stop of his post-election tour, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Attendees say the Pledge of Allegiance before the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump during the first stop of his post-election tour, Thursday, Dec. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

You might be thinking this topic doesn’t fit on a counter jihad site but the momentous implications of Donald Trump defeating the political establishment include disrupting the advance of statism that the unholy alliance of Islam and leftists depend on to gain power. I love Claudia Rosett and wish she were Trump’s choice for ambassador to the UN.

PJ Media, by Claudia Rosett, December 2, 2016:

There were plenty of flaws in the victory speech with which President-elect Donald Trump just kicked off his “Thank You Tour” of swing states. I hope he’ll stick with his free-market plans to cut taxes and scrap regulations and jettison his state-planning proposal to punish companies for leaving the country (prosperity will come of free markets, not of presidentially directed industrial policy). And Shakespeare he’s not; nor, for that matter, is he a Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan.

But when Trump stood up in front of that Cincinnati crowd, looked into the cameras of national television, and proclaimed “America will start winning again bigly,” what came over me — not for the first time since Nov. 8th — was a sweeping sense of relief.

Yes, there are yuge problems looming, at home and abroad. President Obama has guaranteed us cliff-hanger crises ahead, with his eight years of central planning, profligate spending, politicized law, apologies for America, betrayal of our allies, pandering to our enemies, and postmodern”narratives” designed to emulsify all common sense (Obama’s erstwhile legacy deal for an “exclusively peaceful” Iranian nuclear program comes to mind).

Trump, even if he pursues the wisest of plans with the best of intentions, will have his hands full. We don’t yet know how he will govern in practice. It’s likely he’s not quite sure either.

But here’s something that really is huge. With last month’s election, as underscored by the crowd celebrating Trump in Cincinnati, this country now has a fighting chance to escape the Life of Julia.

You remember “The Life of Julia”? Julia was the faceless female figure in the interactive slide show — or “online tool”  — rolled out by Obama’s re-election campaign in mid-2012, to advertise the many ways in which Obama’s brand of state-paternalism promised to usher women through life. The original campaign production has since vanished from the internet, but articles about it remain, and one enterprising soul has dug up the original Julia slides and pieced them together on YouTube. It’s a pretty good summary of where Obama has been taking America; a fundamental transformation into a statist gray zone that was the basic issue on the ballot this November.

To recap, Julia at age three prepares for kindergarten in a Head Start program improved by Obama. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program “implemented by President Obama.” For college, she is one of millions of students receiving a Pell Grant, and her family benefits from “President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit.” During college, she has surgery, which is covered by Obama’s healthcare reform, which lets her stay on her parents’ plan till she is 26.

At 23, Julia starts a career as a web designer, her “equal pay” assured by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. She can dispense with worries about paying down her student loans, because Obama has “capped income-based student loan payments and kept interest rates low” (yes, this is the same program that now has taxpayers on the hook for $108 billion in losses, and counting). Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance perforce covers her birth control and preventive care, and when she decides at 31 to have a child — with no visible spouse, partner or other family arrangement in sight —   Obama’s “healthcare reform” covers all maternity costs.

At 42, Julia starts her own web business — with a loan from the Small Business Administration. At 65 she enrolls in Medicare. At 67 she retires on Social Security, and thanks to her government checks (which miraculously pay for everything she needs) she can while away the rest of her time on earth volunteering at a “community garden.”

Poor Julia. Not only does she have no face, but she has virtually no individuality– even in retirement, she tends the community’s garden, not her own. She is basically a ward — and a phantasm — of the state. She spends more than six decades going from one federal program, handout, and subsidy, to the next.

Missing entirely from this vision of state-curated womanhood was any mention of the real cost, or who will cover it. As David Harsanyi asked, in a 2012 article for Human Events, “Who the hell is ‘Julia,’ and why am I paying for her whole life?

Though, as Harsanyi also noted, the financial cost to others of Julia’s state-chaperoned life is just part of the toll. There is also the deadening of the spirit — Julia’s, and ours:

What we are left with is a celebration of how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people’s money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I’d say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have — outwardly at least — shunned.

I’d add that it’s not just women who have been designated under Obama for a life in which all roads lead to Big Brother; it’s all Americans. It’s Pajama Boy in his zip-up plaid onesie, drinking hot chocolate in his parents’ finished basement while enthusing about state-mandated health insurance. It’s the millions who have dropped out of the labor force, the taxpayers who are dunned to support the dole, the would-be employees and employers who instead of joining forces on their own terms to create wealth in the marketplace are spending their time — unemployed and out of business — trying to navigate the regulatory, redistributive maze that is the real life of Julia.

In a state in which central planners call the shots, we are less and less free to choose. Individual enterprise becomes desperately unrewarding, or even illegal. Freedom fades, and bureaucratic dictates supplant the information and incentives that are part of free markets. Economic growth declines, and people fight over access to the favors of the state elite and their bureaucratic retinue, the overlords who decide who gets what slice of the shrinking vegetarian meatloaf.

That’s the real life of Julia, the direction in which the country has been heading for too many years now, while Obama has scolded Americans that whatever they earn, or achieve, or invent, belongs — cradle-to-grave — to someone else: “You didn’t build that.”

To watch America in recent years spiraling down into the life of Julia has been excruciating. This is a country made great not by conquest, or constraints, or cross-subsidies, but by freedom and free enterprise. Long before the welfare state offered free amenities (courtesy of American taxpayers), it was freedom that drew people to America, and fueled the melting pot — the real form of “inclusivity” — once they arrived. Our true iconic figures — if you plumb the American spirit — are not Julia and Pajama Boy, but sharpshooter Annie Oakley and that out-sized folklore lumberjack of the Western frontier, Paul Bunyan. This is the country that led the way to victory in World War II, and during the Cold War stood — and in some places fought — as a bulwark of freedom.

This is the country that 30 years ago inspired the talented American newsman and humorist P.J. O’Rourke to write a brilliant and politically incorrect retort to a European critic, at the end of an article titled “Among the Euro-Weenies.” O’Rourke’s language is not for children, but below is an excerpt that will give you the gist. He’s in London, at the lit-glitz Groucho Club, listening to a European who has just been saying that Americans know nothing about war because their country has never been invaded. O’Rourke doubles down, replying:

Let me tell you who those bad guys are. They’re us. WE BE BAD… We’re three-quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother’s side. You can take your Germany, France, and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn’t give us room to park our cars. We’re the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized, new and improved butt-kickers of all time.

That is the American energy and spirit — and humor — that seems to be stirring again, after the descent toward the cramped and somnolent life of Julia.

I don’t think this American spirit is racist, or xenophobic, or misogynist, or any of the other -ists and -ics and -isms that have been tossed around during the recent election campaign, and hurled at Trump in particular. I think we are seeing America shaking off the shadow of Julia, and seeking to recover its strength, and its wits.

To recover fully is a tall order. There is by now a vast and many-layered web of entitlements and regulations that will be hard to unspin, and tempting for those now in power to preserve. There are enormous debts coming due, and there is an urgent need to restore America’s lost muscle and credibility abroad.

How far Trump might lead, or in precisely what direction, where he will falter and in what he will succeed — all these things are still unclear. Personally, I prefer the cadence of “liberty and justice for all” to such locutions as “winning again bigly.” But if Trump manages to shrink the Obama state and drain the Washington swamp, especially if he does it bigly, that would be a huge leap in the direction of liberty and justice. At least he is pointing, broadly, in the right direction. Americans have, at least for now, changed the trajectory that was dooming us to the Life of Julia. That alone is a deliverance.

Also see:

***

I can’t resist including this video. Merry Christmas everyone!!!

Ralph Peters: What our nation would get with Gen. Mattis as Defense Secretary

Alex Wong / Getty

Alex Wong / Getty

Fox News, by Ralph Peters, December 2, 2016:

I’m lucky enough to know General James Mattis slightly. Just well enough to trust him unreservedly with our military and our nation’s security.

The president-elect could not choose a better man to be our next Secretary of Defense. Not just because Mattis is a battle-hardened Marine with a remarkable combat record. And not just because he has a mind of remarkable clarity and is, without question, the best-read general of his generation.

I trust Jim Mattis because he’s a man of character, that most un-Washingtonian quality. His public image is of one rough-and-tough Marine, but the man I’ve encountered is, above all, one of integrity. His code of honor is so out of fashion that one has to reach back to a Victorian vocabulary:  He has a noble spirit.

And he’s a genuine patriot, not a shouter with his eye on the next chance. He will do what’s right, not what’s expedient.  And he will never go along with anything he believes might harm our country.

In addition to plenty of dirty-boots experience in the Middle East and a deep knowledge of history—that most underrated study—Jim Mattis has another great qualification to be SecDef: He wasn’t looking for a job. He was happy in retirement, studying, helping his fellow Marines, and contributing thoughtfully to our national security behind the scenes.

The last time I heard from him—a bit before the election—he mentioned, not for the first time, that he was glad to be west of the Rockies. A Washington, D.C. post was not part of the plan; rather, he thought of farming in rural Washington State.

This matters. In an age of sycophants and clawing ambition, it’s a splendid prospect to have a classic patriot who’s willing to sacrifice to serve (as Jim Mattis already has for four decades in uniform).

Our most underrated president of the last century, Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, didn’t want anyone in his cabinet who actively sought the position. He wanted successful men from various walks of life who would have to leave successful careers and contented lives to come to Washington and run a department ethically (an earlier version of “draining the swamp”).

For General Mattis, the position of Secretary of Defense wouldn’t be just another inside-the-Beltway badge to add to his resume. The greatest danger would be that he would prove too honest for D.C.

Yet another quality Mattis would bring to the office—a vital one—is that he’s a superb listener (yet another rare quality in Washington). He’s not quick to speak, but when he finally does have his say, his words show command of the subject under discussion. And he uses words with the same economy as a rifleman uses bullets: no wasted rounds.

As a member of the Hoover Institution’s Military History Working Group, he’d listen to the rest of us blather on for hours before saying a word. Then he would succinctly, politely and irrefutably explain why we had no idea what we were talking about.

What would the nation get with General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense? Integrity. Deep knowledge. Courage, both moral and physical. Humility. Decency. Vision. A steely sense of duty. Fiscal responsibility. A natural leader of men.

In short, character.

Inevitably, we’ve heard plaints from the left about the “danger” of generals in high government positions, with the suggestion that they’ll take us into wars. But it hasn’t been the generals who’ve gotten us into our recent conflicts or who have failed to resolve them. For the last sixteen years, we’ve seen civilians with no military experience launch ill-considered wars and impulsive interventions without considering the second- and third-order effects. Generals, by contrast, are reluctant to send our troops to war—they know the complexity and the cost.

General Mattis has a long list of military accomplishments, but I suspect that one of the experiences that cut deepest came in 2004, in Fallujah. After a week of brutal, successful combat his Marines stood within forty-eight hours of a clear-cut victory over a terrorist army. And the Bush administration lost its collective nerve, calling a halt just short of the finish line. I watched the tragedy unfold from northern Iraq, where I was a guest of the Kurds. And we all said the same thing to each other:  “We’ll have to go back and finish this.” And we did have to go back, in less than a year.

Having seen his Marines die, only to be denied victory at the eleventh hour because the global media was howling, must have been terribly painful for General Mattis. One of the many reasons he’s so widely respected in military circles—not just by Marines—is that he understands that, contrary to academic pronunciamentos, victory is not only possible, but essential.

Jim Mattis not only fights the good fight—he fights to win. With him as our next Secretary of Defense, the United States of America would win.

Fox News Strategic Analyst Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and former enlisted man. He is the author of prize-winning fiction and non-fiction books on the Civil War and the military. His latest is “The Damned of Petersburg: A Novel” (Forge Books, June 28, 2016).

***

A Look into the Mind of Gen. James Mattis: 15 Quotes from Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pick by John Hayward

Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis is President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense, and he is one of the most quotable figures in modern public life.

He rarely gives a speech without saying something that should be emblazoned on coffee mugs, or in some cases stenciled on the side of bombs. Here are some of his greatest hits:

  1. “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” – from a speech Mattis delivered to Marines arriving in Iraq in 2003. This is widely acclaimed as the ultimate Mattisism, winning extra cool points for being compatible with Patrick Swayze’s famous advice to new bouncers in Road House.
  2. “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.” – probably the other most widely-repeated Mattisism, it has been quoted in contexts ranging from the Iraqi troop withdrawal to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.
  3. “You are part of the world’s most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on the left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.” – from a letter Mattis wrote to the 1st Marine Division, the day before they began their assault on Iraq in 2003. He is restated his point about using your head on the battlefield many times; another popular formulation was, “The most important six inches on the battlefield are between your ears.”
  4. “From our first days at San Diego, Parris Island, or Quantico, NCOs bluntly explained to us that the Corps would be entirely satisfied if we gave 100%, and entirely dissatisfied if we gave 99%. And those NCOs taught us the great pleasure of doing what others thought impossible.” – from a speech Mattis gave when receiving the Marine Corps University Foundation’s 2014 Semper Fidelis Award.
  5. “Now from a distance, I look back on what the Corps taught me: to think like men of action, and to act like men of thought!” – from the same 2014 Semper Fidelis Award speech.
  6. “I’ve never found it to be useful. I’ve always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I do better with that than I do with torture.” – Mattis’ thoughts on waterboarding, according to Donald Trump.
  7. “Every morning I woke up and the first three questions I had, had to do with Iran, and Iran, and Iran. It remains the single most belligerent actor in the Middle East.” – Mattis on Iran, from an April speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies
  8. “You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.” – Mattis on the Taliban, at a 2005 panel discussion in San Diego, California. This one caused some trouble for Mattis. Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee defended him, but said “should have chosen his words more carefully.”
  9. “There are some people who think you have to hate them in order to shoot them. I don’t think you do. It’s just business.” – Mattis choosing his words more carefully, after the above-mentioned controversy.
  10. “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim. It’s really a hell of a lot of fun. You’re gonna have a blast out here! I feel sorry for every son of a bitch that doesn’t get to serve with you.” – Mattis drawing an important distinction between assholes and sons of bitches to a group of Marines in Iraq, as quoted by Thomas E. Ricks in his book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2003 to 2005.
  11. “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f**k with me, I’ll kill you all.” – Mattis to Iraqi tribal leaders, also quoted by Ricks in Fiasco.
  12. “In a country with millions of people and cars going everywhere, the enemy is going to get a car bomb out there once in a while. There are going to be good days and bad days. Bottom line.” – Mattis on the grim realities of counter-terrorism operations in a 2007 interview. He was talking about Iraq, but unfortunately his observation would be valid anywhere.
  13. “I think it’s very clear that this enemy has decided that the war, the real war for them, will be fought in the narrative, in the media. This is not a place where we’re going to take the enemy’s capital and run up our flag and drink their coffee and that sort of thing.” – from the same interview.
  14. “Marines don’t know how to spell the word defeat.” – proudly cited by the USMC as the retired General’s salute to the indomitable spirit of the Corps. Misusing this quote to tease Marines about their spelling abilities is not recommended.
  15. “I get a lot of credit these days for things I never did.” – Mattis on his own legend, to midshipmen at the Naval Academy in 2004. He also gets a lot of credit for things he never said, as hilariously satirized in a Twitter hashtag full of phony #MattisQuotes. (A sample: “Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.”)

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary

ac5d638fd185415d8f08013cae9db38f-2Clinton donations expose political agenda behind calls for Trump to reconsider “racist” Cabinet picks

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, December 2, 2016:

A coalition of self-described “civil rights groups” tarring GOP President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers as “white supremacists” unleashing “hate crimes” against Muslims and other minorities is made up of Democrat activists who endorsed or donated heavily to Hillary Clinton, federal records show.

The group — comprised of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Muslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference, National Council of La Raza and the American Federation of Teachers — says it formed to protect minorities from the “hate-filled” and “bigoted rhetoric” of Trump and his supporters. But it has a decidedly partisan political agenda that includes trying to derail key Trump appointments to his Cabinet.

Earlier this week, the group held a press conference in Washington calling on Trump to “disavow” supposedly “anti-Muslim” policy proposals and “reconsider” Cabinet appointees “who have sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue this days.”

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

Added Abdelall: “He needs to disavow the dangerous proposals and ideas that single out and demonize Muslims and other communities.”

The George Soros-controlled group bankrolling Muslim Advocates, the Open Society Foundation, gave $9,463 to Clinton and $0 to Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House visitors logs show San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates met with Obama officials at least 11 times, including several times in 2011 to lobby the administration to purge FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism training materials it deemed “ ffensive” to Muslims. Muslim Advocates played a central role in the agencies removing in 2012 more than 870 pages of material from some 390 presentations — including PowerPoints and papers describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide jihadist movement bent on, according to its own bylaws, “establishing an Islamic state.” Security experts say the purge weakened terrorism investigations and left the US vulnerable to the rash of deadly homegrown jihadists attacks seen in the country starting with 2013’s Boston Marathon bombings.

Top Muslim Advocates officials have spoken at Islamic conferences held by known Muslim Brotherhood front groups and defended a major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood charity convicted of financing terrorism.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen called Trump’s naming of Bannon as his top White House strategist “a very unfortunate sign.” He contended that Bannon “is the alter ego” of American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

“Mr. Trump has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy,” Cohen claimed, adding that “he needs to apologize to the Muslim community.”

Cohen, who says he was the target of discrimination “growing up as a Jewish kid,” has hired security guards to protect his offices and home in Montgomery, Ala. In the past, he has said that he so feared “white supremacists” that he “had to leave his home and stay in a hotel as a precautionary measure.”

A search of Federal Election Commission records shows that Southern Poverty Law Center directors have given more than $13,450 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also backed by the ultra-liberal billionaire Soros, and has supported radical leftists, including unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers, whom the group once called “a highly respected figure.”

The National Press Club event also featured Janet Marguia of the National Council of La Raza, an illegal immigrant advocacy group, who claimed Trump was “threatening” Hispanic children.

La Raza, which means “the race,” refuses to condemn an openly racist affiliate known as MECHa, which claims the Southwest was stolen and should be returned to Mexico and whose slogan is “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

In the 2016 election cycle, La Raza gave $6,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $0 to Trump’s campaign.

American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten also took the podium to denounce Trump and his appointments.

“The nomination of Jeff Sessions, the appointment of Steve Bannon and the appointment of Mike Flynn all sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue these days,” she said.

American Federation of Teachers formally endorse Clinton and donated $38,885 to her campaign while contributing nothing to Trump.

“We endorsed Hillary today for the same reasons we endorsed (her) in the Democratic primary. She is a tested leaders who shares our values,” Weingarten said</> earlier this year. “Today, our members made it clear we stand with her.”

During the campaign, AFT made more than 1 million phone calls and knocked on more than 500,000 doors to get out the vote for Clinton.

Leadership Conference President Wade Henderson also laced into Trump and his nominations, claiming they were “racist.”

“We are concerned about the impact of Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, Gen. Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon just a heartbeat away from the presidency,” he said during the press conference.

Henderson charged that Bannon “has supported and embraced organizations that take direct views that are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and racist.” He also alleged that Sessions is “someone whose record will suggest that he will have great difficulty in enforcing civil rights laws, including hate crimes laws on the books.”

In the 2016 election cycle, records show The Leadership Conference donated $8230 to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, while contributing $0 to Trump. All told, the conference gave $81,800 to Democrat candidates for federal office in 2016 vs. $0 for Republicans.

In addition, FEC individual donation records reveal that The Leadership Council’s top lobbyists — including executive vice president Nancy Zirkin and senior counsel Emily Chatterjee — have personally given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Ohio State students can’t say “terrorism”

jihad-denial2The Rebel, by Faith Goldy, December 1, 2016:

Following an Islamist attack at Ohio State University, I asked students and professors on the ground what they thought about jihad in their own back yard.

Will students call the attack, now claimed by ISIS, terrorism?

Is the attacker’s religion relevant?

And is the occasional terrorist attack a necessary trade-off for the perceived benefits of multiculturalism?

Their answers will shock you!

PS: WATCH all my reports on this terror attack and its aftermath.

C.A.I.R. is HAMAS: How the Federal Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism

photoshop-ccscreensnapz004

Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, December 2, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): Since its founding in 1993, the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  From that time to this, however, the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

Evidence of CAIR’s true character as a U.S.-based instrument for political warfare and fundraising for Hamas – and the federal government’s certain knowledge of the truth – did not come to light until the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.  In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself.  Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed.

Annotated highlights of the CAIR transcripts are now available for the first time, complete with relevant excerpts from Agent Burns’ testimony, in the latest product of the Center for Security Policy’s “Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series”: CAIR Is Hamas: How the U.S. Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism. As with the first two publications in this series – “An Explanatory Memorandum”: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words, this new product from CSP Press is making accessible original source material together with professional analysis concerning the inner workings of the network the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in America for more than fifty years for the stated purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within.”[1]
Upon the release of CAIR is Hamas, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:
The production of this proof of CAIR’s jihadist nature is especially timely as legislatures in states around the country are considering resolutions seeking to discourage their agencies from interacting with this Hamas front and as the U.S. Congress considers legislation calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. CAIR is Hamasshould be required reading for lawmakers, other officials at every level of government, the press and ordinary Americans misperceiving CAIR’s true jihadist and subversive nature.
CAIR is Hamas is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all editions of the Archival Series, can be downloaded for free HERE

DNC Chair Candidate Rep. Keith Ellison Met with Hamas Fundraiser Mohammed al-Hanooti

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, December 1, 2016:

Would-be Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Keith Ellison met with Hamas fundraiser Mohammed al-Hanooti at a 2009 campaign fundraiser for Virginia House of Delegates candidate Esam Omeish, where Ellison was the keynote speaker.

Last week Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller reported on the appearance of Ellison at the Omeish campaign event, noting that Omeish had previously called for Palestinians to follow “the jihad way” against Israel.

Given that, it’s no surprise to find al-Hanooti, who styled himself as “grand mufti” of Washington D.C. and whom FBI documents identify as a top U.S. fundraiser for Hamas, at the campaign fundraiser.

Pictures posted to Flickr by Omeish show Ellision and al-Hanooti chatting at the event.

Mohammed al-Hanooti has been identified by federal prosecutors and top counterterrorism officials as a enthusiastic supporter of Hamas — serving as one of its top fundraisers — and also as an active supporter of terrorism and extremist Islamic ideology for several decades.

He also holds the rare distinction of not only being named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-finance case in American history, but also of being listed as a conspirator in the trial of “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up attack on New York City landmarks. FBI agents have also testified that al-Hanooti was a participant in an infamous 1993 meeting in Philadelphia of senior Hamas leaders in the U.S.

Al-Hanooti’s terror ties go back to the 1980s, when he served for two years as the first president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization founded by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. The group was found liable for $156 million in a civil trial brought by a Chicago couple whose son was murdered by Hamas while waiting for a bus in Israel. In the judge’s order in that case, he cited “strong evidence that IAP was supporting Hamas, consistent with the FBI’s surveillance reports.”

Evidence submitted by the government in the Holy Land Foundation trial also implicates al-Hanooti’s role in the top leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestine Committee, formed specifically to provide support for Hamas. A 1988 list of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders shows al-Hanooti as serving on the group’s sharia court. He also appears on a 1993 list of U.S. and international Palestine Committee members.

Other documents entered as evidence include a 1991 study on Hamas featuring a forward by al-Hanooti, and a 1995 FBI wiretap transcript of al-Hanooti talking with one of the Holy Land trial defendants about how to raise money for the legal defense of Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, then facing trial in New York.

A November 2001 memorandum on the Holy Land Foundation’s financial support for Hamas, prepared by FBI counterterrorism assistant director Dale Watson, details information provided by two separate informants that al-Hanooti “was a big supporter of Hamas” who held fundraisers for the terror group, and that “al-Hanooti collected over six million U.S. dollars for support of Hamas.”

As noted in an extensive investigation by the Albany Times Union, during the early 1990s al-Hanooti was the imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic, New Jersey, which members of the 1993 World Trade Center plot attended. One used the mosque’s address to rent the truck used in the bombing. Another frequent visitor to al-Hanooti’s mosque was “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for his support and direction to the bombers (who was prosecuted by my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy).

And as the New York Times reported, in August 1999 al-Hanooti appeared as a witness at the trial of al-Qaeda operative Ihab Ali, who refused to testify about his knowledge of the plot to bomb the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. During al-Hanooti’s testimony he backed Ali’s silence, telling the court that Islamic law “gives him the right to abstain from giving testimony in case it hurts him or it hurts any other Muslim.”

Feeling the heat from the blind sheik’s terrorism trial, al-Hanooti moved to D.C. in 1995, where he became the imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. He found a home there — in a recording made by the Investigative Project on Terrorism of a speech delivered in 1998, he declares that the D.C.-area mosque was the greatest example of “carrying out the Jihad that Allah calls for”:

At the moment, Dar al-Hijrah is the greatest example in sacrifice, execution, and in carrying out the Jihad that Allah calls for. Allah will give us the victory over our tyrannical enemies in our country. Allah, the infidel Americans and British are fighting against you. Allah, the curse of the infidel Americans and British are fighting against you. Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.

Al-Hanooti served as imam at Dar al-Hijrah until 2000, replaced as imam by al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, spiritual mentor to several of the 9/11 hijackers. The questioning by the FBI of al-Awlaki’s role in the 9/11 terror attacks didn’t stop al-Hanooti from joining al-Awlaki as the religious leaders of a 2002 Hajj tour organized by a travel agency owned by a top U.S. Hamas supporter.

Read more

Top Muslim University Rejects Reform, Stands by ‘Terrorist Curriculum’

rd

Al Azhar refuses to stop using radical texts used by ISIS.

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, December 1, 2016:

Much of the curriculum of Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s most prestigious university, located in Cairo—is based on Islamic books written in the medieval era or earlier.  These books—histories, biographies of Muhammad, hadith (words and deeds of the latter), tafsirs (Koran exegeses), etc.—are often criticized by more reform-minded Muslims for being too backwards, teaching things such as unrelenting jihad and hatred for non-Muslims.

During a recent televised interview, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, Egypt’s highest authority on Islam and Grand Imam of Al Azhar, was asked about his university’s reliance on these books.  His responses left many reformers disappointed.

Tayeb insisted that all books used by Al Azhar are fine: “Our heritage books are innocent and being abused by those ignorant or indecent among us—and that’s all they can be: either ignorant or indecent.”

Settling the question in such black and white terms completely overlooks the fact that many of these books are indeed loaded with problematic teachings.  It is from these books—in this case, one of the histories of the prophet—that ISIS justifies burning people alive.

He continued his apologia: “Some say, do away with the other, ancillary books of Al Azhar.  Okay, but then how can I understand the Koran and Sunna?”  He explained that if Al Azhar got rid of the other books, every Muslim would be free to interpret the Koran any which way they want—claiming that that’s what ISIS does.  Tayeb even attacked using one’s brain, or reason, to understand the Koran, claiming again that that is what ISIS does.

This was another strange assertion: it is ISIS that most criticizes the free use of the brain, and insists on slavishly following the teachings of those ancillary books—which teach anything from eating the flesh of infidel captives to selling women and children on slave markets.

But the most telling portion of the interview came when Al Azhar’s Grand Imam said:

When they [reformers] say that Al Azhar must change the religious discourse, change the religious discourse, this too is, I mean, I don’t know—a new windmill that just appeared, this “change religious discourse”—what change religious discourse?  Al Azhar doesn’t change religious discourse—Al Azhar proclaims the true religious discourse, which we learned from our elders.

As all Egyptians know, the one man that made the phrase “change religious discourse” famous is President Sisi.  He too has publicly called on Al Azhar to reconsider its usage of ancillary books—most notably on New Year’s Day, 2015—in an effort to change the international image of Islam, from one of war and enmity, to something more tolerant.

Now the highest Muslim authority in Egypt has made clear that Al Azhar never had any intention of changing anything, that the “religious discourse” articulated in the Medieval era—one of hostility and violence for the other, in a word, jihad—is the only “discourse” Muslims can accept.

Anything else is apparently quixotic—“tilting at windmills.”

IPT Exclusive: In Private Fundraiser, Ellison Blasted Israeli Influence Over U.S. Policy

ellison2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
November 29, 2016

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s announcement earlier this month that he wants to be the Democratic National Committee’s next chairman drew quick support from several key lawmakers, including Jewish senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders.

Ellison backers also have defended him against claims he may hold anti-Semitic views in addition to being anti-Israel. A column in Israel’s liberal daily Haaretz quotes two rabbis praising Ellison, D-Minn., as “the best of our constitutional democracy and the best of America” and “an extraordinary leader. Anyone who would associate him with any kind of hatred hasn’t met him and certainly hasn’t worked with him.”

A 2010 audio of Ellison speaking at a private fundraiser obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism calls such praise into question. In a fairly intimate setting, Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

The fundraiser for Ellison’s re-election campaign was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society (MAS) who was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel in 2007 after an exclusive IPT videotape showed him praising Palestinians for choosing the “the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Omeish was a candidate for Virginia’s general assembly the previous year, and Ellison spoke at a fundraiser for that losing effort.

In his 2010 remarks, he described Omeish as “my beloved brother and I love you and you are the best and your family is so beautiful and again, you know, you put it out there. You ran. And I hope you run again.”

Also present at the fundraiser was Nihad Awad, a co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America known as the Palestine Committee.

Ellison’s comments about Israeli political influence do not appear to be a poor choice of words. A year earlier, as conflict raged between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Ellison told Al Jazeera that the people who have a strong sympathy for the Israeli position dominate the conversation. It is really not politically safe to say there have been two sides to this.”

A month later, Ellison told the BBC that outreach to Hamas was not feasible for a member of Congress – not because it is a terrorist organization with an anti-Semitic charter demanding Israel’s destruction – but because it is too politically risky.

“What I can tell you now is that the constellation of political forces in the United States at this moment would make a member of Congress who has reached out directly to Hamas spend all their time defending that decision and would not be able to deal with other critical issues that need to be focused on. So for example if I were to make a move like that I wouldn’t be able to focus my attention on the humanitarian issue. I’d have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve goals that I have.”

Just after the 2009 Gaza war, Ellison was among 22 House members to vote “present” rather than take a stand on a nonbinding House resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Ellison claimed he was “torn” on the issue because it “barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Ellison long has demanded that Israel open its borders to Gaza, arguing that economic aid and development would help ease tensions and resulting violence. In 2010, he authored a letter signed by 53 House colleagues which called on President Obama to pressure Israel into opening the border.

Ellison described the blockade as “collective punishment” on Gaza residents.

He re-upped the argument in a 2014 Washington Post oped which was written during new conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hamas terrorists provoked the war by kidnapping and murdering three teenagers and by launching thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian areas.

But Ellison argued that peace would come with economic relief in Gaza and said an end to the blockade should be part of any ceasefire.

“The status quo for ordinary Gazans is a continuation of no jobs and no freedom,” he wrote. “This is not an attractive future. Gazans want and deserve the dignity of economic opportunity and freedom to move.”

The restrictions on imports to Gaza were aimed at curbing the flow of materials sent to Hamas to build rockets, bombs and other tools for terrorism. Israel allows humanitarian aid into the territory. But Hamas continues to divert millions of dollars in aid and supplies which could be used to improve daily life in order to dig more attack tunnels and restock its terrorist arsenal.

While he also said that “Hamas must give up its rockets and other weapons” to achieve peace, Ellison was one of only eight House members to vote against increasing funding for Israel to provide added funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program. Even though it successfully intercepted dozens of Hamas rockets, especially those aimed at population centers, Ellison said the proposal was no good because “the US government needs to be prioritizing a ceasefire between the two sides.”

These statements and countless others should concern DNC officials before choosing a leader early next year. Any chairperson’s job will include efforts to preserve and maintain the party’s support from American Jews. Exit polling indicates an estimated 71 percent of Jewish voters supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Jewish leaders either don’t know the extent of Ellison’s relationship with Islamist groups like CAIR, or of his consistent criticism of Israeli actions, especially in response to Hamas terror, or they do not care. Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League’s chief executive, issued a statement last week saying Ellison “is a man of good character” and “an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.”

As we have shown, he’s also a man who believes Jewish interests disproportionately influence American foreign policy.

During last summer’s national convention, Ellison and other delegates supporting Sanders wanted the Democratic Party platform to delete a description of Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” and wanted to gut language opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement targeting the Jewish state.

Those efforts were pushed back, but should have a far stronger position under an Ellison-run DNC.

Support for Terror Tied

In addition to seeing Israel as controlling government policy, Ellison has supported prominent Islamists targeted for their direct support for Palestinian terrorist organizations.

During a 2008 radio interview, Ellison praised Sami Al-Arian. Years earlier, evidence admitted into a federal court showed Al-Arian served on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura council, in essence, its board of directors. Despite that fact, Ellison said he wished “that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace, have justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case,” saying he found “some things about his case that I think raise legitimate questions.”

Similarly, Ellison expressed frustration at the 2007 terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five former officials. The charity, shut down by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001, funneled millions of dollars to Hamas through a network of Palestinian charities the terrorist group controlled.

But after a trial ended with a hung jury on most counts, Ellison blasted the case as “persecution” during remarks at a CAIR fundraising banquet in Anaheim. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, in part due to internal Palestine Committee documents showing CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. network from the moment of its 1994 inception.

“And the worst of it was not that these people’s lives were disrupted, their reputations were tarnished,” Ellison said. “The worst of it was that [300] other organizations were tossed in to the mix of it all as they were listed as unindicted co-conspirators. No evidence to be found that they had done anything. So here is what we have today. 300 reputable civil rights organizations, including CAIR, put on a list they never should have been put on in a case where they had been thoroughly exonerated. It’s time to call an end to wasting taxpayer money in this manner. There have been other prosecutions for Muslim charities and we’ve come up with nothing at all when it comes to convictions in these cases. It’s time for us to call a stop to this selective prosecution. It’s time to say that our justice system and our prosecutors and our police officers are here to investigate crime for the sake of public safety, not to pursue a political agenda.”

The Holy Land defendants were retried in 2008, with jurors convicting the defendantson all counts. Ellison did not comment.

In 2009, Ellison made the pilgrimage to Mecca known as the Hajj. His travels were financed by the Muslim American Society (MAS), which insiders have acknowledged is the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt arm in the United States.

Little Tolerance For Dissenting Views

When it comes to Muslims who may not share the Islamist ideology of MAS, CAIR and others, Ellison is quick tempered and hostile.

He walked out of a 2009 Capitol Hill panel discussion with Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, after falsely accusing Jasser of giving “people license for bigotry,” and “to engage in nothing less than Muslim-hating.”

Jasser’s “sin” was to criticize the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and advocate for “a separation between mosque and state.”

Similarly, Ellison dramatically lashed out during a 2011 House hearing on Islamic radicalization. Even though the panel included a Muslim father of an American who became a terrorist, Ellison fought back tears talking about a Muslim first responder killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Simply holding the hearing was tantamount to assigning blame for a terrorist’s “violent actions to the entire community,” he said, “you assign collective blame to the entire group.”

Ellison has spoken at at least a dozen CAIR fundraising events since 2006, records show. In addition, the IPT has learned that Ellison privately consults with CAIR for talking points and suggestions about pending actions and hearings before the House.

It’s little wonder that, in 2014, CAIR honored Ellison with its “Muslim of the Year” award.

Jasser recently devoted his weekly podcast to Ellison’s DNC candidacy. “A DNC run by a Congressman Ellison, I think, will become very dangerous,” Jasser said. That’s in part due to Ellison’s support for Saudi Arabia, despite that country’s strict Wahhabi ideology and its prominent role financing the spread of a radical interpretation of Islam globally. Ellison also is a frequent fundraiser for CAIR and is supportive of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an umbrella group for 57 majority-Muslim nations which wants to see global blasphemy laws outlawing criticism of religion.

Ellison “racializes” Islam, Jasser said, as part of a broader reliance on identity politics. “Islam is not a race. It’s an idea. An idea, by the way, that includes ideas loathe to the Democratic Party” such as severe restrictions on women and the death penalty for homosexuality. But by making criticism of Islam, or of those who want to apply it politically, critics can be dismissed as bigots.

He recounted his 2009 debate with Ellison and the 2011 radicalization hearing in which Ellison engaged in “character assassination of us as witnesses. And the fact that we were Muslim did not seem to matter to him.”

That is one point on which Jasser and Ellison agree. Two weeks after the hearing, Ellison spoke at a University of Michigan-Dearborn event sponsored by the school’s Muslim Students Association (MSA) chapter. Like CAIR, MAS and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the MSA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. Internal records show the Brotherhood acknowledges the connection.

Ellison dismissed Jasser, who advocates reform and opposes mixing his faith with government policy, and Abdirizak Bihi, the uncle of a radicalized Somali American from the Minneapolis area who died after joining the al-Shabaab terrorist group, as “some Muslim guys who, you know, who basically are angry at their community to go say a bunch of anecdotal things about … how good they are and how bad we are.”

Ellison’s record is clear. He raises money for some of the country’s most deceptive Islamist groups and works with them to advance their causes. He singles out Israel for criticism and believes the Jewish state enjoys disproportionate control over American foreign policy.

He wants to lead one of America’s two major political parties.

Also see:

BREAKING: McCain and Graham Seek to Gut 9/11 Bill to Immunize Foreign Governments Funding Terrorists

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 06: U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (L) speaks as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (R) listens during a news conference about the conflict in Syria December 6, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The senators held a news conference to announce their supports on taking actions on Syria. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 06: U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (L) speaks as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (R) listens during a news conference about the conflict in Syria December 6, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The senators held a news conference to announce their supports on taking actions on Syria. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, November 30, 2016:

In a Senate floor speech today, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham announced that they are offering an amendment to strip a key element of the recently passed Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act (JASTA) that clarifies U.S. law for civil claims against foreign governments for funding terrorism.

JASTA was passed in the Senate in May with no objections, and passed the House of Representatives unanimously in September. President Obama promptly vetoed the bill. The Senate and House successfully voted to override the veto and the bill became law.

McCain and Graham specifically said they want to strip the “discretionary state function” provision from JASTA that creates liability for foreign governments funding terrorist groups.

According to Hill sources familiar with the McCain/Graham amendment, their intention is to immunize countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that have funded Sunni terrorist groups in Syria — the Syrian “rebel” effort that both McCain and Graham have publicly supported since 2011.

The McCain/Graham amendment was slammed by 9/11 family groups that fought for JASTA.

The 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism put out the following press release this afternoon:

In a speech on the Senate floor this afternoon Senator Graham pitched this new language as a simple “caveat” but in reality he is proposing to amend JASTA to add a specific jurisdictional defense Saudi Arabia has been relying on for the last 13 years to avoid having to face the 9/11 families’ evidence on the merits.Moreover, Senator Graham and Senator McCain mischaracterized JASTA in several material respects during their speeches today. For example, Senator Graham argued that JASTA is deficient because it does not require that a foreign state have “knowingly” supported terrorism in order for liability to attach, but in fact JASTA’s liability provision expressly requires that the foreign state have “knowingly provided substantial assistance” to a designated terrorist organization in order for liability to arise. Senator Graham also suggested that adding a discretionary function provision to JASTA would protect the US from claims for drone strikes in Pakistan, which is simply incorrect given that Pakistan has made clear its view that domestic and international law prohibit those strikes.

Notably, Graham’s and McCain’s efforts come in the wake of a massive lobbying campaign by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is now employing roughly a dozen Washington lobbying firms at a cost of more than $1.3 million per month.

“In April of this year, Senator Graham met with 9/11 family members from the September 11 Advocates Group and told them that he supported our cause 100%,” said Terry Strada, National Chair for the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism.

“Senator Graham is now stabbing the 9/11 families in the back. He and Senator McCain are seeking to torpedo JASTA by imposing changes demanded by Saudi Arabia’s lobbyists. We have reviewed the language, and it is an absolute betrayal.”

“The 9/11 Families are fortunate to have Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer to block this action in the Senate, and we take comfort that President-elect Donald Trump strongly supports our cause. The President-elect has made his support for JASTA crystal-clear, and there is zero risk that he will support this kind of backroom backstabbing of the 9/11 families,” Strada concluded.

In their statements today, Senator Graham said with respect to their intentions:

We’re trying to work with Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn, who deserve a lot of credit for trying to help the 9/11 families. Here’s what we’re asking. We’re asking that we put a caveat to the law we just passed saying that you can bring a lawsuit, but if you’re suing based on a discretionary function of a government to form an alliance with somebody or to make a military decision or a political decision, the only time that government is liable is if they knowingly engage with a terrorist organization directly or indirectly, including financing. I am okay with that because our country is not going to fall in league with terrorists and finance them to hurt other people. If we don’t make this change, here’s what I fear: That other countries will pass laws like this, and they will say that the United States is liable for engaging in drone attacks or other activity in the war on terror and haul us into court as a nation and haul the people that we give the responsibility to defend the nation into foreign courts.

McCain added:

The changes that Senator Graham and I are proposing, I think, are modest. And I think that logically, that you should not pursue or prosecute a government that did not knowingly — the word isn’t abetted or orchestrated, but knowingly — knowingly stand by and assist a terrorist group that they shouldn’t be dragged into our courts. If we don’t fix it, our ability to defend ourselves would be undermined. And I just want to emphasize one more point that the senator from South Carolina made. We have had drone strikes in many places in the world, in many countries in the world. Pakistan is another example. And all of us have supported the efforts, and many of them successful, in destroying those leaders who were responsible for the deaths of American servicemen and women. And it is a weapon in the war against terror. But sometimes, as in war, mistakes are made and innocent civilians were killed along with those terrorists. Does that mean that the United States of America, the government, is now liable? I’m afraid that some in the tort profession would view this as an opening to bring suits against the United States of America.

It appears their intention is to pass the amendments to JASTA during the lame-duck session before they lose key allies, such as Senator Kelly Ayotte, who lost her reelection bid in New Hampshire.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

AFP PHOTO / SITE INTELLIGENCE GROUP

AFP PHOTO / SITE INTELLIGENCE GROUP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 30, 2016:

Breitbart News National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily to discuss security issues around the world.

The conversation began with Kassam asking Dr. Gorka for his take on CIA Director John Brennan, saying that if President-elect Donald Trump keeps his campaign promise to exit from the Iran nuclear deal, it would be “the height of folly.”

“John Brennan, to be honest, was a man who was an intelligence analyst, worked through the system, tried his hand at being an operator, failed abysmally, was a very unsatisfactory chief of station, and then under the Obama administration became the wingman for the President, promoting his disastrous policies around the world,” Gorka replied.

Kassam next brought up the terrorist attack on Ohio State University by Somali-born refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan and the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility.

“We have to look at the forensics of that claim,” Gorka advised. “We have to look at what he was posting on social media, his connections on the Internet. The rapidity with which the claim was made is very interesting. So I’d give it a 50-50 chance that this is a serious claim of responsibility for the attack.”

Kassam noted that all of these “lone wolf jihad” stories seem to circle back to one person, whom Gorka was able to name immediately: Anwar al-Awlaki. He agreed with Kassam’s comment that Awlaki seems to have a more enduring legacy as an inspiration for terrorism than even Osama bin Laden.

“There is one man who, from beyond the grave, is perhaps the most dangerous jihadi today. It is Anwar al-Awlaki,” Gorka declared. “Any significant case, whether it’s the Boston bombing case, whether it’s this case, sooner or later, you find that the individuals who executed that attack were consuming Anwar al-Awlaki’s audio lectures, were reading his materials. He is more significant than bin Laden today, by a long shot.”

“The key thing about Anwar al-Awlaki is that this is a man who was socialized in both worlds that are essential to successful jihadi operations,” Gorka explained. “Coming, as his family did, from Yemen, yet growing up from a young age in America, means that he straddles both cultures. He can quote the hadith. He can quote the Koran. He can talk about the need for jihadism to cleanse Islam of the influence, the undermining corruption of the West. But at the same time, he knows how to do it in English. He knows how to do it using the cultural themes of the West. And as a result, he is all the more dangerous, because he isn’t like bin Laden: a man who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, spent his formative years in Afghanistan. This is a man who operated in both worlds, and that is why he is so deadly.”

Gorka noted there has been no effort to delegitimize Awlaki as a religious authority, the way Osama bin Laden was diminished after his decidedly unheroic death because “we’d have to talk about religion, and we’re not allowed to do that, at least under the current administration.”

“If we have the censorship, the political correctness that we do here in Washington – and to be honest, in the UK, as well – you can’t talk about the credibility of individual jihadi strategists without talking about religion, without talking about Islam, without talking about the religious texts they’re quoting. So if you deny that, if you say that’s prohibited territory, then all you have is the killing part of it, the whack-a-mole that we call it here in the United States. And as a result, you miss the broader picture, which is the ideology of why people become terrorists.”

“At least here in America, I don’t know about the UK, that’s all going to change on January 20th,” Gorka predicted, referencing the date of President Trump’s inauguration.

Kassam asked if the appointment of Mitt Romney as secretary of state would represent the kind of change for which Gorka was hoping.

“That would depend wholly upon the agreement that he came to with Mr. Trump,” Gorka replied. “The thing that people don’t understand is that Mr. Trump is different. You can’t judge him by the expectations of former politicians and former presidents-elect. This guy has his own rule book.”

“He’s not my favorite candidate, I’ll be honest, but the decision is up to Mr. Trump. And if he can come to a deal – well, he is the dealmaker par excellence,” Gorka added. “I’d like to see somebody like Ambassador Bolton, a hardcore individual who knows where the skeletons are buried at the State Department. But at the end of the day, the American people chose Donald J. Trump, and he will choose his own cabinet.”

Finally, Kassam mentioned the shocking story of a German intelligence officer who was arrested for helping to plot an Islamist terror attack on his own organization’s headquarters. “Do you think this is a sole operator, or do you think there is a wider attempt to infiltrate these organizations?” he asked.

“I’ve always said, for years now, there is no such thing as ‘lone wolf terrorism,’” Gorka answered. “That is a phrase invented to make the average voter stupid. We never, ever have seen a significant plot of an individual sitting in his basement, getting online, and suddenly becoming a jihadi. Sooner or later, there are links to other individuals, to networks, to people who provide training, logistical support. So if this is a serious arrest, if this was a serious plot, I expect there to be a broader conspiracy.”

***

***

Gorka on Trump: ‘Jan 20th Will Be When Common Sense Reenters the US Gov’t’

***

Brigitte Gabriel traces the path of Abdul Razak Ali Artan from Pakistan to a Kenyan refugee camp to Pakistan for 7 years and finally to the United States. 

***

Ohio State Attacker Abdul Razak Ali Artan Bought Knife in Washington

***

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz on his interview with Somalis in Minnesota.

***

Insight from Tom Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and senior editor of Long War Journal

***

***

Terror mosque link to Ohio State attack?

Also see: