The “Progressive” Pro-Polygamy Arizona Muslim Candidate, Appears With Supporters of Killing Gays

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 6, 2017:

The progressive rules are very different for Islamists. Anyone else who supported theocracy, racism and homophobia would be furiously denounced. But the left embraces Islamists.

Keith Ellison got a complete pass on his membership in the Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism. And one of the left’s latest Islamist pets is Deedra Hill Abboud.

Abboud, formerly with the anti-Semitic Islamist hate group CAIR, is aiming for the Senate. And Deedra Hill Abboud made headlines playing the usual “Help, I’m being suppressed by the Islamophobes” game. And the media rushed to promote her. So did Senator Flake.

Here’s how anti-Orthodox leftist activist Shmuly Yanklowitz of Uri L’Tzedek and Jews for Syrian Human Rights, describes Abboud.

Just met with Deedra Hill Abboud who is running for United States Senate (for Jeff Flake’s seat in 2018). She is a progressive, religious Muslim, deeply concerned with healthcare, education, immigration reform, LGBT rights, environmental protection, & much more. She believes the U.S. can be more just than it is today!

I just bet.

Back in 2006 she was interviewed via Phoenix New Times in The Chosen One:

She defends her husband’s right under Islam to have as many as four wives. “But I wouldn’t want that,” Abboud says, her hands deep in soap suds, her pastel blue headscarf, or hijab, hugging her round face. “I wouldn’t agree to it. Not right now, anyway.”

America can be more… polygamist.

Nothing says progressive like polygamy. And she is very for LGBT rights. Just ask some of the folks she’s hanging around with.

Arizona Senate candidate Deedra Abboud is scheduled to appear at a benefit dinner for ICNA Relief, the relief arm of the Islamic Circle of North America, on October 14th. Although Abboud has presented herself as the new moderate face of the Muslim community, she will be sharing the stage with two extremist clerics, Siraj Wahhaj and Omar Suleiman.

Wahhaj also expresses racial and religious bigotry. In other speeches, he has said, “Woe to the Muslims who pick kafirs [non-Muslims] for friends. Woe, woe, woe to the Muslims who take kafirsas friends. Kafir will take you away from the remembrance of Allah…. Take not into your intimacy those outside of your race. They will not fail to corrupt you.” Wahhaj has also called homosexuality “a disease of this society.”

So… progressive.

Omar Suleiman, meanwhile, has been condemned by moderate Muslim activists for describinghomosexuality as a “disease” and a “repugnant shameless sin.” He refers to the Islamic death penalty for the “people that practiced sodomy.” In a talk titled “Fighting Zina,” Suleiman claimsthat women who are too close with their brothers are likely to commit incest. Women, he declares, should never be alone with a man outside of her family. Further, he warns, without condemnation, that women who commit adultery risk being killed by a family member.

I don’t think there’s ever been anything this progressive.

We’ve got race mixing denounciations, honor killings and the death penalty for homosexuals.

But don’t worry, this won’t impede the latest “progressive” Islamist candidate from the long march through the rotting corpse of the Democrat Party. The media will ignore it. The leftist activists will close their eyes. Because the rules are different for Islamists.

A New Obama? The Media Starts Selling Abdul El-Sayed

In a May 3, 2016 file photo, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, Director of the Detroit Health Department, gives his remarks during the Mayor’s Summit on Health Equity in Detroit. (Clarence Tabb Jr./Detroit News via AP)

PJ Media, by Bruce Bawer, Sept. 5, 2017:

On August 24, the Guardian ran an unusually long profile of one Abdul El-Sayed, a 32-year-old Muslim doctor and son of Egyptian immigrants who is already campaigning heavily for governor of Michigan, even though the election won’t take place until November of next year. The headline on Drew Philp’s article dubbed El-Sayed “the new Obama.”

It was the ultimate puff piece, shameless in its utter lack of objectivity and balance, and it began, as such pieces invariably do, with an anecdote calculated to win sympathy for the subject. When he was seven years old, writes Philp, El-Sayed “sat in the eye of Hurricane Andrew,” drinking juice “while swaddled under mattresses between his father and stepmother, who was holding El-Sayed’s newborn baby brother just home from the hospital.”

What does this story have to do with anything? For Philp, it is a metaphor: “At the moment,” he suggests, “American politics feels a bit like being in the eye a hurricane.” Donald Trump is ready to attack North Korea; neo-Nazis paraded in Charlottesville. “No one man can stop the hurricane,” admits Philp. “But in Michigan, a grown-up El-Sayed is now having a go, trying to keep the storm at bay.” El-Sayed, you see, seeks “not just to win, but also to change American politics itself” by becoming “the first Muslim governor in US history.”

Philp goes on to depict El-Sayed as a progressive hero who is struggling against an army of Yahoos. He follows El-Sayed to Adrian, Mich. (“Trump country, white and Christian,” and “the kind of place with lots and lots of American flags”), where the candidate is introduced to an audience by a transgender man (“a brave choice for a region still coming to terms with gay rights, let alone trans rights”). El-Sayed shares “his personal story” with the audience, then goes into some “soaring rhetoric” about “hope and commonality.”

When he takes questions, one “clearly agitated man” asks him about sharia law. El-Sayed replies by saying that he supports separation of church and state and that he wouldn’t take away anyone else’s right to pray and wouldn’t want that right to be taken from him either. (He has made it clear that he prays several times a day.) For this, the audience gives him “an enormous round of applause” – even though El-Sayed’s answer is a total dodge.

Repeatedly, El-Sayed has described himself as a devout Muslim: he prays several times a day; he has said that “his Islamic values are at the center of his work as a civil servant”; his father is an imam. If he’s a devout Muslim, that means he firmly supports sharia law. But how does he square this with his purported approval of secular government? Is he a devout Muslim or a devout believer in the separation of religion and state? You can’t be both.

Whether or not Philp recognizes this contradiction, he certainly doesn’t confront El-Sayed with it. Instead he approaches the religion issue this way: “The rumors surrounding El-Sayed’s faith are small but persistent, spread by a handful of far-right websites preying on the uninformed and fearful.”

He doesn’t spell out what kind of “rumors” he’s talking about, but his message is clear: only “the uninformed and fearful” (and Islamophobes) would be concerned about a having a Muslim governor. “It’s tempting to make any story about El-Sayed about his faith,” writes Philp. “But to reduce him to his faith would also be a disservice. His story is one of responsibility, courage and hope.”

Hope, hope, hope – that’s the mantra here. Never mind that America is still getting over feeling burned by Obama’s empty repetition of that word.

Then there’s El-Sayed’s staffers, with whom Philp is as impressed as he is with the candidate himself: they’re “young, fun and smart” and “hail from Harvard and other elite institutions” and are “incredibly diverse.” Philp tells us about a bathroom visit during which he sees one of El-Sayed’s staffers, a Muslim, “washing his feet in the sink before praying,” while another, “pierced and dyed and queer,” washes his hands in the next sink.

Oh good, another gay guy who thinks Muslims and gays are, as they say, “allies in oppression.”

There are a few details about El-Sayed that Philp doesn’t mention, obviously because they would damage the glowing picture he’s trying to paint of the guy. For one thing, El-Sayed is chummy with Linda Sarsour, the hijab-wearing Women’s March organizer who is a vocal proponent of jihad and sharia law (and who has enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy). At the University of Michigan, El-Sayed was vice-president of the Muslim Student Association, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

His wife wears hijab, a fact that seriously undermines the image he seeks to project, and her father is a former president and current board member of the Michigan chapter of the terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In 2012, when he was in med school, El-Sayed received a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship. Paul Soros, who died the next year, was George Soros’s brother; some sources maintain that the Soros empire is funding El-Sayed’s campaign and grooming him to eventually become president.

Ignoring all this, Philp concludes his piece with a dose of the kind of phony uplift that, again, in the wake of Obama, can only make a sensible reader react with cynicism: “He’s a man who believes politics can be changed, repaired even. His is a story at least as old as the United States, about a person who believes what we were taught in grade school: that all people are created equal, that change can come, that we can live up to our ideals.”

Philp’s snow job appeared about a month after an even longer, if somewhat less breathlessly adulatory, profile of El-Sayed ran in Politico. Both pieces posed the same question — are Michiganders too racist to vote for a Muslim? – the implication being that any concern about a candidate being a Muslim would amount to racism.

Politico quoted voters who spoke about El-Sayed’s religion as if it were a harmless aspect of his identity. “Goddamn, I’m an Irish Catholic,” one man said“We got off a boat and we were discriminated against 150 years ago.” A retired teacher confided: “I think once people hear him … you kind of just forget” that he’s a Muslim.

Yes, it’s hard not to surmise that there’s a lot of forgetting going on here. And denial. And ignorance – specifically, sheer ignorance of the very basics of Islam. El-Sayed and those who are pushing his candidacy are apparently counting on Michigan voters to love him for the same vapid reasons they loved Obama – because he specializes in “soaring rhetoric” about “hope and commonality” and makes them feel impressed with themselves for supporting a dark-skinned guy with a Muslim name.

You’d think the actual Obama record would have inoculated the American electorate against such puerile, irresponsible thinking for at least a generation. And you’d think that in 2017 – when the West has been hammered repeatedly, since 9/11, with brutal terrorist acts rooted in Islamic belief and when mass Muslim immigration into Europe has vividly demonstrated the incompatibility of Islam and Western freedom – a politician’s Muslim faith wouldn’t be a matter of indifference to so many Americans.

But no. Voters seem eager to embrace El-Sayed, and fourteen months before the gubernatorial election the media on both sides of the Atlantic are already selling him every bit as eagerly as they sold Obama. How far we have failed to come!

How Can US Leaders NOT Know About Islam?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 28, 2017:

When Understanding the Threat (UTT) conducts its 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” two things are always true at the end of the course:  (1) the attendees tell us none of them – including FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents/officers – were aware of the information presented prior to attending the course, and (2) they all believe the information is critical to protecting their communities.

How is this possible?

In the last few weeks, UTT has written articles, given numerous media interviews, produced UTT’s Radio Show, and related information via social media detailing the failure of our government to identify the Islamic threat and deal with it in a factual/reality-based manner.

This produced numerous questions from UTT followers, media, and others asking “How is it possible U.S. leaders are so ignorant of Islam and sharia?”

The answer is simple: 100% of our enemy states they are muslims waging jihad to establish an Islamic State under sharia.  They call the means to do this “Civilization Jihad,” and the U.S. Islamic Movement – primarily led by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood – does this by controlling the narrative about Islam inside our system.  The MB controls the narrative by controlling the information our national security professionals receive as it relates to “terrorism” and related matters.

Inside the government, there is no training which provides employees of the State Department, FBI, CIA, DHS, DIA, National Security staffs, Pentagon, military commands, or other key components of the government factual information about sharia (Islamic Law) and its role in this war.  Nor is there substantive training related to the massive jihadi network in the United States, primarily led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

How did we get here?

In 2006, UTT’s John Guandolo (an FBI Special Agent at the time) created and implemented the first training inside the U.S. government which detailed:  sharia as the enemy threat doctrine, what it is, its authority in Islam, and what it says; the Muslim Brotherhood history, network, key organizations and leaders, modus operandi, and examples of penetrations and operations inside the United States; funding channels for the Global Islamic Movement; and investigative and strategic solutions to this threat.

The program was a resounding success and all the graduates believed it should be given to all government employees and law enforcement officers.

In the fall of 2006, John Guandolo notified coordinators of a 9/11 event they should reconsider including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) because they operate as a Hamas entity.  Leaders of CAIR called leadership at FBI Headquarters who called the Assistant Director of the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) who, in turn, called the Special Agent in Charge of WFO and Mr. Guandolo was reprimanded.

And so it continues today across our government.

The primary Islamic advisors regarding the Islamic threat inside the White House, State Department, CIA, FBI, DHS, national security staffs, and others are Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives or muslims ideologically aligned with the MB.

The key universities where senior government officials (including military generals) receive their masters and doctorate degrees in Middle East Studies and related topics – like Georgetown and Harvard – are bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia (The Kingdom Group).  No truth about sharia is being taught there.

There is no discussion of Islamic sharia – with the exception of propaganda being taught by muslim professors – at the military war colleges, the Joint Forces Staff College, boot camps, basic officer trainings or anywhere else in the military.

The U.S. Marine Corps’ 9 month long Command & Staff College does not even mention the word “jihad.”

Muslim Brother Arif Alikhan served as the DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy and was a Professor of Homeland Security & Counterterrorism at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.

In 2011, there was a directed purge of all training materials inside the Department of Justice, FBI, DHS, and the military after known Muslim Brotherhood groups the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) complained to the White House about “offensive” materials being included in government training discussing Islam.  FBI Director Mueller, DHS Secretary Napolitano and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey (US Army) all ordered the “offensive” materials purged.

Inside the government, those who speak truth and follow facts/evidence leading to sharia (Islamic Law) as the basis for why the enemy is fighting are rejected.  In the case of DHS employee Philip Haney, his investigations uncovered thousands of organizations and individuals who were involved in planning and organizing jihadi activities inside the United States.  DHS officials removed over 800 records of jihadis and jihadi organizations which were put into DHS’s system by Haney.  Then DHS went after Haney with numerous internal investigations to shut his work down.

Former DHS Investigator Philip Haney

Read the article Mr. Haney wrote in the Hill about this here.  Mr. Haney’s book See Something, Say Nothing further details his experiences.

So how would our leaders come to understand the threat?  How would FBI agents, CIA case officers, or DHS employees?

From the time they enter government service, and during their daily work, the message is that this war has nothing to do with “real Islam.”

The factual basis for understanding the enemy threat doctrine – Sharia – is nowhere to be found in the U.S. government, and so the very people charged with protecting American citizens remain ignorant of the threat of Islam.

This is the intentional outcome of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s decades long campaign.

UTT Throwback Thursday: US Government’s Failure to Address Domestic Threat

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug.24, 2017:

Summary

The attacks of 9/11 were conducted against the U.S. homeland with support from the Islamic Movement inside the United States.  The U.S. government’s response to fight on battlefields overseas, while leaders of the U.S. Islamic Movement exclusively provided “advice” to our leaders, led to strategic defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq despite the fact the U.S. military crushed the enemy on the battlefield.

Why?  How did this happen?

The United States lost and is losing this war today because, contrary to U.S. warfighting doctrine, the United States government has failed to identify the enemy we face and the doctrine they use as the basis for why they are fighting.

The enemy clearly articulates that sharia (Islamic Law) is the basis for everything they do.

Now the United States is re-engaging in Afghanistan using some of the same leaders who crafted the losing war strategy in the first place, who still have not defined the enemy, using the same allies who are still our enemies (eg Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, et al), while ignoring the massive jihadi network in the United States, which is the primary front for our enemy in this war.

Then (Post 9/11)

After 9/11, President Bush stated the purpose for our operations in Afghanistan was to “make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans,” and that U.S. military actions are “designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice.”

During the entire Bush administration the United States never defined the enemy.  Yet, the administration and all key government agencies were primarily advised by Muslim Brotherhood leaders which led to the United States writing constitutions for Afghanistan and Iraq (2005) creating Islamic Republics under sharia (Islamic Law), thus achieving Al Qaeda’s objectives in those two countries.

That is when we lost the war.

Now (August 2017)

In announcing renewed military operations in Afghanistan, President Trump stated the objectives of this endeavor include:  “Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terrorist attacks against America before they emerge.”

First, if we kill all ISIS fighters, the Global Islamic Movement will roll on.  This is bigger than merely ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

As UTT reported on Monday in its article “US Islamic Movement Enters Final Stage” the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and its allies INSIDE the United States are experiencing the culmination of six decades of work domestically to overthrow our nation.  At the same time, the State Department is meeting with representatives of Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which raises grave concerns.

Mr. Trump’s original instincts were correct.  He should stick with his gut.  We should not engage in Afghanistan as his National Security Advisor and others recommend.

This is a strategic distraction from the real war here at home.

The pattern we see between the U.S. government response after 9/11 and today are very similar:

9/11:  Jihadis attack the homeland using airliners killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

Response:  U.S. fails to define the enemy in any of its national security documents. U.S. military attacks targets in Afghanistan, while using U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders as primary advisors on how to fight the war.

Result:  Strategic loses in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Significant gains for Islamic Movement inside the U.S.

Today: U.S. Islamic Movement in “Final Stage” of its Civilization Jihad using hard-left Marxists as leading edge of their violent actions.

Response:  U.S. fails to define the enemy in any of its national security documents.  National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster demonstrates no knowledge of enemy doctrine (sharia).  U.S. Launches renewed military operations in Afghanistan, while failing to pursue the MB and designate it a terrorist organization.  The U.S. government continues to allow the MB to operate in the open in the United States.

Result:  While the U.S. puts its strategic focus on Afghanistan, the cooperating Islamic and hard-left/Marxist Movements will achieve the intentional outcome of their campaign – increased civil disorder, chaos, and a high likelihood of open civil war.

The Islamic Movement in the United States includes over 3000 Islamic centers/mosques, over 800 Muslim Student Associations (MSA) on every major college/university campus, over 255 Islamic Societies, and many others as has been detailed in previous UTT reports.  Nearly all of the jihadi attacks on the United States in the last 16 years, including the attacks of 9/11, had direct support from this network.

The 9/11 attacks had direct support from Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar.

Yet, this network remains untouched by the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security.

If the United States government wants to thin the jihadi herd, as the President states is his desire, he can begin with dealing with the mothership of their Movement – the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) – and jihadi leaders inside America like Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, Oussama Jamal, Salam al Marayati, Mohamed Magid, Azhar Azeez, Javaid Siddiqi, Sayyid Syeed, Muzammil Siddiqi, and so many others, as well as those aiding and abetting them like the President of the Southern Poverty Law Center Richard Cohen and the entire SPLC, and Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson.

National Security Cover-Ups, Missteps, and Miscalculations

American Thinker, by Janet Levy Aug. 24, 2017:

The Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated every one of our national security agencies, including our intelligence agencies, according to retired Navy admiral James “Ace” Lyons, former commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet.  Adm. Lyons made this startling declaration Jan. 16, 2015 during a conference sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, a conservative Washington, D.C. think-tank.

In the two years since, no action has been taken to reverse this dangerous situation.  Empowerment of individuals of questionable loyalties within our intelligence community continues unabated, as does a counterfactual view of Islam and thwarting of terrorist investigations.  Our government routinely targets and cashiers productive, legitimate counter-terrorism experts and fails to label terrorist organizations as such.  U.S. intelligence failures and feckless politicization have gone on for years, rendering our protections against terrorism ineffectual and putting our country at grave risk.

Post-9/11 Infiltration of the FBI

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 paradoxically led to major infiltration, according to Paul Sperry, author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.  After 9/11, the FBI sought to rapidly hire more Arabic-speaking translators, Perry writes in his 2005 book.  Arabic-speaking Jews applied, many of them retired linguists formerly with Israeli radio and the Israeli army, but only one was ever hired.  Then-FBI director Robert Mueller, who had mandated Muslim sensitivity classes for agents, confirmed that the hires were blocked by misgivings over “dual loyalty” and concerns for Arab Muslims who might be offended to work with Jews.

Further, Mueller onerously screened Jewish applicants but expedited Arab Muslim candidates, hiring some without full background checks.  One Pakistani woman earned a top-secret clearance despite a prior FBI investigation of her father’s Taliban and al-Qaeda ties.  Once hired, she proselytized, led prayer groups, and lobbied for separate bathrooms for Muslim translators.  Six months later, the FBI discovered its radio frequencies leaked to Pakistan.  Even more astonishing, the woman’s sons were later hired to translate classified material.

Sperry’s book details how Mueller allowed thousands of potential terrorists to apply by seeking translators from CAIR, ISNA, and the American Muslim Council, an organization founded by convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

Indeed, some Arab Muslim translators who were hired went on to warn individuals under government investigation, failed to translate large sections of surveillance log conversations, and created a backlog by translating slowly.  Translators also accepted gifts from foreign targets and had romantic ties to terrorists.

Sperry recounts Sibell Edmonds’s experience.  A Turkish-American translator, Edmonds was shocked at 9/11 celebrations in the translators’ office on her first day of work.  She was approached by a Turkish translator working for a Turkish spy and for Turkish groups under surveillance. Another translator, also from Turkey, tried to engage her in espionage.  She reported her encounters and conferred with her supervisor; no action was taken.  After reporting the incidents to upper management, she was fired.

Destruction and Ignoring of Able Danger Data

Destruction of crucial data also puts the U.S. at risk.  In 1999, Able Danger, a data-mining program, was created to provide the military with links to al-Qaeda-associated individuals.  It identified five al-Qaeda cells, including the “Brooklyn cell” of 9/11 hijacker leader Mohamed Atta and 9/11 hijackers Marwan Alshehhi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Nawal Alhazmi.

In April 2000, Able Danger contractor James Smith was fired, despite having done much of the data-mining and analysis on al-Qaeda and discovering a link between Atta and Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the first World Trade Center bomber.  Further, Pentagon official Major Eric Kleinsmith, who said Able Danger’s extensive data could map al-Qaeda’s worldwide threat, was ordered to destroy all 2.5 terabytes of program data, equivalent to 25% of the Library of Congress’s print materials.

Philip Zelikow, 9/11 Commission executive director, did receive a detailed account of the program from Able Danger intelligence officers, but commission members later said they were never informed that Able Danger had identified Atta and other hijackers.  Records were destroyed that identified Atta and three hijackers more than a year before the attacks and the information not utilized or mentioned in the final 9/11 Commission Report.  Further, security clearance for Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Able Danger intelligence operations officer, was revoked when he tried to testify before the commission.

Shutting Down Operation Green Quest

After 9/11, scores of federal agents led by the U.S. Customs Service raided more than 100 homes, businesses, charities, and think-tanks in Herndon, Virginia, outside Washington, D.C.  Codenamed Operation Green Quest, the multi-agency unit netted seven trucks of files and computers seized from the Safa Group, also called the SAAR network, after Sulaiman Abdul Aziz al-Rajhi, a Saudi banker and billionaire.  Sulaiman was close to the Saudi royal family and part of the Golden Chain, early 1988-1989 al-Qaeda supporters.  He was also connected to Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, Wadih El-Hage, who was convicted of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa.

Federal investigators were particularly interested in connections between the SAAR network and Al Taqwa Bank, a Swiss bank closed after 9/11 for suspected ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood.  U.S. officials tracked $20 million flowing from the SAAR network through Al Taqwa Bank, as well as ties to Muslim Brotherhood leaders, according to a report by author Douglas Farrah.

But the Mueller-compromised FBI demanded control of Green Quest and got it from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002.  DHS would later accuse the bureau of sabotaging Green Quest and other terror-financing investigations implicating Saudis.  In particular, Ptech, a Boston-area software developer, was reported to the FBI by a Ptech whistleblower who cited government contracts with a major Saudi investor identified as a terrorist financier.  After the bureau allegedly failed to act, the National Security Council supported a raid of Ptech offices by other Green Quest federal agents.

But in 2003, following extensive internal government battles and rumors of Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood indignation over the raid, Green Quest was permanently shut down.  Charges were dropped against Ptech, which continued to operate under a different name.

The 9/11 Commission Report never mentioned Ptech, Al Taqwa Bank, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any entities in the SAAR network.  Instead, the report “largely exonerated” the Saudi government of any involvement in the financing of al-Qaeda terrorists.

Presenting Counterfactual Views of Islam

Another continuing government misstep puts a benign face on Islam.  President Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Herbert McMaster and his counter-terrorism adviser, Sebastian Gorka, both espouse a counterfactual understanding of Islam, according to former FBI analyst and Muslim Brotherhood expert John Guandolo.  Guandolo says the two believe that the “terrorist threat America faces has nothing to do with ‘true’ Islam.”

McMaster told the National Security Council that the term “radical Islamic terrorism” is not helpful to characterize terrorism, Guandolo recalled.  Further, McMaster said being a terrorist is “un-Islamic” and that ISIS uses a “perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence.”

However, Guandolo asserts that Islamic doctrine mandates jihad, or warfare, against non-Muslims.  Thus, the more intensely Muslims study Islam, the more likely it is that they will support and wage jihad.  Further, he says Gorka falsely claims that 99.9% of Muslims do not support terrorism, despite substantial polling data proving this untrue.

Sabotaging Experts on Islam

The U.S. fight against terrorism is also weakened when individuals are removed from intelligence functions and military positions because of their views on Islamic ideology and threat doctrine.  Two examples stand out.

In 2008, attorney Stephen Coughlin, a decorated intelligence officer and recognized specialist on the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic doctrine, was cashiered from the Pentagon.  Hesham Islam, who worked on the Pentagon’s outreach program to Muslims and was suspected of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, successfully sought Coughlin’s dismissal.  According to Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Islam was “an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who brought groups into the Pentagon who were unindicted co-conspirators.”

In 2009, Philip Haney, a DHS specialist on Islam, was ordered to delete or modify hundreds of records tied to individuals, schools, mosques, and Islamic centers that would have established links to thwart terrorist attacks.  Haney was reprimanded repeatedly, left the agency, and wrote a book, See Something Say Nothing, documenting his experience.  He maintains that if his work had continued, he might have identified San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook and prevented the attack that killed 14 Americans and wounded 22.  Instead, he said DHS conceded to the demands of the Obama State Department, with its overt political alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, and shut down his work.

Failing to Designate Terrorist Entities

Despite copious information on subversive activities obtained from research, investigations, surveillance, undercover operations, and open-source documents, two major terrorist entities are still not on the State Department’s designated terrorist group list.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra, or Muslims of America, maintains several dozen paramilitary camps in the U.S.  It has committed attacks and robberies, has acquired contraband weapons and recruits, and attracts followers within U.S. prisons.  Founded by Sheik Gilani in 1980, members participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  A 2007 report by the Center for Policing Terrorism called Jamaat ul-Fuqra the “best positioned group to launch an attack on the United States, or, more likely, help Al Qaeda to do so.”

Meanwhile, for several decades, one of the world’s largest sponsors of terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood, has developed an extensive network of front groups across the United States, infiltrating our government and national security agencies.  Founded in 1928, the Brotherhood supports extremist Islamic ideology and has direct ties to Hamas, al-Qaeda, and other jihadist groups.  Its terrorism fundraising web of entities in the United States was exposed during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism funding trial in our nation’s history.

Yet Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders have been to the White House during the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations.  During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to place the group on the terrorist entity list, but it remains a back-burner issue.

Conclusion

Not everyone has ignored the threats from Islamic infiltration.  As vice chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought access to the documents supplied to terrorist defendants during the Holy Land Foundation trial.  He and four other Republican members of Congress have documented Muslim Brotherhood infiltration at the highest levels of the U.S. national security apparatus, only to have their calls for investigations ignored.

Meanwhile, Judicial Watch recently obtained documents revealing that the FBI under director Robert Mueller purged hundreds of pages of training curricula related to Islamic terrorism at the behest of Muslim Brotherhood front groups who were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case.

This sampling of past national security fiascos and cover-ups and the more recent documentation of Islamic penetration and sabotage may be only a fraction of what is actually occurring.  It is abundantly clear that many of those pledged to protect Americans have engaged in national security malfeasance.  James Lyons’s assertion about infiltration of our intelligence community must be heeded and investigated.  For our nation to be protected against Islam’s virulent threat, we need an immediate course correction and removal of those in Washington who have long ignored the threat.  As Trump rightly says, “the swamp must be drained.”

Two New Totalitarian Movements: Radical Islam and Political Correctness

Gatestone Institute, by A. Z. Mohamed, August 23, 2017:

  • The attempt in the West to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s diseased society.
  • The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by George Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.
  • Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals.

Political correctness (PC) has been bolstering radical Islamism. This influence was most recently shown again in an extensive exposé by the Clarion Project in July 2017, which demonstrates the practice of telling “deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them in order to forget any fact that has become inconvenient” — or, as George Orwell called it in his novel, 1984, “Doublespeak.”

This courtship and marriage between the Western chattering classes and radical Muslim fanatics was elaborated by Andrew C. McCarthy in his crucial 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Since then, this union has strengthened. Both the United States and the rest of the West are engaged in a romance with forces that are, bluntly, antagonistic to the values of liberty and human rights.

To understand this seeming paradox, one needs to understand what radical Islamism and PC have in common. Although Islamism represents all that PC ostensibly opposes — such as the curbing of free speech, the repression of women, gays and “apostates” — both have become totalitarian ideologies.

The totalitarian nature of radical Islamism is more obvious than that of Western political correctness — and certainly more deadly. Sunni terrorists, such as ISIS and Hamas — and Shiites, such as Hezbollah and its state sponsor, Iran — use mass murder to accomplish their ultimate goal of an Islamic Caliphate that dominates the world and subjugates non-Muslims.

The attempt in the West, however, to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s view of a diseased society.

These rules are not merely unspoken ones. Quoting a Fox News interview with American columnist Rachel Alexander, the Clarion Project points out that the Associated Press — whose stylebook is used as a key reference by a majority of English-language newspapers worldwide for uniformity of grammar, punctuation and spelling — is now directing writers to avoid certain words and terms that are now deemed unacceptable to putative liberals.

Alexander recently wrote:

“Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn’t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words ‘pro-life’ changed to ‘anti-abortion,’ because the AP Stylebook instructs, ‘Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.’ It goes on, ‘Avoid abortionist,’ saying the term ‘connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.’

“Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. ‘People struggling to enter Europe’ is favored over ‘migrant’ or ‘refugee.’ While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.”

To be sure, the AP Stylebook does not carry the same weight or authority as the Quranic texts on which radical Islamists base their jihadist actions and totalitarian aims. It does constitute, however, a cultural decree that has turned religious in its fervor. It gives a glimpse, as well, into the intellectual tyranny that has pervaded liberal Western thought and institutions.

The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.

As far back as 2003, the Middle East Forum reported on the findings of a study conducted by the American Textbook Council, an independent New York-based research organization, which stated:

“[Over the last decade], the coverage of Islam in world history textbooks has expanded and in some respects improved…. But on significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish, and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions.”

Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals. The relationship between the two must be recognized for what it is: a marriage made in hell.

A. Z. Mohamed is a Muslim born and raised in the Middle East.

U.S. Islamic Movement Enters Final Stage

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 20, 2017:

The leading edge of the Islamic Movement’s Final Stage in the United States is upon us.  The violence is now beginning in earnest.

One day in the future, history will record with great astonishment how military leaders, politicians on both sides of the aisle, intelligence professionals, and others were catastrophically unprofessional for 16 years after 9/11/2001, thus putting the American people in grave peril.

Understanding the Threat’s (UTT) has trained thousands of local, state and federal officers/agents on the Islamic threat (sharia and the jihadi network in the US), the hard-left Marxist/Socialist/Communist threat, and how these Movements work together to bring down the U.S. government.

The response to UTT’s training is always the same:  (1) none of those in attendance, including FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force agents/officers, have ever heard the information presented, and (2) they all agree it is critical to protecting their communities.  See some comments here.

When UTT’s President John Guandolo was recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense (end of 2008) he briefed a number of 3 and 4 star generals and admirals, numerous Members of Congress, the Chairmen of the House Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Judiciary Committees, former Directors of intelligence agencies, former National Security Advisors, and others.  None of these good men and women were aware of the massive jihadi network in the United States, nor what sharia is and how it operates to drive the Global Islamic Movement.

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz’s experience (2008) undercover inside the headquarters of U.S. Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) revealed “America’s largest muslim civil rights group” – as they are called – is engaged in fraud, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.  Yet CAIR and its leaders are unimpeded in their work by U.S. agencies sworn to dismantle them.

Today, the situation is significantly worse than it was nine years ago.  The enemy has gained significant ground in the war while our leaders have barely scratched the surface on understanding the danger facing the Republic.

The Muslim Brotherhood has increased their ground game:

*Insinuated Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers into Mr. Trump’s administration and utilized their network to cease efforts to designate the MB a terrorist organization – with support from Mrs. Clinton.

*Created an army of attorneys to do battle in U.S. courts to slow down judicial action by US government

*Expanded their Islamophobia campaign to bring social media giants Facebook, Twitter and others onboard to stifle free speech, specifically truthful speech about Islam.

*Broadened their cooperative efforts with hard-left Marxist organizations to directly attack those individuals and organizations speaking truth about Islam.

* Leaders within the Islamic Movement:  (Hatem Bazian) call for an intifada (violent uprising) in the United States; (Linda Sarsour) call for jihad against the President; numerous U.S. imams are calling for the annihilation of Jews here; and many Islamic leaders are openly calling for sharia to be imposed in the United States.

Now, the violent war UTT has warned about and predicted inside the United States has begun.

The Islamic Movement’s initial tool for violence in the United States is the anarchists and “domestic terrorist” hard-left Marxist/Socialist Communist organizations, including Antifa, Black Lives Matters, and dozens of groups forming together.

Many of these people and groups call for the killing of the President, as did Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal.

These are the Brown Shirts of the 21st century.

These violent and subversive Movements have hundreds if not thousands of groups giving them direct support like the Southern Poverty Law Center, J-Street, Transgender Law Center, Center for New Community, Franciscan Action Network, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Interfaith Alliance, Jews Against Islamophobia, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, American Center for Outreach, ACLU, Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, Arab American Institute, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, NAACP, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, National Lawyers Guild, Anti-Defamation League and many others.

For a more extensive list of the George Soros funded Marxists/anarchist groups click HERE.

These two massive Movements in the United States funded by external and internal entities whose stated goal is the destruction of the United States.  They publish doctrine, websites, speeches, and books which call for the overthrow of our government, and then take actions in furtherance of these goals.

This is not only a violation of numerous federal laws, but these actions demand that all people who are in positions of authority and who have sworn an oath to the Constitution have a duty to take actions to destroy these Movements and defend our Republic.

As the violence escalates we will see social unrest like occurred in Baltimore, Ferguson, Berkley, and elsewhere. But it will be much worse.

Remember the Brown Shirts were killed on the Night of the Long Knives and Adolf Hitlers Black Shirts took charge.  So it is in history with Movements like this.

Remembering this is a war of narratives – and Information War – more than anything else, all of these escalating actions will come with a pre-planned propaganda campaign just like we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Here are five things citizens are encouraged to do:

  1. Understand the Islamic threat. Use the resources at http://www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com and know what sharia is and what it says. Sharia drives the enemy in this war. Be weary of those who vilify the Muslim Brotherhood, and then defend Islamic doctrine as being “peaceful.”  Remember, the Islamic Movement is the leading element in this war.  They are using the left as their tools.  Do not lose focus.
  2. Understand the play book of the hard-left Marxist Movement in the United States.  Read Rules for Radicals.
  3. Move quickly to educate open-minded people in your community, especially those with leadership qualities.  Remember Sheriffs and Pastors are the two groups of people we need most right now in this war.
  4. Develop the right mind-set. Think August 1939 Poland.  “Resistance Movements” can simply be citizens organizing to support those defending their states/communities in numerous ways.
  5. Know the foundation upon which this nation was created: the law of nature (legally defined as the will of God) and nature’s God (legally defined as “Holy Scripture”).

Leaders of the US Council of Muslim Organizations, the leading MB element in the US. General Masul of the Muslim Brotherhood Nihad Awad (also Hamas leader) is front row 3rd from right

For every person who becomes educated as to the true nature of the threats we face as a nation is another person who will be fully committed to defending it at a deep level.

Speak truth boldly.