France: Human Rights vs. The People

Gatestone Institute, by Yves Mamou, September 22, 2016:

  • French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society.
  • The rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.
  • For Western leaders, “human rights” have become a kind of new religion. Like a disease, the human rights ideology has proliferated in all areas of life. The UN website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.
  • With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 UN members) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries.
  • “Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.” — Eric Posner, professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
  • Human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.

On August 13, the Administrative Court in Nice, France, validated the decision of the Mayor of Cannes to prohibit wearing religious clothing on the beaches of Cannes. By “religious clothing,” the judge clearly seemed to be pointing his finger at the burkini, a body-covering bathing suit worn by many Muslim women.

These “Muslim textile affairs” reveal two types of jihad attacking France: one hard, one soft. The hard jihad, internationally known, consists of assassinating journalists of Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Jewish people at the Hypercacher supermarket (January 2015) and young people at the Bataclan Theater, restaurants and the Stade de France (November 2015). The hard jihad also included stabbing two policeman in Magnanville, a suburb of Paris, (June 2016); truck-ramming to death 84 people in Nice on Bastille Day (July 14), and murdering a priest in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, among other incidents. The goal of hard jihad, led by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others, is to impose sharia by terror.

The soft jihad is different. It does not involve murdering people, but its final goal is the same: to impose Islam on France by covering the country in Islamic symbols — veils, burqas, burkinis and so on — at all levels of the society: in schools, universities, hospitals, corporations, streets, beaches, swimming pools and public transportation. By imposing the veil everywhere, soft Islamists seem to want to kill secularism, which, since escaping the grip of the Catholic Church, has become the French way of “living together.”

Scenes from the “hard jihad” against France; the November 2015 shootings in Paris, in which 130 people were murdered by Islamists.

No one can understand secularism in France without a bit of history.

“Secularism is essential if we want the ‘people’ be defined on a political basis” wrote the French historian, Jacques Sapir.

“Religious allegiance, when it turns into fundamentalism, is in conflict with the notion of sovereignty of the people. … the Nation and State in France were built historically by fighting feudalism and the supranational ambition of the Pope and Christian religion. … Secularism is the tool to return to the private sphere all matters that cannot be challenged comfortably …. Freedom for diversity among individuals implies a consensus in the common public sphere. The distinction between the public sphere and the private sphere is fundamental for democracy to exist.”

And this distinction is secularism.

The Problem Now is Political

French politicians seem to believe they are elected NOT to defend French people and the French nation, but to impose a “human rights ideology” on society. They also seem unable to understand the challenges that common people in the streets are currently facing. They are also unable or unwilling to defend the country against either hard or soft jihad.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, for instance, said in a July 29 interview for Le Monde:

“We must focus on everything that is effective [to fight Islamism], but there is a line that may not be crossed: the rule of law. … My government will not be the one to create a Guantanamo, French-style.”

Only Yves Michaud, a French philosopher, dared to point out that the rule of law is there to protect citizens from the arbitrary actions of the State. When a group of French Muslims attacks the entire way society is constructed, the rule of law now protects only the perpetrators.

The same is true for French President François Hollande. After the murder by two Islamists of the Father Jacques Hamel in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in July 2016, he said: “We must lead the war by all means in respect of the rule of law.”

Elisabeth Levy, publisher of the French magazine, Causeur, wrote in response:

“We need to know: by all means? … Or in respect of the rule of law? What is this rule of law that authorizes a judge to release an Islamist interested in waging jihad in Syria and, because he could not go to Syria, was free while wearing an electronic bracelet, to walk the streets to slit the throat of a priest?”

She concluded: “If we want to protect our liberties, it might be interesting to take some liberties with the rule of law.”

The ideology of human rights is common to all European countries. Because authorities in European countries act, speak and legislate on the basis of human rights, they put themselves in a position of weakness when they have to name, apprehend and fight an Islamist threat.

In Sweden:

A 46-year-old Bosnian ISIS jihadi, considered extremely dangerous, was taken into custody by the Malmö police. The terrorist immediately applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency stepped in, took over the case — and prevented him from being deported. Inspector Leif Fransson of the Border Police told the local daily newspaper, HD/Sydsvenskan: “As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open. Sweden has gotten a reputation as a safe haven for terrorists.”

In Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a press conference, at the end of July 2016, that her mission was not to defend German people and German identity but “to fulfill humanitarian obligations [towards migrants].” She added it was “our historic task… a historic test in times of globalization.”

For Western Leaders, Human Rights Has Become a New Religion

The human rights movement was born in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, launched by Eleanor Roosevelt. For 70 years, nine major “core” human rights treaties were written and ratified by the vast majority of countries.

Like a disease, the “human rights ideology” has proliferated in all areas of life. The United Nations website shows a list of all the human rights that are now institutionalized: they range from “adequate housing” to “youth” and include “Food”, “Freedom of Religion and Belief”, “HIV/AIDS”, “Mercenaries”, “Migration”, “Poverty”, “Privacy”, “Sexual orientation and gender identity”, “Situations”, ” Sustainable Development”, “Water and sanitation.” At least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.

With what result? More than 140 countries (out of 193 countries that belong to the UN) engage in torture. The number of authoritarian countries has increased: “105 countries have seen a net decline in terms of freedom, and only 61 have experienced a net improvement” reported the NGO, Freedom House, in 2016. Women remain a subordinate class in nearly all countries. Children continue to work in mines and factories in many countries.

Professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, writes:

“Saudi Arabia ratified the treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, and yet by law subordinates women to men in all areas of life. Child labour exists in countries that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India, for example. Powerful western countries, including the US, do business with grave human rights abusers.”

What is disturbing is not that the “religion” of “anti-discrimination” has become a joke. What is disturbing is that human rights, originally conceived of as an anti-discrimination tool, became a Trojan horse, a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in European countries. What is disturbing is that human rights and anti-discrimination policies are dismantling nations, and placing States in a position of incapacity — or perhaps just unwillingness — to name Islamism as a problem and take measures against it.

The Religion of Human Rights as a Tool of Europe’s Muslim Brotherhood

Jean-Louis Harouel, Professor of the History of Law at the Paris-Panthéon-Assas University, recently published a book entitled, Les Droits de l’homme contre le peuple (Humans Rights against the People). In an interview with Le Figaro, he said:

“Human rights, are what we call in France ‘fundamental rights’. They were introduced in the 70’s. The great beneficiaries of fundamental rights were foreigners. Islam took advantage of it to install in France, in the name of human rights and under its protection, Islamic civilization, mosques and minarets, the Islamic way of life, halal food prescriptions, clothing and cultural behavior — Islamic laws even in violation of French law: religious marriage without civil marriage, polygamy, unilateral divorce of wife by husband, etc.

“Through the assertion of identity, Islamists and mainly UOIF [Union of Islamic Organizations of France — the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] exploited human rights to install their progressive control on populations of Northern African descent, and coerce them to respect the Islamic order. In particular, they do all that they can to prevent young [Arab] people who are born in France from becoming French citizens.”

The human rights and anti-discrimination “religion” also gave Islam and Islamists a comfortable position from which to declare war on France and all other European countries. It seems whatever crime they are committing today and will commit in the future, Muslims and Islamists remain the victim. For example, just after the November 13 terrorist attacks in France, in which more than 130 people were murdered by Islamists at the Bataclan Theater, the Stade de France, cafés and restaurants, Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist professor at Oxford University, tweeted:

“I am not Charlie, nor Paris: I am a warrant search suspect”.

Ramadan meant that because of the emergency laws and because he was a Muslim, he was an automatic suspect, an automatic victim of racism and “Islamophobia.”

In another example, just after the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14, when an Islamist rammed a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing at least 84 people, Abdelkader Sadouni, an imam in Nice, told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale: “French secularism is the main and only thing responsible for terror attacks.”

Global Elites against the People

The question now is: have our leaders decided to cope with the real problems of the real people? In other words, are they motivated enough to throw the human rights ideology overboard, restore secularism in society and fight Islamists? The problem is that they do not even seem to understand the problem. What Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote about Angela Merkel can apply to all leaders of European countries:

“Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.

Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street — that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending — because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.

The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”

So the fight against Islamism might first consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.

Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

DEADLIEST LIE: Without ‘Lone Wolf’ Lie, U.S. Could Have Stopped Nearly EVERY ATTACK

lone-wolf-terror-attack-sized-770x415xt

PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 21, 2016:

Some time ago, the invaluable Patrick Poole coined the term “known wolf,” sharply shredding the conventional Washington wisdom that “lone wolf” terrorism is a major domestic threat.

Pat has tracked the phenomenon for years, right up to the jihadist attacks this weekend in both the New York metropolitan area and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Virtually every time a terror attack has occurred, the actor initially portrayed as a solo plotter lurking under the government’s radar turns out to be — after not much digging – an already known (sometimes even, notorious) Islamic extremist.

As amply demonstrated by Poole’s reporting, catalogued here by PJ Media, “lone wolves” –virtually every single one — end up having actually had extensive connections to other Islamic extremists, radical mosques, and (on not rare occasions) jihadist training facilities.

The overarching point I have been trying to make is fortified by Pat’s factual reporting. It is this: There are, and can be, no lone wolves.

The very concept is inane, and only stems from a willfully blind aversion to the ideological foundation of jihadist terror: Islamic supremacism.

The global, scripturally rooted movement to impose sharia — in the West, to incrementally supersede our culture of reason, liberty, and equality with the repressive, discriminatory norms of classical Islamic law — is a pack. The wolves are members of the pack, and that’s why they are the antithesis of “lone” actors. And, indeed, they always turn out to be “known” precisely because their association with the pack, with components of the global movement, is what ought to have alerted us to the danger they portended before they struck.

This is willful blindness, because of the restrictions we have gratuitously imposed on ourselves.

The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the ideology that drives the movement until after some violent action is either too imminent to be ignored or, sadly more often, until after the Islamic supremacist has acted out the savagery his ideology commands.

The U.S. government consciously avoids the ideology because it is rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of Islam. Though it is but one of many ways to construe that religion, the remorseless fact is that it is a mainstream construction, adhered to by tens of millions of Muslims and supported by centuries of scholarship.

I say “the U.S. government” is at fault here because, contrary to Republican campaign rhetoric that is apparently seized by amnesia, this is not merely an Obama administration dereliction — however much the president and his former secretary of State (and would-be successor) Hillary Clinton have exacerbated the problem.

Since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the bipartisan Beltway cognoscenti have “reasoned” (a euphemism for “reckless self-delusion”) that conceding the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror — which would implicitly concede the vast Islamist (sharia-supremacist) support system without which the global jihadist onslaught would be impossible — is impractical.

But how could acknowledging the truth be impractical?

Especially given that national security hinges on an accurate assessment of threats?

Bipartisan Washington “reasons” that telling the truth would portray the United States as “at war with Islam.” To be blunt, this conventional wisdom can only be described as sheer idiocy.

We know that tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and what appears to be a preponderance (though perhaps a diminishing one) of Muslims in the West, reject Islamic supremacism and its sharia-encroachment agenda. We know that, by a large percentage, Muslims are the most common victims of jihadist terror. We know that Muslim reformers are courageously working to undermine and reinterpret the scriptural roots of Islamic supremacism — a crucial battle our default from makes far more difficult for them to win. We know that Muslims, particularly those assimilated into the West, have been working with our law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies for decades to gather intelligence, infiltrate jihadist cells, thwart jihadist attacks, and fight jihadist militias.

None of those Muslims — who are not only our allies, but are in fact us — believes that America is at war with Islam.

So why does Washington base crucial, life-and-death policy on nonsense?

Because it is in the thrall of the enemy. The “war on Islam” propaganda is manufactured by Islamist groups, particularly those tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

While we resist study of our enemies’ ideology, they go to school on us. They thus grasp three key things:

(1) Washington is so bloated and dysfunctional, it will leap on any excuse to refrain from strong action;(2) the American tradition of religious liberty can be exploited to paralyze our government if national defense against a totalitarian political ideology can be framed as hostility and persecution against an entire religious faith; and

(3) because Washington has so much difficulty taking action, it welcomes claims (or, to be faddish, “narratives”) that minimize the scope and depth of the threat. Topping the “narrative” list is the fantasy that the Islamist ideological support system that nurtures jihadism (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles) is better seen as a “moderate,” “non-violent” partner with whom we can work, than as what it actually is: the enemy’s most effective agent. The stealth operative that exploits the atmosphere of intimidation created by the jihadists.

In other words, in proceeding from the premise that we must do nothing to convey the notion that we are “at war with Islam” — or, in Obama-Clinton parlance, in proceeding from the premise that we need a good “narrative” rather than a truth-based strategy — we have internalized the enemy’s worldview, a view that is actually rejected by our actual Islamic allies and the vast majority of Americans.

The delusion comes into sharp relief if one listens to Hillary Clinton’s campaign bombast. Robert Spencer incisively quoted it earlier this week:

[W]e know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists, people who number maybe in the maybe tens of thousands, not the tens of millions, they want to use that to recruit more fighters to their cause, by turning it into a religious conflict. That’s why I’ve been very clear. We’re going after the bad guys and we’re going to get them, but we’re not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it’s wanting in order for them to enhance their position.

Sheer idiocy.

Our enemy is not the mere “tens of thousands” of jihadists. (She’s probably low-balling the number of jihadists worldwide, but let’s indulge her.) It is not merely ISIS, nor merely ISIS and al-Qaeda — an organization Mrs. Clinton conveniently omits mentioning, since it has replenished, thanks to Obama-Clinton governance and despite Obama-Clinton claims to have defeated it, to the point that it is now at least as much a threat as it was on the eve of 9/11.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are not the sources of the threat against us. They are theinevitable results of that threat.

The actual threat, the source, is Islamic supremacism and its sharia imposition agenda.

The support system, which the threat needs to thrive, does indeed include tens of millions of Islamists, some small percentage of whom will inexorably become violent jihadists, but the rest of whom will nurture the ideological aggression and push the radical sharia agenda — in the media, on the campus, in the courts, and in the policy councils of government that they have so successfully influenced and infiltrated.

Obviously, to acknowledge that we are at war with this movement, at war with Islamic supremacism, is not remotely to be “at war with Islam.” After all, Islamic supremacism seeks conquest over all of Islam, too, and on a much more rapid schedule than its long-term pursuit of conquest over the West. Islamic supremacism is not a fringe movement; it is large and, at the moment, a juggernaut. But too much of Islam opposes Islamic supremacism to be confused with it.

Moreover, even if being at war with Islamic supremacists could be persuasivelyspun as being “at war with Islam” — i.e., even if we were too incompetent to refute our enemies’ propaganda convincingly — it would make no difference.

The war would still be being prosecuted against us. We have to fight it against the actual enemy, and we lose if we allow enemies to dupe us into thinking they are allies. We have to act on reality, even if Washington is too tongue-tied to find the right words for describing reality.

The enemy is in our heads and has shaped our perception of the conflict, to the enemy’s great advantage. That’s how you end up with inanities like “lone wolf.”

Germany promotes non-Muslim women wearing hijab

screen-shot-2016-09-16-at-10-11-35-am-596x283WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sept. 16, 2016:

“Enjoy difference – start tolerance,” says the blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman in a new TV ad running in Germany as she appears in a Muslim head covering.

The 18-second ad encourages German women to embrace “tolerance” by wearing the hijab.

The commercial begins with the text “Turkish women wear the hijab,” as a veiled woman is seen with her back to the camera.

But when she turns around she reveals herself as, not a Turk, but a fair-skinned German, before she says, “Me too! It’s beautiful!”

Watch the 18-second TV ad running in Germany:

The ad campaign is funded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO, as well as German taxpayers.

There has been a international effort to get Western women to wear the Islamic veil to show “solidarity” with Muslims against so-called “Islamophobia.” Special “Hijab Days” have been organized on college campuses throughout Western Europe and the U.S. But on “World Hijab Day” in April, the effort backfired at a prestigious Paris university, where only a few non-Muslim students showed up in hijabs, the New York Times reported. Feminists and secularists condemned the protest as an “insult.”

Rampant sex crimes being covered up

Germany has allowed between 1.5 million and 2 million Muslim migrants to flow across its borders in less than two years, an unprecedented migration that many conservative pundits regard as national suicide.

The country has experienced mass sexual assaults of German women during celebratory events such as New Year’s Eve in Cologne and Hamburg, at public swimming pools and music festivals in other cities.

Gatestone Institute recently reported that sexual violence in Germany has reached “epidemic proportions” and the German government is covering up much of the data that would document this violence.

Up to 90 percent of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police.

So instead of unveiling the sex-crime crisis for all to see, the government is teaching its female citizens to cover up and be more tolerant, says Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and numerous books about Islam.

Is that really a hijab?

Not to mention, the ad is deceptive.

“The woman is not wearing a hijab. She’s just wearing a scarf over part of her hair. Much of her hair is showing,” Spencer told WND. “Some of her bare leg shows also as she struts around.”

All these elements of the presentation would make it absolutely unacceptable to the Islamic hardliners that she – and the German government, and UNESCO – are demanding that the Germans tolerate, Spencer said.

“The tolerance is, as always, one way: non-Muslims are told, on pain of charges of ‘racism’ and ‘hate,’ that they must tolerate an authoritarian, supremacist ideology whose adherents aim to take power, and once they do, will not accord non-Muslims that same tolerance.”

Is Germany ‘conquered?’

Anti-Shariah activist Pamela Geller said the ads are not only deceptive but coercive.

“The German government is determined to force its people to accept massive numbers of Muslims into their country, and as this commercial shows, to force them to accept Islamic culture as well,” Geller said. “But this cultural generosity will not be reciprocated. Where are the ads in Saudi Arabia telling Saudis they must accept and tolerate women who go out without their heads covered? It is always only the West that must be tolerant, even to the point of civilizational suicide.

“These are the actions of a conquered people.”

***

The “norming” of Islamic veiling:

***

In this video, Daniel Greenfield explains what Islamic veiling is really about:

See Quran 33:59 English translations – O Prophet ! tell thy wives and thy daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should pull down upon them of their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. That is more likely that they may thus be recognized and not molested. And ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

Also see:

Pay for Play: Where did DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson Get Five Hundred Grand to Donate to the DNC?

dhs-secretary-jeh-johnson-1

A career civil servant with that kind of money ought to be surprising, especially in lieu [light] of his subsequent outreach efforts to proven Muslim Brotherhood outfits.

CounterJihad, Sept. 15, 2016:

UPDATE:  During the years when Republicans controlled the levers of power, Johnson worked for a law firm that represented the Guantanamo Bay detainees — very vigorously.  Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison attorneys went so far as to smuggle in materials to the detainees.  “If I’d gotten caught passing war news to detainees,” one former DOD official said, “my security clearance would have been pulled.”

This week has seen the release of many incriminating documents from the Democratic National Convention (DNC), via Wikileaks’ so-called “Guccifer 2.0.”  The authenticity of these documents is in some question, as they passed through the hands of an outfit which has alleged Russian ties.  Hackers are in the business of violating people’s expectations of privacy in unethical ways, and the interests of foreign powers are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the United States.  We cannot be sure that the hackers are ethical enough to pass the documents on unaltered, in other words, nor that the release of the documents is not chiefly aimed at some hostile foreign nation’s ends.  Thus, we have to analyze all of these documents with some care.

By the same token, however, it is worth analyzing these documents with that care.  America was founded with a system of checks and balances intended to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  That was true both within the Federal government, where the three branches are balanced against each other, and between the Federal government and the states.  Those systems of checks and balances have become increasingly compromised by unethical behavior within the Federal government, such as the IRS scandal.  It has been further compromised by the increased centralization of power that has tipped the balance away from the states and toward the central, Federal, government.  We are less likely to see our own system performing adequately to check centralized power, and thus might consider external checks such as that provided by a foreign power with opposing interests to our administration’s.

Likewise, credibility is the currency of “special war” — including information warfare of the type the Russians are using here.  If their outlets are not credible, they will be less effective.  We must always check to see whether they are trying to slip one past us, of course.  On the other hand, they have an interest in providing damaging information that is accurate and that will be found credible on investigation.  We can’t skip the investigation, but there is a prima facie reason to take the charges seriously pending an investigation.

In terms of the Counterjihad movement, the corruption of the American administration creates several problems.  If high posts are for sale, they might not be occupied by the best people.  Worse, though, they might be bought by the wrong people.  The sale of high offices allows a means of influence on our government that is not accountable to the people, especially given that it was handled secretly — and by a political party, not a formal branch of government.

For example, consider the case of Department of Homeland Security czar Jeh Johnson.  Johnson is a career public servant.  Yet he was able to come up with over half a million dollars in cash to donate to the DNC — and then “feigned disbelief” when he got the job of leading the Homeland Security agency.

How has he used this post?  Oddly enough, we were just talking about that the other day.  Johnson decided to appear at the conference of a known Muslim Brotherhood front organization, while “fully aware” of its terrorist ties.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said.

While there, he shared a stage with a Holocaust denier and a known leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nor was this the only occasion on which he has made moves amenable to the Brotherhood. In June, he testified before Congress admitting that his agency had scrubbed references to Islam from counter-terror materials that they produced.  He claimed to have “no idea” how that happened.

Earlier in June, Johnson downplayed the role of a radical Islamist community in the Pulse nightclub shootings.  He said that shooter Omar Mateen “was ‘self-radicalized’ without any religious, ideological or operational support from friends, family or others in the Muslim community.”  Yet it turned out that Mateen had ties to a known radical imam, one who had served as a bodyguard for the “blind sheikh” who carried out the first World Trade Center attacks.  Perhaps it was worth considering that Mateen might have targeted the gay nightclub in part because of the harsh language his mentor used towards “f****ts” in America, and Islam’s duty towards them?

To be clear, we at CounterJihad have no idea where Jeh Johnson got all that money.  We have no evidence establishing a causal relationship between the inexplicably large donation from a career public servant and his subsequent support of Brotherhood outlets, or the Brotherhood’s agenda.  We cannot even be certain that the documents establishing the donation are themselves fully genuine.  We have to be suspicious of them at first face, given that they passed through the hands of pro-Russian actors.

Nevertheless, we do have questions.  Those questions seem like important questions to us.  We would like answers.  And in a free society, for now, we still have the right to ask those questions and to demand some answers.

Throwback Thursday: 2004 – MB Archives Discovered 10 Minutes from Nation’s Capital

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 15, 2016:

On August 20, 2004, Ismail Elbarasse and his family were traveling on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Maryland.  A law enforcement officer driving on the Bay Bridge at the time drove passed Elbarasse and noticed the middle eastern female passenger filming the support structures of the bridge.  She pulled the camera down quickly when she noticed the police officers vehicle, and resumed filming as he drove by.

bridge

Upon stopping the vehicle and identifying the passengers, the police identified the driver as Elbarasse, who was wanted on a Material Witness Warrant in a Hamas case in Chicago.

The FBI case agent would later write in the search warrant affidavit for Elbarasse’s residence that it was his assessment Elbarasse was filming the bridge in support of a possible Al Qaeda operation to destroy the bridge.

The affidavit states:  “On the basis of the foregoing I have reason to believe that Elbarasse and his wife have been engaged in violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339B in that they were providing material support, to wit reconnaissance and surveillance, to a foreign terrorist organization.”

As it turns out, Elbarasse was a member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and a senior Hamas official in the United States.  He worked directly with Musa abu Marzook, the leader of the U.S. Palestine Committee, which is Hamas America.  Numerous financial transactions tie Elbarasse to Hamas and monies going to fund Hamas overseas.

screen-shot-2016-09-15-at-3-16-41-am

Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

When agents from the FBI’s Washington Field Office raided Elbarasse’s Annandale, Virginia home (10 minutes from the nation’s capital) they uncovered a treasure trove of documents, financial records, photographs, lists of Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders, MB strategic documents, Palestine Committee (Hamas) by-laws and records, audio and video recordings and much more.

Elbarasse fled the country and his whereabouts are not known.

A large amount of the evidence found at the Elbarasse residence was entered as evidence in the US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development trial (Dallas, 2008) – the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history.

The totality of the evidence in the HLF trial, including the Elbarasse evidence as well as testimony and a large amount of other evidence from this fifteen (15) year FBI investigation, revealed there is a massive Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood network in the United States comprised of the most prominent Islamic organizations here.  The objective of this Movement is to wage Civilization Jihad until the United States is an Islamic State under Sharia.

Sadly, besides the Holy Land Foundation, all of the other organizations identified as Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations from this evidence, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and so many others are still in operation.

As a matter of fact they are being defended by our Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States.

johnson-khan-isna

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson speaks at the ISNA Conference with a host of jihadis in September 2016.  ISNA is the largest MB organization in North America which raises money for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

Understanding Subversion: Considerations for our special operations forces

aaeaaqaaaaaaaahdaaaajgmzyjm4mmizlty3ntitngi2zc1hytgwltuzotvkmthmoddmmqBy , September 14, 2016 (h/t Patrick Poole)

Paper & lecture delivered by J. Michael Waller at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, Fort Bragg, NC, September 12, 2016. Title: “Subversion: Non-Violent Warfare in an Age of Countering Violent Extremism.”

Abstract

Subversion is an ambiguous form of conflict in war and peace that does not rely on violence. From the perspective of the target, subversion is so ambiguous – and often gradual and long-term – that American diplomatic, security, and military planners find it difficult to identify, recognize, understand, and neutralize. Subversion has a logic and process of its own that permits identification for defense and offensive purposes to Phase 0. This paper summarizes a larger concept paper to explore subversion for defensive and offensive purposes.

Outline

  • Subversion as a growing concern
  • What is subversion?
  • Subversion throughout history
  • Four main elements of subversion, as defined by DoD
  • CVE model excludes subversion
  • Conclusion

Subversion as a growing concern

As a nation that’s intellectually and physically equipped to deter and destroy violent adversaries through various degrees of physical force, how do we counter an aggressive adversary that is not waging violence?

Well before the current presidential campaign revived concerns about foreign subversion directed at the United States, the National Intelligence Council found that both state and non-state actors would rely more on subversion as a means of waging conflict. The NIC anticipated that “most intrastate conflict will be characterized by irregular warfare – terrorism, subversion, sabotage, insurgency, and criminal activities.”[1] The same can be argued about interstate conflict, especially concerning China, Iran, and Russia.

What is subversion?

DoD definition. DoD defines subversion as “actions designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority.”[2] The scope is understood as both tactical and strategic, the mode both overt and covert, and carried out by civilian and/or military entities but not limited to either. Under the DoD definition, then, subversion is a means of (1) military warfare, (2) economic warfare, (3) psychological warfare, and (4) political warfare. Official U.S. government references to subversion presently provide further definition. We will explore the DoD definition after discussing other definitions and historical contexts.

Definitional challenges. Subversion is both a tangible action and an intangible object, and in societies based on the free exchange of ideas and association, the idea can be difficult to grasp. Definition is difficult, sometimes reduced to “I know it when I see it.” But we don’t always know what to see. We don’t know what we don’t see. And oftentimes, we don’t see it when we see it.

Western societies have no doctrine of operative principles for waging or defending against subversion. The Soviets and Nazis did. Post-Soviet Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic Iran, as well as jihadist movements, certainly do.

DoD defines subversion in a military context suited to its role, but the concept is, at its core, a civilian one. But there is little understanding of, or consensus on, a civilian definition. Just as warfare is politics by other means in a Clausewitzian sense, subversion is politics in a Machiavellian sense. And politics is subjective.

Core features of subversion. Subversion occurs in a state or society that is in “neither war nor peace,” and that can be in either or both. It is most effective when considered a strategic asset or weapon, and not as a mere operational-tactical ancillary tool like PSYOP/MISO. Cultivation of subversive capabilities, especially from within or below, can require years or more to put in place. Subversion can be contained, shaped, neutralized, destroyed, or optimized. It can be employed in a manner similar to, or as part of, a use-of-force continuum.

One can conduct subversion overtly from above (also called “from without”) to achieve the defined goals, without the use of secret agents; and from below (or “from within”) to infiltrate and penetrate the targets from the inside, and undermine the targets to achieve the desired goals.

A key element of subversion is the planned infiltration of people, information, and ideas for the purpose of influencing the attitudes of target audiences, be they individual decision-makers or entire societies. Planned infiltration of people takes time – often well beyond the American electoral, fiscal, or operational military cycles that demand visible measurements of effectiveness. Thus those with a more patient geostrategic approach, like the Russians and Chinese, or a supernatural approach, like the Iranian regime and jihadist movements, have an advantage.

An act of violence against civilians without political intent is a crime, but it is not terrorism. Stealing classified information is a crime, but it isn’t espionage unless it involves a transfer of loyalty by providing the secrets to a foreign power. Likewise, social changes can be subversive of societal norms and ideals, but if they are not planned with specific intent, they are not subversion. They can become acts of subversion when elements exploit those changes for specific intent.

Transfer of loyalty. A main objective of subversion is to induce the target to make decisions against its own interests, and ultimately to transfer loyalty. As a former American practitioner noted more than a half-century ago:

Subversion is the undermining or detachment of the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the victimized state, and their transference, under ideal conditions, to the symbols and institutions of the aggressor. The assumption behind the manipulative use of subversion is that public morale and the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and societal or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols, such as the flag, constitution, crown, or even the persons of the chief of state or other national leaders.Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these loyalties may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor.” [3]

Unwitting collaboration. Some argue that subversion requires the unwitting collaboration of the target to facilitate the subversion itself. “Subversion is the proximate end of most political warfare, whether it is affected by agents, propaganda, or policy. Deception is so essential to subversion that the two words describe almost the same phenomenon,” according to Machiavelli scholar Angelo Codevilla:

“The paramount fact essential to understanding deception is that it requires cooperation between the deceiver and the deceived. Just as no one has ever been seduced or subverted against his will, seldom is anyone convinced that something is true that he does not wish were true. Hence the craft of deception and subversion lies mostly in discovering what the target wants to hear and to do. The essence of execution lies in providing just enough excuse for the target to deceive and subvert itself.” [4]

Subversion throughout history

Throughout recorded human history, subversion has played an important role in political, cultural, and military conflict.

The ancient Hebrews faced it in the Old Testament.[5] One of the earliest references to subversion of military strength and morale appears in the Old Testament, in which the Jews are defending Jerusalem from a Babylonian military offensive. As the siege of the city was underway, the prophet Jeremiah said that, due to the Jewish kings’ unworthy rule, it was God’s will that Jerusalem fall to the enemy, and the king of Judah be handed over to the enemy king. Jeremiah thus encouraged his own people to submit themselves to the invaders, the ultimate act of subversion.[6]

Sun Tzu (c. 544-496 BC) prescribed it in ancient China as part of his “acme of skill” to defeat the enemy without fighting.[7] The writers attributed to Kautilya (350-275 BC) described in great detail how to wage subversion to build and expand empires in ancient India.[8] The ancient Romans coined the Latin term subvertere, or “overturning,” to protect and expand their empire. It is from the Latin that our English terminology originates. Niccolo Machiavelli, living in the 15th century, is perhaps the most notorious – and truly subversive – theoreticians of subversion.[9]

In modern history, the Bolsheviks, who began their revolution as a subversive underground movement, and subverted the post-tsarist Russian provisional government thanks to a brilliant subversive move by the German general staff, raised the art to an industrialized form of statecraft. The methods the Soviet regime adapted, pioneered, and refined became a model for other subversive movements, regardless of ideology.

Now, let us look at how the DoD definition of subversion applies to concerns of today and the future.

Four main elements of subversion, as defined by DoD

Using the DoD definition of subversion as “actions” limited to undermine strength or morale, we will look at each of the four itemized elements. We can discuss specific substantiating examples beyond this paper.

Element 1: Undermining military strength or morale. The ambiguous undermining of military strength or morale can be done alone or in concert with un-ambiguous direct action, both non-violent and violent. This element of subversion erodes the will of target nations or societies to initiate or continue military action, take risks, and even to be strong militarily. It undermines force morale and civilian morale at home and abroad, and weakens the command and authority of military and civilian leadership. It undermines the will to deploy when necessary. It not only undermines the will or capability of warriors to fight; at the national strategic level it undermines the will to modernize forces, advise civilian leadership, or even exist at all. Quality subversion can even undermine the proper recruitment, training, and indoctrination of those warriors in the first place – or to waste resources by recruiting the wrong people, and training and indoctrinating them to their detriment.

Element 2: Undermining economic strength or morale. Economic sanctions and blockades are forms of overt economic warfare, and may even be considered casus belli or acts of war. The subversive side of undermining economic strength or morale can come in the form of influencing decisions of foreign government of business figures to damage their own economic interests by inducing them to make self-defeating decisions. Deliberately causing or exacerbating inflation, currency devaluation, runs on banks, capital flight, disinvestment, unemployment, and the secondary strains of increased welfare spending and other social costs, can be acts of economic subversion.

Element 3: Undermining psychological strength or morale. This element of subversion is a component of psychological warfare, but is different because it can be used for purposes apart from war. It has little to do with military information support operations (MISO), which used to be called psychological operations (PSYOP). PSYOP/MISO, as the United States practices it, is almost exclusively tactical-operational in nature and usually directed at combatants and civilians in limited combat areas, instead of at senior decisionmakers or entire societies for prolonged periods. Psychological strength or morale of leaders and societies can relate to the electrochemical reactions within the human brain, and may not be a matter of military capability, economic power, or political will. It involves leveraging elements of the targets’ culture, law, sociopolitical traits, emotions, morals, and values. Manipulating the psychological state of individual leaders or entire nations, in times of hot war or otherwise, is perhaps the most subversive of all.

Element 4: Undermining political strength or morale. Undermining political strength or morale, much like undermining physical or material capabilities, can alter political realities to achieve desired objectives. It can achieve potentially the same (or even superior) results as military action, with much lower human and material costs. Invading a country is not necessary when one can accomplish the same objective by influencing the decisions or its leaders – or changing its leadership – from the inside. History offers hundreds of examples of short-, medium-, and long-term successes here.

CVE model excludes subversion

Because it is generally not violent, subversion sits mostly outside the present countering violent extremism (CVE) model. Consequently, as a nation, we are not prepared to recognize and defend against the subversion of other regimes or movements directed at our capabilities and morale, even when certain subversive movements have exactly the same end state as violent enemies. Some of those movements wage non-violent warfare under a friendly face as a means of infiltrating societies for future revolutionary or violent action.

Even when such networks are visibly extreme, or deployed for extremist purposes, their actions might not be illegal, or we might be tempted to dismiss them as “moderate” because they are not presently using violence against our interests. Thus the CVE model can cause us to consider some extremists as tactical allies against violent forces like al Qaeda or ISIS. And while such tactical alliances may occasionally be necessary to achieve an objective, the CVE lens does not permit us to consider how to prevent those allies of convenience from achieving the shared end state of the violent extremists. This Western gap in mindset is a boon to subversion practitioners, yet is rather simple to resolve by developing indicators.

Countersubversion, counterintelligence, and beyond. Another mindset gap is that Western democracies, to the extent they consider it at all, tend to mirror-image subversion as what we understand as “covert operations.” And covert operations, by definition, are generally relegated to civilian intelligence services. So the United States and most of its major allies tend to consider countersubversion, if they consider it at all, as a role of their counterintelligence services.

That is because we tend to mirror-image. Subversion is not necessarily an intelligence function. Indeed, it can be argued that Russia, China, and Iran wage much of their subversion through entities that are not intelligence services at all. Even if our foreign adversaries’ subversion was primarily executed by their intelligence services, the U.S. and most of its major allies tend to equate “counterintelligence” with “counterespionage,” and thus reduce the counterintelligence function simply to fighting spies who steal secrets.

A useful aspect of the CVE approach is that it reestablishes a precedent by relying on the widest possible array of civilian agencies, and uniformed services both police and military, at every level of the federal governments and through many state governments.

Conclusion

Subversion is an ancient form of human conflict. It is both a military and civilian instrument, executed by state and non-state actors. Subversion is an ambiguous form of warfare from the eyes of the target, both in times of what Western societies traditionally view as “war” and “peace.”

Subversion is most effectively a strategic capability. That capability is to influence individual leaders and governments, as well as entire nations and societies at Phase 0 and onward. It can be employed in a manner to, or as part of, a use-of-force continuum.

Democratic nations and societies generally have little consensus on how to define subversion as a civilian issue, and generally limit their understanding to the military sphere and asymmetrical or hybrid warfare. They tend not to wage subversion and have constructed few defenses against it. Nations, societies, and movements with little or no democratic tradition tend to show a profound understanding of how to wage subversion.

Democratic nations, however, can develop their own defensive countersubversion and offensive subversion capabilities without compromising their principles. To do so, they will have to move beyond the CVE model. That means countering extremists who are not yet violent, and countering “moderates” who share the same end goals as the violent extremists. It also means developing countermeasures to subversion that governments such as Russia, China, and Iran wage against the United States and its allies and interests worldwide.

Without mastering subversion as a strategic instrument of conflict, the United States will not prevail against present and potential adversaries who have done so. The good news is that subversion is not a difficult concept for us to master.

[1] National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, NIC 2012-001, December 2012, pp. 59-60.

[2]DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/s/7348.html. Emphasis added.

[3] Paul W. Blackstock, The Strategy of Subversion: Manipulating the Politics of Other Nations (Quadrangle, 1964), p. 44. Emphasis added.

[4] Angelo Codevilla, “Political Warfare: A set of means for achieving political ends,” in J. Michael Waller, ed., Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare (Institute of World Politics Press, 2008), p. 217.

[5] Some scholars argue that many Old Testament figures, especially the Deuteronomist prophets, were subversive of ruling civil authority, particularly monarchs who claimed a divine right to rule. See Rex Mason, Propaganda and Subversion in the Old Testament (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1997).

[6] Jeremiah 32:1-5.

[7] Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. and ed. Samuel B. Griffith (Oxford University Press, 1971).

[8] Kautilya, The Arthashastra, translated into English (Penguin, 2000).

[9] Of all the excellent translators of Machiavelli, one of the most insightful in terms of understanding the subversive mindset is Angelo Codevilla. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (Rethinking the Western Tradition), trans. and ed. Angelo Codevilla (Yale University Press, 1997).

J. Michael Waller was the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, DC., where he directed the nation’s only graduate program in public diplomacy and political warfare. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

The Terrorist “Wing” Scam

MEF, by A.J. Caschetta
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2016 (view PDF)

Modern terrorist organizations have managed to flourish despite their enemies’ attempts to squash them and have often done so by hiding in plain sight behind a nominal disguise. The most successful groups have achieved a kind of parity with the countries they attack by masquerading as complicated and diverse establishments for which terror is but one facet of their true—and variegated—nature. Nearly all terrorist organizations operating today have learned to conduct effective subterfuge by pretending to diversify.

On the rhetorical level, the illusion is advanced when a terror organization claims for itself an ancillary “wing,” “arm,” or “branch.” Most often it is either a “charitable wing” that operates orphanages and hospitals and distributes aid to the poor, or a “political wing” devoted to achieving the group’s aims through negotiation. In reality though, the group and its newly-sprouted wings are never separate but rather integral, interdependent parts of a whole. The pose allows them to prosper by legitimizing their continued existence as aid providers or embryonic governments rather than terrorist groups.

Even if a group does not itself refer to the new organization as its wing, eager journalists, academics and politicians surely will. The illusion of segmentation is among the most effective tools in the terrorists’ propaganda kit as they cleverly play on the compassionate nature of their targets and exploit the myth that all charities are inherently good, that philanthropy is intrinsically a praiseworthy undertaking, and that freedom to practice one’s religion is a universal right even when that practice denies basic human rights to others.

Western nations are keen on rewarding those who participate in a democratic process and engage in negotiations because this is seen as the rational, civilized way to bridge differences. Mere participation in the political process becomes a desirable outcome in and of itself. Western nations also give generously to charitable causes and facilitate the work of others who do likewise.

Terrorists understand this, and so like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing they disguise their violent nature with the cloak of legitimacy through their nonviolent wings. Only by exposing the “wing” charade can states begin to adopt policies that effectively counter this ubiquitous tactic.

The Confidence Game

In the late nineteenth century, many radical organizations reveled in their infamy and wore the label terrorist proudly.[1] But after World War II, most sought to distance themselves from the newly-stigmatized term, calling themselves instead revolutionaries, freedom fighters, or resisters to imperialism.

At the same time, however, another trend emerged in which terrorists sought to replace the notoriety of their predecessors with an appearance of legitimacy. This was a means of survival rather than an ideological shift. By transforming its image as a violent group into that of a provider of charitable services or a legitimate political player, a terrorist group gains the time and space necessary to sustain a campaign of violence.

Terrorist organizations that use this subterfuge are merely following a template perfected by other criminal organizations. For traditional criminal syndicates trading in stolen or illegal products and services, this has historically involved the creation of “dummy” or “shell” companies to hide their illicit work and profits. Likewise, criminal gangs and drug dealers have long known that distributing goods to the poor (turkeys at Thanksgiving or toys at Christmas)[2] can buy them a degree of support and silence. The most successful terrorist organizations achieve a kind of respectability either by launching quasi-political branches or by operating charities, thus purchasing the toleration and even loyalty of those in their areas of operation.

A target state that agrees to negotiate with the political wing of a terrorist organization does so largely because of a credible threat of violence. Once a state falls for the phony compartmentalization, acknowledging or negotiating with a terrorist group’s wing, the bait has been taken. The con then evolves as the political wing offers to dissuade the military wing from undertaking more violence. Similarly, a target state will often give money to the charitable wing of a terrorist group in the hope that this action will sway hearts and minds within the population from which future terrorists are likely to emerge. The opposite, though, is true. A terrorist group with a charitable wing that operates a hospital, school, or orphanage has cleared a path to hiding both money and suspects; it can handily treat wounded terrorists and inculcate new ones. Further, any outside funds that go to humanitarian initiatives run by the terror group free up money for arms or violent undertakings. Any state that criminalizes a terrorist organization’s militant wing but allows its charitable wing to continue unfettered or negotiates with its political wing merely keeps the conflict alive by perpetuating the scam.

***

mb-political-and-charitable-wings

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Charitable Wing”

While Sinn Féin and the IRA were founded separately and only later formed their symbiotic relationship, Hassan al-Banna originally founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 as an umbrella organization with units devoted to politics (Islamism and the restoration of the caliphate) and to charity (mostly focused on poor Egyptian boys). Only later, in 1940, did a militant wing appear. Drawing recruits from his version of the Boy Scouts, Banna used graduates of the Brotherhood’s “Rover Scouts” to make up the core of an elite vanguard known as the Apparatus or the Special or Secret Apparatus (al-Jihaz or al-Tanzim al-Khass, al-Jihaz as-Sirri) willing to kill for the cause.[10] Still later, in 1944, Banna launched a medical wing that operated clinics and pharmacies, and in 1945, founded the Muslim Sisters, which ran a girls’ school.

As a result of its assassination of Egyptian prime minister Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi on December 28, 1948, the Brotherhood was forced to go underground although its charities, hospitals, schools, social clubs, and youth groups remained intact for a time and continued to provide shelter, support and, most importantly, new recruits to the cause.

After an attempt on President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s life in 1954, however, all known Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt were rounded up and either executed or imprisoned. The organization might have withered to nothingness had it not been for Zaynab Ghazali’s Muslim Women’s Association (Jama’at as-Sayyidat al-Muslimat), which had pledged allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood and managed to provide

food, medical care, and other support to … help reconstitute the organization, serving as a liaison among dispersed members andsympathizers, and conducting seminars on Islam with activists in her home.[11]

Over the next six decades, the legal status of the Brotherhood in Egypt seesawed between outright banning, to sporadic, intense repression, to a begrudging but limited acceptance, to a brief spell in power under Mohamed Mursi’s presidency. The organization has regularly franchised student, charitable, and even media wings throughout its sphere of influence while successfully camouflaging its relationship to these organizations.[12] From the beginning, its “method was to employ flexibility [muruna] and concealment [taqiyaor kitman] in order to spread Islam,”[13] especially in the West, and this wing charade was perpetuated either covertly or openly in every country to which the Brotherhood spread. In Jordan, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood is a legal group that participates in politics through its “political wing,” the Islamic Action Front, while its connections to Hamas account for its militant wing.[14] The Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, itself a Brotherhood offshoot, retains a subsidiary called Jamaat-ud Dawa (JuD) as its charitable wing. Alongside supplying medical relief and establishing emergency clinics, JuD publishes a decidedly political weekly (Jarrar) and runs more than three hundred seminaries inculcating the Brotherhood’s Islamist message.[15]

In the aftermath of 9/11, some of the Brotherhood’s secretive doings and strategic imperatives have begun to be uncovered by U.S. and European authorities. A document dated December 1, 1982, which came to be known as “The Project” was discovered in a 2001 raid on the home of Youssef Nada, the director of the at-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, Switzerland. In it, Muslims worldwide are exhorted to set up dawa (proselytization) groups in the form of charities and other religious, cultural, and political organizations, which can operate out in the open expressly for the purpose of providing cover for violent jihad.[16]

“An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” dated May 19, 1991, is another document that came to light that elaborates on the concept of wings, arms, and branches in the Brotherhood. Written by Muhammad Akram (a senior official of both the Brotherhood and Hamas) it calls for the destruction of American society through “civilizational jihad” modeled on the actions of the prophet Muhammad:

our prophet Muhammad … placed the foundation for the first civilized organization, which is the mosque, which truly became “the comprehensive organization.” And this was done by the pioneer of contemporary Islamic dawa, Imam martyr Hasan Banna … when he and his brothers felt the need to “reestablish” Islam and its movement anew, leading him to establish organizations with all their kinds: economic, social, media, scouting, professional, and even the military ones.[17]

Akram concluded that America was “a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations” and cited as tools for the overall objective of overthrowing the United States a list of twenty-nine Brotherhood organizations including the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Occupied Land Fund (aka Holy Land Foundation).[18]

Although these documents and their implications are in the public domain and were widely reported on in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, over time these wings have been treated by reporters and pundits as moderate organizations largely because they have not been involved in acts of violence. The Muslim Brotherhood itself received a tremendous boost to mainstream acceptance by none other than U.S. president Barack Obama who pushed to have its leadership invited to his now-infamous Cairo speech of June 4, 2009. The Obama administration has not only supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and abroad but has also served the group’s interests domestically, treating the organization as a moderate ally, even hiring Brotherhood activists for important posts influencing foreign policy.[19] In the latest wrinkle to this stratagem, many of the original twenty-nine front groups listed in the explanatory memorandum have coalesced into an American Muslim Brotherhood political PAC called the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations,[20] in essence becoming the political wing of the charitable wing of a terrorist organization.

Read more

A.J. Caschetta is senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

This 9/11 Anniversary is a Call to Action

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 9, 2016:

It has been fifteen (15) years since September 11, 2001.  It is a day seared in our hearts and minds.

911

Today, we are far from where we thought we would be 15 years after the jihadi attacks of 9/11.  America lost two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we lost thousands of American lives since 9/11.  Many have allowed themselves to be lied to about the true nature of the threat without any evidence they care about their ignorance.

Our leaders in both political parties have betrayed us and brought the Republic to a gravely dangerous point in our history.  Some say we are on the brink of destruction.

This weekend is meant to remember the dead of September 11, 2001, but it is also a time for Americans to dedicate themselves to defending freedom without apology.  It is a time to recall our duties as citizen soldiers, stand in the gap and refuse to surrender one more inch to tyranny and evil.

The cry once again is “Freedom.”

Freedom to speak your mind without concern for whom might be offended.

Freedom to declare the truth about America’s founding as a nation created by God’s divine providence.

Freedom to declare our rights come from God, and no man nor any government nor any tyrannical movement can take them from us.

But Freedom must be fought for.  We are at war whether you like it or not, and this fight requires mature adults who understand what is at stake to step up and engage wherever needed.

And our time is short.

The culmination of decades of work by the hard left/Marxist and Islamic jihadi Movements in the U.S. is coming to fruition right now. The enemy is on the move.  The Marxists and Jihadis are concentrating their forces.

Marxism, Communism and Socialism are evil systems.  They necessarily enslave people and, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, they are systems where few hold power over the masses – and the masses suffer greatly under that tyranny.

Islam obliges jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until sharia is the law of the land.  This totalitarian system also enslaves and murders those who do not subscribe to its doctrines.

The cry now must be “Freedom.”

f

The four key pillars of our society – Religion, Politics, Education, Media (free press?) – have been nearly obliterated by the hard-left/Marxists.  The Islamic Movement wages their war against Freedom on the very ground given to them by these Marxists.

Action at the local level needs to be taken now.

It is time to take our schools back.  Our universities may be unrecoverable, but our elementary and junior high schools are not.  Teachers teaching lies about America’s history should be aggressively made to teach the truth or bounced out of school.  The Bible should be, once again, the primary text for teaching morality and good character, among other things.

Christian Pastors who preach that any/all behavior is okay, Islam is peaceful, and that we should never offend others, are denying the faith of our founders and undermining the principles of “the law of nature (Natural Law) and nature’s God (Holy Scripture)” upon which our legal system and government are founded.  Such Pastors should be tossed out of their churches by their ears.  That is not “mean,” it is loving to all the people being corrupted by their evil teachings.

Elected officials who continue to violate their Oaths of Office must be held accountable to the people, who are the sovereign in the United States of America.  It begins at the local level.

Media outlets and reporters who continue to be mouthpieces for both the Marxist and Islamic Movements must be held to account.  Whether station sponsors are petitioned or the individual reporters shamed into speaking truth or quitting, action must be taken.

The two most important groups of people in returning the Republic to order and freedom are Sheriffs (most powerful law enforcement officers in America) and Pastors.  If a sheriff and the citizens (motivated by their Pastors) in any given U.S. county or parish understand the dangers we face, they can legally, aggressively, and thoughtfully identify and dismantle the Marxist and Islamic network in their area.

County by county and state by state we can build fortresses of Freedom.

If battle frightens you and you just want peace, you can have it in an instant.  You can surrender.  But we in a battle for the soul of our Republic and that requires action and it requires a fight.

Yes, this Presidential election is critical, and some people may feel a victory for Mr. Trump may not be victory for conservative Patriots. But a defeat for Mr. Trump will be a defeat for all of us.

However, this is a counterinsurgency and the focus of main effort is at the local level.

On this 9/11 anniversary, the cry once again is “Freedom.”  This is not a slogan nor is it hyperbole.  We are in a war and we need to start acting like it.

Lets put Freedom back on the offensive – where it belongs.

We’re at War: The Calm Before the Storm

steve-coughlin

Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Sept. 6, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin spoke in Washington, DC at ACTCON 2016, Act for America’s “National Conference and Legislative Briefing: Taking Back America’s Security” about potential terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland. He talked about his former work and his critiques of American intelligence and homeland security agencies. Coughlin also expressed his concern about operational inadequacies at some of those agencies.

Watch the video on the CSPAN website

Transcript of Stephen Coughlin Speech (pdf)

Quotes and Excerpts from the Speech:

WE ARE AT WAR. WE ARE AT WAR WITH AN ENEMY WHO OPENLY DECLARES HIMSELF, THEY IDENTIFY THEIR STRATEGIES, THEY WRITE THEM IN ENGLISH BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONVINCED YOU THAT IF YOU READ THEM, THEY DON’T MEAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE THERE ARE A THOUSAND DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF ISLAM.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. THEY DON’T PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON THE BATTLEFIELDS OF IRAQ AND SYRIA. THEY PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON THE INFORMATION BATTLE SPACE HERE. THEY EXECUTE AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL, TARGETING CONTROL, TARGETING CONTROL AT DECISIONMAKING TO CONTROL NARRATIVES USED TO ANALYZE AND DISCUSS EVENTS.

FOR EVERY POLITICIAN AND REPORTER AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SOUND SMART WHO STARTS OFF THEIR NARRATIVE BY SAYING THAT WHAT ISIS DOES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM, I HAVE A SOURCE THAT BEATS EVERY ONE OF THEIR SOURCES AND BEATS IT 50 TIMES OVER. WE ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY NARRATIVES.

THE ENEMY’S MAIN EFFORT IS A SUSTAINED STRATEGIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL. WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE? TO WIN THE WAR BY DENYING YOU THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY HIM, THEREBY ALLOWING HIM TO CONTROL YOU.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO A CULTURAL MARXIST NARRATIVE THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY YOUR IDENTITY.

WHEN YOU HEAR A GENERAL WITH COMBAT RESPONSIBILITIES SAY, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GETS IN THE WAY OF MY DOING MY JOB, WHAT HE JUST TOLD YOU WAS IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT THAN TO KEEP YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ALIVE AND TO WIN THE WAR.

THE GAME IS THIS WAR IS INTENDED TO BE FOUGHT AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL THROUGH CONTROL OF SPEECH. THE ENEMY IT IS NOT JUST THE ISLAMIC ENEMY AT THE POINT AT WHICH THEY TOUCH YOU. IT IS THESE NARRATIVES THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY CONSTRUCTED BY THEM, BUT ARE BEING ENFORCED THROUGH WHAT ARE CALLED THE HATE SPEECH NARRATIVES.

IN 2005, HE WAS INTERVIEWED IN THIS ARTICLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT AL QAEDA’S PLAN WAS AS PUBLISHED IN 2005. AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS POINT OUT THAT THEY SAID, IN THE YEAR 2002 THAT BETWEEN 2010 AND 2013 THEY WOULD COLLAPSE THE ARAB STATES, AND THEY WOULD COLLAPSE THE ARAB STATES.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME FROM BACK IN 2010 THAT I WAS BRIEFING ON CAPITOL HILL AT THE END OF 2010, WATCH OUT, THE BROTHERHOOD IS GOING TO BE LEADING THE CHARGE TO TAKE DOWN THESE ARAB STATES, IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE A FREEDOM MOVEMENT, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM BEGINNING TO END IT IS GOING TO BE A TAKEDOWN.

AND THEN FIVE MONTHS LATER, IN FEBRUARY, WE SAW THE ARAB SPRING. OF COURSE THEY KNEW THE ENGLISH SPEAKING JOURNALISTS WOULD GO TO TAHRIR SQUARE AND INTERVIEW ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT FREEDOM. THEY KNOW IT IS AS EASY AS GIVING A KID CANDY, GIVING THE WEST WHAT IT WANTS TO HEAR, SO THEY CREATED A PARTY CALLED FREEDOM AND JUSTICE. THEY KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT. THEY ALSO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IS FREEDOM FROM THE LAWS OF MAN, JUSTICE ACCORDING TO SHARIA.

THE FIFTH PHASE WAS TO BEGIN IN 2013 WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CALIPHATE, AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. AND, OF COURSE, PHASE SIX WOULD BEGIN IN 2016, AND THAT WOULD BE TOTAL CONFRONTATION.

I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE A 2005 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY INTERVIEWING AL QAEDA ON A DOCUMENT THEY WROTE IN 2002 TELLING YOU WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS, AND THEY ARE EXACTLY WHERE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE. EXACTLY WHERE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE.

WITH SAN BERNARDINO, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TOOK CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE FROM BEGINNING TO END. . . .

OUR NATIONAL LEADERS DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD INCLUDING TO ALLOW THEM TO SET THE DEBATE TO ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STAND ON A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DIAS TO THREATEN AMERICANS AND TO HAVE THE “LET’S TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH OF A TRAGEDY THIS IS”–AT A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD MOSQUE.

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD REPRESENTS LEADERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN AMERICA BECAUSE THEY GET THE MEDIA AND THEY TALK TO OUR GOVERNMENT, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT MOST MUSLIMS AGREE OR EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND YOU WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, DO YOU THINK YOU’RE GOING TO GO TO THE FBI OR DHS TO REPORT A POSSIBLE TERRORIST EVENT WHEN YOU KNOW THEIR OUTREACH PARTNERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD? ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT?

WHO GUARANTEES, REALLY, THAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO GET REPORTS FROM THAT COMMUNITY BESIDES THE BROTHERHOOD WHO ARE THREATENING PEOPLE RIGHT HERE?

WE’RE SEEING THE BROTHERHOOD ACTUALLY ADVERTISE WHAT THEY’RE DOING, WE’RE SEEING OUR GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY AFFILIATE WITH THEM AT THE TIME OF TRAGIC EVENTS, AND IT GOES RIGHT BY PEOPLE.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT OUR WHOLE ORIENTATION TO THE WAR ON TERROR HAS BEEN REDUCED TO INCOHERENCE. AND THAT WE HAVE LOST THE BATTLE AND THE INFORMATION BATTLE SPACE. WE HAVE LOST IT.

THE VERY WAY WE TALK ABOUT THIS WAR ENSURES THAT WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY ENGAGE IT. LEADERLESS JIHAD, HUMAN TERRAIN, VIOLENT EXTREMISTS, LONE WOLF. EVERY ONE OF THEM ARE NONSENSE. THEY SOUND ANALYTICAL. THEY’RE NOT. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO GET YOU TO TALK ABOUT WHAT A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, A SOCIOLOGIST OR ANTHROPOLOGIST THINKS IS INTELLECTUALLY INTRIGUING WHEN THEY BUILT A MODEL TO UNDERSTAND EVENTS THAT COULD BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT THE MODEL.

IS NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF GOING TO ADMIT THEY GOT IN BED WITH PEOPLE WHO DECLARED THEIR OBJECTIVE WAS TO SUBVERT AMERICA FROM WITHIN BY AMONG OTHER THINGS WORKING WITH THEM? NO.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD WHEN WE HEAR OUR POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT ISIS, THE FIRST THING THEY SAY IS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD THAT? OKAY. WHY IS IT THAT THEY GET TO TELL YOU WHAT ISLAM IS BUT IF YOU COME UP WITH A FACT-BASED, CITED, USE OF ISLAMIC SOURCES RESPONSE, YOU’RE THE PERSON WHO IS A HATER WHO HAS TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE SAID?

WE GET THE KINETIC PART OF IT, WE’RE ALSO AT WAR WITH THE NONKINETIC STRATEGIES THAT ARE EXECUTING IN PLAIN SIGHT.

SPLINTER MOVEMENT: YOU CREATE A NON-VIOLENT GROUP (LIKE OIC OR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD), AND THEN A SPLINTER GROUP THAT IS VIOLENT. THEN AS SOON AS THE VIOLENT GROUP HITS, THE NONVIOLENCE SPLINTER SAYS IF YOU WORK WITH US, WE CAN KEEP THEM FROM KILLING YOU. WELL, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? WELL, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY SAY. OH, OKAY. AND YOU SEE WE’RE GOING TO HELP YOU. WE’RE MODERATE. WE WANT TO HELP YOU. OKAY. THIS IS CLASSICAL SPLINTER MOVEMENT OPERATION. OF COURSE, THE JIHADI ELEMENTS ARE GROUPS LIKE AL QAEDA, OR ISIS, AND THE UMA PAR EXCELLENCE IS THE OIC.

WE DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND IN AMERICA THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT DOESN’T EVEN SPEAK IN TERMS OF STRATEGIC DESIGN. SO THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRATEGIC INFORMATION OPERATIONS, AND THEY WOULDN’T RECOGNIZE POLITICAL WARFARE INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS COMING AT THEM IF THEIR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT.

POLITICAL WARFARE IS ABOUT CREATING THE COUNTERSTATE WHERE THE OTHER SIDE HAS PEOPLE, TECHNICAL SKILLS, WEAPONS, PROPAGANDA, MEDIA, AND CREATE LINES OF OPERATION THAT ATTACK THE POLITICAL, VIOLENT, NONVIOLENT, ALLIES AND INTERNATIONAL SPEAR HERE. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS RECOGNIZE THAT AT THE STRATEGIC LEVEL AND COUNTER IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

ONE OF THE SENIOR GENERALS AT OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND RECENTLY MADE THIS STATEMENT. “WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MOVEMENT, AND UNTIL WE DO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DEFEAT IT. WE HAVE NOT DEFEATED THE IDEA. WE DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE IDEA.” THAT’S A GENERAL OFFICER ALLOCATING FORCE TO FIGHT A WAR.

DO YOU THINK THAT ISIS KNOWS THAT OUR GENERALS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING? DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE OUTREACH PARTNERS FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOW THAT THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING?

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. DO YOU THINK THE RUSSIANS KNOW THAT? DO YOU THINK THE CHINESE KNOW THAT?

THE COST OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY IS GETTING HIGH. AND HIGHER EVERY DAY. IT WILL BE INCREASINGLY MEASURED BY NEWS STORIES THAT NARROW IN ON SENIOR LEADERS INABILITY TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY. IT WILL MANIFEST ITSELF IN OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT BECOME PROGRESSIVELY LESS REALITY BASED.

HOW MANY PEOPLE FEEL THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAME HERE JUST FEELING A TAD BIT DEMORALIZED?  THE ENEMY’S GOAL IS TO MAKE YOU FEEL HOPELESS AT A TIME WHEN IF YOU REALIZED YOU WEREN’T, YOU COULD TAKE THE UPPER HAND.

People’s Cube: Gurka-Burka, Burkini, and Other Wordplay is Islamophobic

gurka

Truth Revolt, Sept. 8, 2016:

From our favorite satire site The People’s Cube comes their take on the real-life controversy over a cucumber shaped like someone in a burka — yes, it’s a real controversy. Read below:

It has come to our attention that Mayor Simone Stein-Lücke of Bonn, Germany, has come under fire for sharing a picture of a cucumber on social media. If she were to share a picture of a cucumber inside of a condom as an educational visual aide for local kindergartners, she might have been praised for her courage and open-mindedness. Unfortunately, this Mayor chose to share a picture of a cucumber (Gurke in German) that looked like the Islamic burka, and named it “Gurka.”

Read more about it here: WHAT A GHERKIN: German mayor blasted for posting picture of a cucumber that looks like somebody wearing a BURKA

In this regard, our scientists at the Karl Marx Treatment Center have come up with the following recommendation:

All progressive humanity should henceforth abstain from all kinds of humor, puns, spoonerisms, malapropisms, and other forms of wordplay, which by default are offensive to the ever increasing Islamic community, whose culture denounces jokes as bold-faced lies and mandates a strictly literal interpretation of any statement lest the author be accused of blasphemy and executed.

Even if the joke or wordplay has nothing to do with Islam, it is nearly impossible for a Westerner to know the potential extent of offence it may or may not contain for a devout Muslim. Therefore, any humor in public space should be thoroughly rationed and posted on social media only with express permission of trained government professionals, who will review the jokes and/or puns within 72 hours upon written submission and issue a special one-time permit to share the joke and/or pun along with a recommended amount of spontaneous laughter based on a state-approved scale, from one to ten, ten being the loudest and the most heart-felt.

This includes Internet memes, Photoshops, and any other images that contain elements of fantasy, absurdity, or simply allow multiple interpretations, especially if they are based on wordplay.

On the subject of cucumbers or any other vegetables, examples include the renowned People’s Cube classic, “The Beetles on the Abbey Road”…

beetles_abbey_road

…or even this lovely picture of a Muslima wearing a Burkini.

burkini_beach_dress

EXCLUSIVE: DHS Defends Secretary’s Appearance At Terror Front Group’s Conference

dhs-secretary-jeh-johnson

Johnson was “fully aware” that ISNA was implicated in the nation’s largest terror funding case; he just didn’t care.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 7, 2016:

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was “fully aware” that the Islamic Society of North America was implicated in a major terrorist fundraising case and ID’d by prosecutors as a front for a global jihadist movement that seeks to turn America into an Islamic state through infiltration and subversion when he agreed to speak at ISNA’s annual convention on Saturday, a DHS spokesman told CounterJihad.com on Wednesday.

Johnson was the highest-ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to speak in person before ISNA’s conference held last week in Chicago.

As CJ first reported Sunday, ISNA had been considered off-limits to such high-level appearances since the U.S. Justice Department in 2008 designated the group as anunindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history and a front organization for the radical Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood.

Johnson’s spokesman Neema Hakim told CJ that, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties and radical background, Johnson agreed to appear at the event because he considered it an “opportunity” to conduct outreach with the American Muslim community.

“DHS and the secretary are fully aware of past evidence and allegations concerning ISNA and carefully considered them before accepting ISNA’s invitation,” Hakim said. “However, in the current environment, he viewed the opportunity to address literally thousands of American Muslims as crucial to our homeland security efforts.”

Asked why speaking from another venue or through a video would not have provided the same opportunity to address Muslims, Hakim declined comment. He also did not immediately respond to a letter sent to Johnson Wednesday from Rep. Steve King and two other Republican lawmakers demanding Johnson “renounce the Muslim Brotherhood and suspend further dealings by you or your subordinates with its front organizations like the Islamic Society of North America.”

In the two-page letter, the lawmakers said they were “appalled” that Johnson would “legitimize, let alone pander to, an organization or its proxy that poses a threat to our constitutional republic and its people.”

Reps. King, R-Iowa, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Randy Weber, R-Texas, added: “The fact that you have explicitly called for your appearance before ISNA to serve as a precedent for other Cabinet officials to do the same amounts not just to willful blindness about the nature of the enemy. It is malfeasance.”

In his speech, Johnson encouraged other Cabinet officials to follow in his footsteps, saying, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”

The congressmen called the Muslim Brotherhood “a foreign terrorist organization” and warned that its front groups and operatives in America “are using a variety of techniques — both violent and stealthy — to accomplish the Brotherhood’s stated goal of Sharia’s triumph globally and the reestablishment of the Caliphate.”

A manifesto of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood recovered by the FBI during a 2004 raid of the Virginia home of a terrorist suspect, details a secret plan to “destroy” America “from within” and replace it with an Islamic state through a “grand jihad.” The so-called “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America” lists ISNA first among 29 groups the Brotherhood claims as “our organizations.”

Also see:

Islamists Set Their Sights on Georgia and the Tea Party

unspecified

CounterJihad, y Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 2, 2016:

The Georgia chapter of the Islamist group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is making a concerted effort to reach out to Republicans and conservative groups in Georgia. Apparently, CAIR wants to reach out to groups that it often demonizes as anti-Muslim bigots and Islamophobes– such as tea party groups— and to educate them on the basics of Islam. Georgia CAIR executive director Edward Ahmed Mitchell thinks that, by concentrating on conservative groups will help “solve the problem.” That is the alleged ‘Islamophobia’ problem. 90.1 FM WABE provides some details on this Muslim Brotherhood inspired outreach:

Georgia CAIR wants to provide an educational ‘Islam 101’ presentation, answer questions and talk about Muslim prayer rituals and demographics.

Mitchell said they typically get a lot of questions about terrorism, and terms like “jihad,” and “Sharia,” and he likes the opportunity to share facts.

We already know that the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is committed to “a Civilization-Jihadist Process” which deals with carrying out a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.” With that said, imagine learning terms like “jihad” and “Sharia” from a Muslim Brotherhood front group like CAIR – a group that is labeled a terrorist organization by the U.A.E. At the very least, folks will not get honest answers from these efforts.

This more intentional type of outreach to conservatives by Islamists might be newer with CAIR Georgia (at least by Mitchell’s comments in the 90.1 FM WABE article), but is has been attempted for years by other Islamists. With conservatives as the Brotherhood’s main opponent in the U.S. one can expect more of these Brotherhood ‘outreaches’ to conservative groups to try to advance their Islamist agenda by deception.

Lately, CAIR Georgia has been doing more than just strategizing about conservative outreach, they have also been heavily involved in helping overturn a moratorium that kept the construction of a mosque and Islamic cemetery on a 135-acre plot of land in Newton County, Georgia at bay. The moratorium has recently been lifted to the dismay of many people of Newton County. Of course, members of the media, Islamists groups like CAIR, and others want to essentially call those opposed to the mosque and cemetery anti-Muslim bigots, haters, Islamophobes, and many other condescending terms instead of seriously addressing legitimate concerns.

First, when “the mosque development proposal was presented to Development Services in June 2015” allegedly “the place of worship was referred to as Avery Community Church and Cemetery.” It sounds pretty misleading. Second, we’re not just talking about a mosque and cemetery – it’s going to be more like a Muslim commune. Off of Masjid At-Taqwa’s (Doraville, Georgia) website, the plans for the 135 acres include: “Cemetery, Burial Preparation Facility, Masjid, Schools and University with their own athletic fields and sports area, Public Park, and lot more.” Furthermore, who’s going to pay for this grand vision? Imam Mohammad Islam said his congregation is comprised “of mostly Bangladeshi middle to lower income Muslims.”

In addition, by the looks of the small size of Masjid At-Taqwa’s current building, via a picture on their website, they have to be expecting a lot more Muslims coming to the area or they are receiving some large outside donations in order to cover the costs for this new construction. Third, are they possibly expecting Muslim refugees? New American Pathways (refugee resettlement organization operating in Georgia) spokeswoman Amy Crownover discussed the prospects of Newton County being an area for refugee resettlement saying:

“We work in partnership with communities, looking for communities where refugees can be successful,” which requires easy access to public transportation, jobs, English classes and other services. Newton County “isn’t an ideal setting,” Crownover said.

Even after the patronizing remarks it’s hard to believe this 135-acre Muslim commune wouldn’t be an area of interest for refugee resettlement. Furthermore, we have already seen how CAIR has advocated for more Muslim refugees.

Also, what kind of ideology is this Muslim community preaching and teaching? Partnering with the Hamas linked CAIR is not a good sign.

We can see by the mosque’s website they seem to favor segregating the genders – such as keeping a member of the “opposite sex from seeing or touching the deceased.” What kind of other Islamic/Sharia guidelines do they abide by? In addition, with cases like Muslims of the Americas it’s not absurd to think that other militant Islamic groups could have the intentions of taking over large areas of land throughout the U.S. to serve as training centers for jihad. There are many other serious concerns about this future Newton County Muslim commune (ex. potential problems associated with Islamic burials) but thanks to groups like CAIR, they are put on the backburner.

CAIR doesn’t care about this country. CAIR may reference the U.S. Constitution and freedom of religion as much as any group, but they are only tricks to bring about their goal of Sharia to America. This is why we need to pass legislation like “the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015” in order to stop these Muslim Brotherhood front groups from subverting our system.

Homeland Security Chief Speaks At Hamas Front’s Confab; Shares Stage with Holocaust Denier, Muslim Brotherhood Leader

Screen-Shot-2016-09-04-at-8.48.38-PM

The DHS head told the group which worked to finance Hamas, “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Sept. 4, 2016:

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson — whose job it is to protect America from terrorists — spoke at the annual gathering of an Islamic group the Department of Justice considered a terrorist front on Saturday, where he heaped praise and unearned legitimacy on his dubious host.

After traveling to Chicago as a featured speaker at the Islamic Society of North America’s convention, Johnson took the stage and boasted, “I am the highest ranking U.S. government official and the first sitting Cabinet officer to ever speak in person before this convention.”

There’s a reason for that: ISNA has been identified by the U.S. Justice Department as a front group for the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian terrorist branch Hamas.

Still, Johnson said, “I am proud to have broken that glass ceiling, and to have created the expectation, in the future, that government officials of my rank will attend your annual convention.”

U.S. prosecutors would argue that’s nothing to be proud of: In 2008, they listed Johnson’s host as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing trial in U.S. history. Despite repeated efforts to expunge its name from the list in court appeals, ISNA still remains on the list today.  Responding to an appeal by ISNA and other Muslim groups to remove it from the list, federal judge Jorge Solis ruled that, “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

The federal terrorism case, U.S. vs. the Holy Land Foundation, resulted in guilty verdicts on all 108 felony counts against HLF and five of its leaders, who conspired to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian terrorists, including suicide bombers.

ISNA was “intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas,” said U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks in a federal court document. “HLF raised money and supported Hamas through a bank account it held with ISNA.”

Jacks said HLF leaders sent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Hamas terrorists through bank accounts controlled by ISNA and its financial arm, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Hamas was designated a global terrorist group in 1995 by President Clinton.

Added Jacks: “The evidence introduced at trial established that ISNA and NAIT were among those organizations created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood,” whose “ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder recognized Jacks for “exceptional service” in a 2010 Justice Department awards ceremony. So the Obama administration does not dispute the merits of the terrorism case in which ISNA was implicated.

Johnson said his appearance at the ISNA event was part of carrying out a “priority” set by President Obama to “build bridges to American Muslim communities.”

“Tonight I will not look at the large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens,” he said. “Tonight I will not talk to you about counterterrorism.”

Instead, Johnson portrayed Muslims as victims of counterterrorism efforts, comparing the scrutiny of Muslim-Americans in terrorism cases to the historic discrimination suffered by African-Americans.

“I look out on this room of American Muslims and I see myself,” he said. “I see a similar struggle that my African-American ancestors have fought to win acceptance in this country.”

On a more personal note, Johnson compared the suspicion Muslim-Americans have fallen under — after Muslim-Americans launched recent deadly terrorism attacks in Boston, Chattanooga, Tenn., San Bernardino County, Calif., and Orlando — to the “McCarthyism” he said his grandfather experienced in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Charles S. Johnson was investigated for his ties to the Communist Party by the House Un-American Activities Committee following his hiring of known Communist operatives as president of Fisk University and defending them after they had been exposed as subversives. Johnson also faced questioning about his own membership in communist fronts.

In addition, ISNA’s convention program shows Johnson was listed to participate in a breakout session calling on Muslims to “turn the tide, confront our challenges and seize our opportunities.” The panel included Tariq Ramadan, who was formally barred from entering the U.S. in 2006 “for providing material support to a terrorist organization” — until, that is, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted the ban on his visa. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the son of the important Brotherhood leader Said Ramadan.

Also listed on the ISNA panel with Johnson was Khizr Khan, the Sharia law advocate who famously took the stage at the Democrat National Convention and complained about GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations tied to terrorism. In a treatise on the merits of Sharia law, Khan “gratefully acknowledged” Said Ramadan as a source expert on the subject.

In his speech, Johnson called Khan and his hijab-clad wife “American heroes.”

Also listed as “featured speakers” at ISNA’s 53rd annual convention were Jamal Badawi, a founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood who was listed among unindicted co-conspirators who helped HLF raise money for Hamas terrorists, and Muzammil Siddiqi, a Muslim cleric who currently chairs NAIT, the bank for the Brotherhood in America and the custodian of most of the mosques in America.

In 1995, Siddiqi defended jihad and praised suicide bombers: “Those who die on the part of justice are alive, and their place is with the Lord, and they receive the highest position, because this is the highest honor.”

During a 2000 anti-Israel rally outside the White House, Siddiqi openly threatened the US with violence if it continued to support Israel. “America has to learn … if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? … If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

Listed alongside DHS Secretary Johnson was Imam Yasir Qadhi, who has called the Holocaust “false propaganda” and described Jews as “crooked-nosed.”

Also see:

One of the early and most important indicators of the Brotherhood’s surreptitious expanding influence within the Intelligence Community [IC] showed up as a terminology scrub of official strategic documents dealing with counterterrorism. As Robert Spencer explains, the trend toward politically correct Global War on Terror (GWOT) language began with a misguided effort by Jim Guirard, the founder and president of the TrueSpeak Institute[40], a lobbying group influenced by input from the Muslim Brotherhood, including Yousef al-Qaradawi, the senior jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Guirard, senior U.S. government officials, either incompetent or unwilling to fulfill their professional duty to “know the enemy,” fell under the Brotherhood’s influence and began substituting a garbled lexicon of inaccurate Arabic vocabulary[41] in place of the actual words the enemy uses to describe what he does and why he does it.[42]

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: July 2016 Dating Sites for Polygamists, Dog Bans and Pardons, Pardons, Pardons

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, August 30, 2016:

  • “The law and not religion should be the basis of justice for citizens. We are calling for an impartial judge-led inquiry that places human rights, not theology, at the heart of the investigation.” — Maryam Namazie, head of One Law For All.
  • “This area is home to a large Muslim community. Please have respect for us and for our children and limit the presence of dogs in the public sphere. … those who live in the UK must learn to understand and respect the legacy and lifestyle of Muslims who live alongside them.” — Leaflets distributed by the Muslim group, “Public Purity.”
  • “It’s not gonna be long now before Islam will come to the shores of this country…and if they reject it we’ll fight them. We want to live under sharia not democracy.” — Muslim convert Gavin Rae, 36, a former British soldier who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for trying to buy weapons for the Islamic State.
  • Equality Now, a group that campaigns for women’s human rights, estimates that 137,000 women and girls living in England and Wales have been affected by female genital mutilation (FGM).

July 1. A Muslim taxi driver in Leicester refused to pick up a blind couple because they had a guide dog. Charles Bloch and Jessica Graham had booked a taxi with ADT Taxis for them and their guide dog, Carlo. But when the taxi arrived, the driver said, “Me, I not take the dog. For me, it’s about my religion.” Many Muslims believe dogs are impure and haram (strictly forbidden).

July 1. A judge in London ordered the deportation of Saliman Barci, a 41-year-old Albanian man who posed as a refugee from Kosovo and collected the full range of welfare payments in Britain for 14 years. Barci, it turned out, was a citizen of Albania who had murdered two men there in 1997. Shortly after carrying out the killings, Barci fled Albania and eventually reached Britain, where he claimed asylum as a refugee. In 2009, a court in Albania sentenced Barci in absentia to 25 years in prison for the double murder. British authorities only became aware of Barci’s real identity after an altercation at his London home, when the police arrived and took his fingerprints.

July 2. A Somali man was sentenced to ten years in prison for raping two women inBirmingham. Dahir Ibrahim, 31, had previously been sentenced to ten years in 2005 for raping a woman in Edgbaston. A judge had ordered his deportation after he had served his first sentence, but he appealed and was allowed to remain in Britain. Ibrahim’s attorney, Jabeen Akhtar, successfully argued that he had a lack of understanding of what is acceptable in the United Kingdom.

July 3. Azad Chaiwala, a Muslim entrepreneur in Manchester, launched a campaign to “remove the taboo” behind polygamy by starting two polygamy matchmaking sites: secondwife.com, exclusive to Muslims, and polygamy.com, open to “Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics — whoever you are.” Chaiwala said:

“I was 12 when I came out of the polygamy closet… Changing people’s perception of polygamy. If I can do that, and bring more family stability, happiness and a large support system infrastructure, I’ll be happy. And in the end, I’m a Muslim and I’m rewarded for doing good. So I hope that when I die, my creator will reward me with something better than what I had in this world in return. It’s almost like I get my religious kick out of it, I get my business kick out of it and I also get a lot of thank-you letters.”

Polygamy is illegal in Britain.

July 4. A Muslim man was ordered to bring his nine-year-old daughter back to Britain after taking her to Algeria and leaving her there with his relatives. The man said he did not approve of his estranged wife’s new Christian partner. In his ruling, Mr Justice Hayden said the woman had converted to Islam to marry the man, who was now unhappy about the lifestyle she was leading after their separation:

“The father has been extremely critical of the mother and of what he now regards as her un-Islamic lifestyle, which he has described as ‘debauched.’ He has been dismissive of her care of their daughter and of her choice of partner. He plainly does not consider it appropriate for their daughter to be brought up where her mother lives with a Christian man.”

July 5. ITV News reported that an alleged British member of the infamous Islamic State execution squad made a dating profile before he left Britain; he was advertising for a wife to join him in Syria. Alexander Kotey, a convert to Islam who also uses the name Abu Salih, was identified in February as one of the so-called “Beatles” who detained and killed a string of Western hostages. According to ITV, a profile he made for himself before leaving London for Syria, shows a “more sensitive side” to the killer:

“I am a practicing revert brother of mixed race origin. I enjoy outdoor activities and like getting away from the city. I hope to eventually leave (hijrah from) London and settle elsewhere. I am seeking a sister who is, or at least striving to be serious about her religion, sincere towards Allah (SWT), affectionate, caring and understanding, who understands the importance of always referring matters back to Allah and his messenger. And she should be willing and prepared to migrate to a Muslim land.”

After posting it, Kotey is believed to have used an aid convoy as cover to travel to the Middle East before slipping across the border into Syria. His whereabouts are unknown. According to ITV, it is believed he is still an Islamic State fighter.

July 5. The Labour Party reinstated Naz Shah, a Muslim MP from Bradford who was suspended over anti-Semitic Facebook posts that called on Israelis be deported to the United States. “Antisemitism is racism, full stop,” she said. “As an MP, I will do everything in my power to build relations between Muslims, Jews and people of different faiths and none.”

July 6. A Muslim man appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on charges of forcing his wife to wear a headscarf outside of her bedroom, banning her from speaking to other men and beating her. Abdelhadi Ahmed, 39, denied one count of engaging in controlling or coercive behavior in an intimate relationship, one count of criminal damage and two counts of assault by beating.

July 7. A woman who plotted a jihadist attack on a shopping center in Westfield had her sentence reduced for “good behavior.” Sana Khan, 24, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for preparing terrorist acts on the anniversary of the London 7/7 bombings with her husband at the time, Mohammed Rehman. She had her sentence reduced by two years.

July 8. Mohammed Habibullah, a 69-year-old imam who leads prayers at a mosque in Dudley, was given a suspended sentence after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman. In determining the sentence, Judge Amjad Nawaz, a fellow Muslim, said that although Habibullah’s victim had been left “psychologically damaged,” he was a man of “positive good character” who had given more than 25 years of service to the Muslim community as an imam.

July 8. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of the school inspection service Ofsted, warned that the “Trojan Horse” campaign to impose radical Islamic ideas on Birmingham schools has “gone underground” but has not gone away. He warned that Birmingham was failing to ensure that “children are not being exposed to harm, exploitation or the risk of falling under the influence of extremist views.”

July 9. More than 200 individuals and human rights groups signed an open letter to Prime Minister Theresa May urging her to dismantle a panel chosen to oversee an official inquiry into Sharia courts in Britain. They said that by appointing an Islamic scholar as chair and placing two imams in advisory roles, the panel’s ability to make an impartial assessment of how religious arbitration is used to the detriment of women’s rights will be compromised. “It is patronizing if not racist to fob off minority women with so-called religious experts who wish to legitimate Sharia laws as a form of governance in family and private matters,” the letter said.

The review, announced in May as part of the government’s counter-extremism strategy and due to be completed by 2017, is to be chaired by Mona Siddiqui, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Edinburgh. Siddiqui said those who signed the letter demonstrated a “profound misunderstanding of Sharia.”

The Iranian-born human rights activist, Maryam Namazie, who leads the campaign One Law For All, countered:

“The law and not religion should be the basis of justice for citizens. We are calling for an impartial judge-led inquiry that places human rights, not theology, at the heart of the investigation.

“Far from examining the connections between religious fundamentalism and women’s rights, the narrow remit of the inquiry will render it a whitewash. It seems more geared to rubberstamping the courts than defending women’s rights.”

July 10. More than 1,500 children — including 257 under the age of 10 — have been referred to the Channel program, the government’s anti-terrorism deradicalization scheme, in the past six months, according to figures released by the National Police Chief’s Council under the Freedom of Information Act. Since July 2015, teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected extremist behavior to police as part of the government’s anti-radicalization strategy.

July 11. A Pew Research Center survey found that more than half (52%) of Britons surveyed said they believe that incoming refugees and migrants will increase the threat of terrorism in the UK. More than half (54%) of Britons also said that Muslims in the UK “want to be distinct from the larger society.” Nearly half (46%) said that migrants are an economic burden on the UK.

July 12. Residents in Manchester received leaflets in their mail boxes calling for a public ban on dogs. The leaflets, distributed by a group called “Public Purity,” stated:

“This area is home to a large Muslim community. Please have respect for us and for our children and limit the presence of dogs in the public sphere.

“As citizens of a multicultural nation, those who live in the UK must learn to understand and respect the legacy and lifestyle of Muslims who live alongside them.

“Help us make this a reality. Let your local MP know how you feel about this. Make Muslims feel like they live in a safe and accepting space, welcoming them and respecting their beliefs.”

A snapshot of Islamic multiculturalism in Manchester: A local Muslim entrepreneur recently launched two polygamy matchmaking sites (pictured left, an image from secondwife.com), while a local Islamic group distributed leaflets requested that residents “limit the presence of dogs in the public sphere.” Many Muslims believe dogs are impure and haram (strictly forbidden).

July 12. Muslim convert Gavin Rae, 36, was sentenced to 18 years in prison for trying to buy weapons for the Islamic State. Rae, a former soldier with the British Army, was arrested in a sting operation. He told an undercover officer:

“It’s not gonna be long now before Islam will come to the shores of this country…and if they reject it we’ll fight them. But we want to live under sharia not democracy.” He also said that once his family was in a Muslim country, he would “go then and sacrifice my life for Allah.”

July 13. Ian Acheson, the head of a review into extremism in British prisons, warned that there is a hardcore group of jihadi prisoners whose “proselytizing behavior” among the 12,500 Muslim inmates in England and Wales was so dangerous that they should be separated from the rest of the prison population. Addressing the select committee on justice in the House of Commons, Acheson said:

“There is intelligence that there are a small number of people whose behavior is so egregious in relation to proselytizing this pernicious ideology… they need to be completely incapacitated from being able to proselytize to the rest of the prison population.”

July 15. A Muslim teacher visiting a pub in Hertfordshire was asked to remove his school sweatshirt because it had the word “Islam” on the back and it was upsetting customers. Nurul Islam, 32, said he was wearing his school sweatshirt, which has his surname on the back, when a waiter at the pub asked him to remove it because “it was making some customers feel uncomfortable” after the jihadist attack in Nice. Islam added:

“I didn’t know quite what to say, and at first I didn’t link what he’d said with the lorry attack in France, but when it sank in I was shocked. I was being discriminated against because of my surname so I was left really upset after the incident. We all have surnames on the backs of our hoodies, which is the responsible thing to do.

“I’m not a practicing Muslim but I am a Muslim. It makes me feel terrible that my name is the cause of such contention when all it means is peace. If I had the word ‘peace’ on there, would he still have asked me to leave?” [Islam, in fact, means “submission,” not “peace.”]

Hertfordshire Police said: “A specialist hate crime officer is investigating to establish whether offenses have been committed.”

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

The Burkini is About Sexual Violence Against Women

kl_1

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, August 30, 2016:

The media has found its latest civil rights cause. It’s not the plight of Christians in Muslim countries who are being blocked from coming here as refugees because Obama’s refugee policy favors Muslims. Obama brought over 2,000 Syrians here in July. Only 15 of them were Christians.

It’s not the rising fear of an Islamic terrorist attack in Jewish synagogues. I have lately witnessed unprecedented levels of security at synagogues including guards in body armor and checkpoints. Racist Muslim violence against Jewish synagogues has been a staple of Islamic terrorism for too many years.

But instead the media has highlighted the civil rights cause of the burkini.

The “Burkini”, a portmanteau of “Burka”, the all-encompassing cloth prison inflicted on women in Afghanistan by the Taliban, and “Bikini”, was banned in France along with its parent, the Burka.

While Muslims massacre innocent people in the streets to shouts of “Allahu Akbar”, the media has once again decided to ignore these horrors in favors of broadcasting some petty Muslim grievance.

Does it matter what Muslim women wear to the beach? Arguably the government should not be getting involved in swimwear. But the clothing of Muslim women is not a personal fashion choice.

Muslim women don’t wear hijabs, burkas or any other similar garb as a fashion statement or even an expression of religious piety. Their own religion tells us exactly why they wear them.

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

It’s not about modesty. It’s not about religion. It’s about putting a “Do Not Rape” sign on Muslim women. And putting a “Free to Molest” sign on non-Muslim women.

This isn’t some paranoid misreading of Islamic scripture. Islamic commentaries use synonyms for “molested” such as “harmed”, “assaulted” and “attacked” because women who aren’t wearing their burkas aren’t “decent” women and can expect to be assaulted by Muslim men. These clothes designate Muslim women as “believing” women or “women of the believers”. That is to say Muslims.

One Koranic commentary is quite explicit. “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)” The Yazidi girls captured and raped by ISIS are an example of “roving slave girls” who can be assaulted by Muslim men.

Muslim women who don’t want to be mistaken for non-Muslim slave girls had better cover up. And non-Muslim women had better cover up too or they’ll be treated the way ISIS treated Yazidi women and the way that Mohammed and his gang of rapists and bandits treated any woman they came across.

That’s what the burka is. That’s what the hijab is. And that’s what the burkini is.

And this is not just some relic of the past or a horror practiced by Islamic “extremists”. It’s ubiquitous. A French survey found that 77 percent of girls wore the hijab because of threats of Islamist violence. It’s numbers like these that have led to the French ban of the burka and now of the burkini.

When clothing becomes a license to encourage harassment, then it’s no longer a private choice.

Muslim women wearing a burka, a hijab or a burkini are pointing a sign at other women. The sign tells Muslim men to harass those other women instead of them. It’s not modesty. It’s the way that Muslim women choose to function as an instrument of Muslim violence against non-Muslim women.

In the Islamic worldview, sexual violence is the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator.  From the dancing boys of Afghanistan to the abused women of Egypt, the fact of the assault proves the guilt of the child or the woman who was assaulted.

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti of Australia said. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

The Grand Mufti wasn’t discussing cats or meat. He was talking about gang rapes by fourteen Muslim men. “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred,” he said.

This is why there is a burka ban and a burkini ban. It’s why there should be a hijab ban. The existence of these garments gives license to Muslim men to target non-Muslim women. They allow Islamists to impose them as a standard by singling out women who don’t wear them. And they encourage Muslim men to carry out assaults on non-Muslim women who don’t comply with Islamic law.

That is what France has rejected. It’s what every country that respects the rights of women to be free from being “molested” by the “believers” who get their morality from Mohammed, a serial rapist and pedophile from whom no woman, including his own son’s wife, was safe, ought to reject.

The media has chosen to be deeply outraged by France’s ban of the burka and the burkini. It does not seem especially interested in the fact that Saudi Arabia forces women to wear the abaya, a covering not too different from the burka, not to mention not being allowed to drive or often leave the house. Or that Sudan’s Islamist regime arrested Christian women in front of a church for wearing pants.

It’s not that the left feels that women ought to be able to wear whatever they want in other countries. Certainly not non-Muslim women in Muslim countries. But that it believes that Muslims ought to be able to do whatever they want, whether it’s impose dress codes at home, resist dress codes abroad or even impose dress codes abroad. And the first targets of these dress codes are inevitably women.

Islam expands through violence. It imposes its standards through violence. Before the ban, the burkini, much like the burka, had already come to be associated with violent clashes. In one such incident in France, a man was shot with a harpoon. It’s not surprising that the French have grown tired of this.

The burkini ban, like the burka ban, is understandable. And yet it’s not a final answer. It limits the scope of Muslim violence against women. But it does not meaningfully contain it or end it.

It’s not the cloth itself that is the problem, but the Islamic attitudes that attach themselves to it. And the only way to stop the spread of Islamic attitudes toward women in Europe is to end Islamic migration.

The wave of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants in Germany make it quite clear that the moralistic amorality of Islam, in which women who aren’t dressed the right way are fair game, cannot coexist with the right of European women to leave the house without wearing approved Islamic garb.

Europe must choose. Australia must choose. Canada must choose. And America must choose.

Banning the burkini or the burka alone will not stop the assaults. Only ending Islamic immigration will.

***

Also see: