Ill Informed House Dem Wrongly Blasts “Ill Prepared” DHS Official

1845IPT NewsSeptember 22, 2016

Last Saturday, a Somali Muslim in St. Cloud, Minn. slashed 10 people in a local mall.

ISIS claimed him as a “soldier of the Islamic State” and Dahir Adan reportedly asked people whether they were Muslims or Christians before stabbing them. An off-duty police officer shot Adan before more people were injured or anyone was killed.

Also on Saturday night, a pressure-cooker bomb allegedly made and planted by Ahmad Khan Rahami blew up in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood injuring 31 people. Two police officers were wounded in a shootout Monday as they tried to arrest Rahami.

Officials say the casualty count could have been exponentially higher Saturday had all the powerful explosives that officials found in New York and New Jersey detonated.

Rahami’s journal makes it clear he was influenced by radical Islamists like American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al Adnani, among others.

With those attacks still fresh, U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., used a House Homeland Security subcommittee Thursday to insist that the government is wrong to make the threat of Islamist terror its top priority.

Thompson blasted DHS Office of Community Partnerships Director George Selim for repeating DHS’s position that ISIS’s ability to radicalize and recruit Americans is “the pre-eminent threat to our homeland security today.”

It has been proven, irrefutably, that right wing domestic terror is the greater threat, Thompson said, adding he was “disappointed that [Selim] come before this committee ill prepared to answer the questions.”

video

After the hearing, committee spokesman Adam Comis told the Investigative Project on Terrorism that Thompson was referring to a 2015 report by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University. The center surveyed nearly 400 law enforcement agencies across the country, finding most were more concerned with anti-government extremism by groups like sovereign citizens and militias.

That’s an opinion survey, not “irrefutable” evidence as Thompson claimed.

But the DHS position states a national priority, while the Triangle Center paper primarily quizzed local law enforcement. It’s a mistake to assume their challenges and perspectives are the same.

It makes sense that a sheriff in Iowa or a police chief in Arizona would worry that their people might encounter someone who somehow believes he is exempt from the law, as sovereigns do. And they often are quick to violence.

Thompson’s remarks were the most animated, but other Democrats at the Homeland Security committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency hearing, “Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terrorism,” took aim at the focus on Islamic radicalization. Domestic terror, they argued, merits the greater concern.

Advocates of that position used to argue that the data supported them, citing New America Foundation figures showing more Americans since 9/11 died at the hands of domestic extremists like Dylann Roof than by Islamists.

That’s no longer true, after Omar Mateen’s June slaughter of 49 people at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub. Mateen paused in his shooting spree to call 911 and pledge allegiance to ISIS.

1847

As we’ve noted, the debate over whether the Islamist or domestic threat is greater – when both are clear and present – is beside the point. Another Dylann Roof out there might tip the scales some day, at least temporarily.

The threats are driven by drastically different ideologies, and DHS should focus on ways to combat them. Hearing organizers and witnesses (including IPT Senior Shillman Fellow Pete Hoekstra, whose testimony can be seen here, and written testimony can be read here) say the Obama administration’s refusal to speak specifically about radical Islamist terror hinders that effort.

The threats also manifest themselves differently. Many incidents of anti-government violence target specific foes or involve a robbery that leads to murder.

ISIS, al-Qaida, Boko Haram and other Islamist groups have well organized media campaigns aimed at radicalizing Western Muslims and encouraging them to wage violent jihad. They seek spectacular attacks that create as many victims as possible. When those aren’t possible, they encourage random attacks like stabbings and car rammings.

Thompson seemed to equate assessments which are driven by dramatically different perspectives, and he tried to shame a national official for espousing the big picture. The congressman is free to have a separate hearing on other threats, but trying to deny the unique challenges posed by Islamist terrorism doesn’t seem to serve anyone’s interest.

***

The director of The Centers Threat Information Office, Kyle Shideler appears on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler to discuss the recent U.S. House Homeland Security Committee Hearing on Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror.

I think what we’ve seen is really almost the radicalization of the democrat’s position when it comes to dealing with counterterrorism, We saw today Democratic members of congress who essentially were prepared to abandon countering violent extremism as a strategy, a strategy which already doesn’t work, and move on to something even more inept which was essentially telling Americans to shut up when it comes to asking questions about who is behind Islamic extremism and moving towards questions of gun control as if attacks on the first and second amendments is the best way to deal with the Islamic State and that is simply not true.

Also see:

The Democrat Party is a progressive party with all that that entails, including an ignorantly morally relativistic outlook which says that all belief systems are equal (except theirs). That party boasts a multiculturalist bent unable to recognize that different peoples hold dear different values and principles. Likewise, it refuses to acknowledge a suicidal materialist worldview that views the West as the oppressor and all others as the oppressed leading to a perverse left-Islamic supremacist alliance, wittingly for some and unwittingly for others, that threatens our very existence.

As with the socialist revolutionaries of the past, of course it would be the progressive intelligentsia that would be the first to be lined up and shot should their Islamic supremacist “underdogs” inherit the Earth.

National security-minded Democrats in the Reagan mold have largely either passed away or become Republicans.

Saddest of all, on account of how much the culture has moved, so too have Republicans.

Though the 2016 election may be viewed as a test on this thesis, clearly the public has shifted substantially in the last 14 years, on account of the wages of political correctness and the onslaught of progressive messages in media, academia, and among our political elites. Look no further than the question of gay marriage.

In the final analysis, politicians follow the public and the donors. Cultural changes lead to political changes.

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.

Daniel Greenfield: The Lie is Coming Apart

Daniel_Greenfield_imageGates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, Aug. 28, 2016:

On August 21 the American Freedom Alliance sponsored a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” Daniel Greenfield, a.k.a. Sultan Knish, was one of the featured speakers.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

TRANSCRIPT

Robert Spencer on Black Lives Matter and the Leftist/Islamic Alliance

Muslims-in-solidarity-with-Black-Lives-Matter-Photo-CIJnews (1)Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the alliance between the Black Lives Matter movement and forces of the global jihad, both violent and stealth.

“CAIR and the SJP have clearly hitched their star to the Black Lives Movement and are retailing it’s distortions”

Learn more: https://counterjihadreport.com/?s=BLM&submit=Search

Leftist George Soros Attempts to Shut Down Criticism of Sharia, Slander Experts

World Economic Forum, WEF, in DavosSoros can try to stifle opponents of Islamism, but he cannot suppress the truth about political Islam and its Sharia agenda.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 17, 206:

George Soros knows how to throw his money around in order to champion liberal-progressive causes.

We have seen how the Hungarian billionaire has contributed significant funds to immigration activist groups, LGBT organizations, the Black Lives Matter movement, and anti-Israel groups among many others.

Apparently, Soros is also trying to silence groups and individuals who speak out against radical Islam. The Daily Caller reports on how Soros’ groups are targeting the counter-jihad movement:

The 2011 document, entitled “Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civil Discourse,” is one of more than 2,500 files stolen from Soros’ Open Society Foundations and published online on Saturday.

It names prominent critics of radical Islam, such as Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, and Robert Spencer as targets for opposition researchers working on a project operated by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank that has received millions of dollars in grants from Soros’ groups.

In the memo, Open Society Foundations (OSF) executives lamented that progressive groups and members of the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian-American (AMEMSA) community lacked “high quality opposition research” to combat “anti-Muslim xenophobia and to promote tolerance.”

To close that gap, OSF sought to provide a $200,000 grant to CAP, which was founded in 2003 by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.

The CAP project, called the Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project, set out to engage progressives and journalists to raise awareness about the critics of radical Islam. In addition to Geller, Gaffney and Spencer, CAP planned to “research and track” the activities of David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Cliff May and Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

“CAP’s first step will be to interview and engage journalists, researchers, academics, and leaders in the anti-hate movement who are researching and writing on Islamophobia, and to develop a roster of knowledgeable and credible experts to whom journalists and policymakers can turn for information,” it continues.

OSF did fund CAP’s project. Its 2011 tax filings show that it gave CAP the $200,000 grant as well as two others totaling $500,000.

This kind of targeting against counter jihad activism is typical knowing Soros’ efforts to flood Europe with Muslim refugees, and exhorting President Obama to support democracy in the run-up to Egypt’s 2012 Presidential election knowing the Muslim Brotherhood’s strength.

Soros likely views Islamists as key allies in changing the international power structure from being more nation-state oriented to becoming more globalist.

By supporting the ‘Islamophobia’ narrative – which seeks to ultimately silence opponents of Islamists – Soros likely sees an opportunity to quiet the opponents of not only Sharia but also multiculturalism.

Soros can try to stifle opponents of Islamism all he wants but he cannot suppress the truth about political Islam and its Sharia agenda even with his billions of dollars.

For leftists like Soros, their pact with Islamists is myopic at best – if they ever succeed at crushing their competition on the political right, they will have to deal with an emboldened political Islam that is extremely hostile to their liberal-progressive values.

It looks like Soros and other leftists will continue to try and purge the West of its Judeo-Christian foundation in favor of multiculturalism that gives way to an Islamic civilization rooted in coercion and extreme inequality of the genders. Soros may end up eating sour grapes in the end.

London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police

jk

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, August 18, 2016:

London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force — and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caughtclassifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.

Also see:

One cannot have discourse if there is no opportunity for opposition. We are now seeing European courts, the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the UN Human Rights Council seek to silence those whose views they oppose.

It even turned out, at least in Germany last September, that “hate speech” apparently included posts criticizing mass migration. It would seem, therefore, that just about anything anyone finds inconvenient can be labelled as “racist” or “hate speech.”

Censoring, ironically, ultimately gives the public an extremely legitimate grievance, and could even set up the beginning of a justifiable rebellion.

There is currently a worrying trend. Facebook, evidently attempting to manipulate what news people receive, recently censored the Swedish commentator Ingrid Carlqvist by deleting her account, then censored Douglas Murray’s eloquent article about Facebook’s censorship of Carlqvist. Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich’s mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.

Yet, a page called “Death to America & Israel“, which actively incites violence against Israel, is left uncensored. Facebook, it seems, agrees that calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state is acceptable, but criticism of Islam is not. While pages that praise murder, jihadis, and anti-Semitism remain, pages that warn the public of the violence that is now often perpetrated in the name of Islam, but that do not incite violence, are removed.

Even in the United States, there was a Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 569, attempting to promote the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Defamation of Religion/anti-blasphemy laws, to criminalize any criticism of “religion” – but meaning Islam.

Yesterday, at an airport, an advertisement for Facebook read, “A place to debate.” Should it not instead have read, “A place to debate, but only if we agree with you”?

A former CIA clandestine officer’s take on the shariah threat

571726492

Secure Freedom Radio, July 19, 2016:

CLARE LOPEZ, Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, former CIA clandestine officer:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Violence against law enforcement continues – this time in Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Unholy alliance between the US Muslim Brotherhood, Black Lives Matter, and Alinskyite Anarchists
  • Damage done by the US Council of Muslim Organizations and its sister organizations across the Western world

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Political agenda of those under the USCMO umbrella
  • Explaining shariah
  • Donald Trump and other GOP leaders’ stance concerning refugee resettlement from Muslim nations

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Implications of the failed coup in Turkey
  • How the AKP Party has weakened the Turkish military
  • The Gulenist Movement
  • Aspects of jihad still present in Sufism

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report made public
  • Future implications for the US/Saudi alliance
  • Iran and Hezbollah roles in 9/11
  • Instances of Shia and Sunni cooperation in terrorizing the West

(PART FIVE): (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • What to expect from a nuclear Iran
  • Can the MEK Party force regime change in Tehran?
  • Update on Hillary Clinton in regards to Benghazi

Dallas & Baton Rouge Ambush of Police Reveals Dangers of Marxist Left in America

President Obama with Attorney General Lynch (far left), DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson (right of President), Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett (far right), and Black Lives Matter leader Brittany Packnett (left of President)

President Obama with Attorney General Lynch (far left), DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson (right of President), Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett (far right), and Black Lives Matter leader Brittany Packnett (left of President)

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 18, 2016:

On June 12, 2016, UTT published an article after the jihadi attack in Orlando, Florida making it clear the marxist/anarchist movement is working with and in support of the jihadi network, and are a threat to the Republic all on their own as well.

“The way is paved for the jihadi organizations by socialist and marxist collaborators who work daily to push law enforcement back on their heels…Everything we are witnessing now is a preparation of the battlefield by our enemy and their collaborators…imagine multiple riots similar to the events in Baltimore, Maryland, where uncontrolled thugs burn, loot, shoot, and destroy American towns.”

Reuters calls Black Lives Matters a “civil rights movement” which is also what it calls Hamas front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

From Dallas, Texas to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as well as Tennessee, Minnesota and elsewhere across America, Marxist/Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panther Party, Code Pink, La Raza, and literally hundreds of others are working to violently disrupt normal policing operations of communities, attack police, and kill police.

Why are they doing this and why are our leaders and the media not speaking honestly about it?  Why are leaders asking police to show “restraint” in the face of deadly attacks?

Because all of this puts law enforcement on the defensive and is a part of the Marxist revolutionary movement which helps it and its friends in the Jihadi Movement gain momentum.

As major media outlets parade “experts” out who say jihadis in Orlando, Nice, and elsewhere are not “true Muslims – contrary to the facts – so too are they portraying terrorists/anarchists from Black Lives Matter and other groups as having legitimate civil rights concerns when their stated aim is revolution, civil unrest, and the killing of law enforcement officers.

Facts

  1.  On average, 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012, according to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Using FBI and CDC statistics, Professor Richard R. Johnson (University of Toledo) calculated 112 black men, on average, suffered both justified and unjustified police-involved deaths annually during this period.
  2. This equals 2.5 percent of these 4,472 yearly deaths. For every black man — criminal or innocent — killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men.
  3. Twelve percent (12%) of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers.  Four percent of all blacks, homicide victims, are killed by police officers.
  4. Over the last decade, black males made up 40 percent of all cop killers, even though they are six percent of the population.

How does this fit into the larger threat to our nation?

Black Lives Matter is working hand in hand with Hamas and other jihadi/terrorist groups.

Black Lives Matter is a piece of a much larger Marxist/Socialist threat which works to weaken the society and prepare the battlefield for other enemies as well propel it’s own agenda.

Americans should see the Marxist organizations clearly for who they really are and the threat they present to the community.

Also see:

Obama and the most successful national subversion in world history

obama-sinisterFamily Security Matters, by Lawrence Sellin, July 11, 2016:

America is coming apart – not just the United States, the sovereign nation, but our Constitution, our culture, our traditions, all of what “America” has come to mean.

It is not by accident.

What we are witnessing is the product of eight years of Barack Obama and his divisive rhetoric and destructive policies.

Obama’s “transformation” is a euphemism for the crippling and humbling of a great nation he considers racist, oppressive, venal and dysfunctional.

He warned us.

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – Barack Obama, October 30, 2008.

But Michelle Obama said it best.

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” – Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008.

And that different place as a nation is fragmentation and collapse.

It is not a conspiracy.

There is, in fact, a deliberate, coordinated and ongoing effort to subvert the United States as a capitalist, Judeo-Christian based republic and replace it with alien political ideologies and cultures incompatible to personal liberty.

None of what is happening is “home-grown.”

There is an alliance between the global political left and radical Islam, two totalitarian philosophies that cannot dominate the world without first destroying capitalist, Judeo-Christian-based democracy, the United States being both the foremost proponent and primary target.

Just as Islamists attempt to impose their religion on the world in a totalitarian fashion requiring unwavering obedience, so do radical leftists strive to create an omnipotent socialist state that will control every aspect of daily life and will enforce a universal brand of “social justice” on all mankind.

I will not mince words.

The Democrat Party now represents, at least philosophically if not operationally, the American subsidiary of that alliance.

The Republican Party is dominated by globalists, obsessed with the acquisition of personal power and profit, and uninterested and willingly impotent in defending the rights, liberties and well-being of American citizens. The GOP leadership has solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class.

To summarize, the crises we are currently experiencing are the direct consequence of the policies pursued by Barack Obama, a coffeehouse communist and Islamic groupie, who leads a lawless cabal of fellow-travelers, financed by domestic anti-American and foreign sources, supported by professional agitators, facilitated by a supine Republican political opposition and cheered-on by a predominately left-wing media.

Societal division and social unrest are tactics used to destabilize and demoralize, to further fundamentally transform the country, which has already been undermined economically, educationally and culturally from within.

It has always been the dilemma of social revolutionaries, whether communist or Islamic, that as long as individuals embraced liberty and had the belief that his or her Divine spark of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation recognized as the necessary prerequisite for totalitarianism.

Political correctness is part of that effort. Its aim is to narrow the range of thought in order to make independent thinking literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express those thoughts. It is accomplished through the systematic destruction of words and phrases as “microaggressions” or simply making statements that are patently untrue.

For example, despite exhaustive efforts by the Mainstream Media to paint Black Lives Matter (BLM) as a movement dedicated to “racial equality” or “social justice” and engaging in “peaceful protests;” it is, in reality, a violent, racist, and dangerous domestic terror group funded by rich white men (links to Ben and Jerry’s Foundation and George Soros) devoted to destabilizing American socio-cultural infrastructure, legitimized by Obama with a presidential invitation to the White House, and endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and the unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for providing support to the terrorist group Hamas.

That is a pattern of connected dots, which our hopelessly corrupt political-media establishment, as acts of self-preservation and complicity-avoidance, tries tirelessly to disconnect.

Most of the social chaos and extremism we are currently witnessing in our country is the product of a well-funded and well-organized anti-American, predominately foreign, radical Islamo-leftist agenda – and an administration that enables rather than opposes the aims of our enemies.

It is time for patriots to take America back.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

***

Here is a relevant excerpt from The roots of Black Lives Matter unveiled by Jim Simpson:

Intellectual genealogy of Black Lives Matter

“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” – Vladimir Lenin

That quote from the Soviet Union’s first leader captures the entire essence of the Left’s strategy. No matter what the issue, no matter what the facts, the Left advances a relentless, hate-filled narrative that America is irredeemably evil and must be destroyed as soon as possible. The BLM movement is only the latest but perhaps most dangerous variant on this divisive theme.

Communists use language and psychology as weapons. Their constant vilification is a form of psychological terror. It puts America and Americans on trial. The verdict is always guilty. Facts don’t matter because the Left does not want to resolve the problems they complain about. They use those problems to agitate and provoke, hoping conflict becomes unavoidable – thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their hatred is tactical.

Obama’s favorite Harvard professor Derrick Bell devised Critical Race Theory, which exemplifies Lenin’s strategy as applied to race. According to Discover the Networks:

“Critical race theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently the nation’s legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid … members of ‘oppressed’ racial groups are entitled – in fact obligated – to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing…”

Bell’s theory is in turn an innovation of Critical Theory – developed by philosophers of the communist Frankfurt School. The school was founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923. Its Jewish communist scholars fled Hitler’s Germany in the 1930s, relocating to Columbia Teachers College in New York. Critical Theory – which discredits all aspects of Western society – rapidly infected the minds of newly-minted college professors, who then spread its poison throughout the university system. We know it today as political correctness.

White privilege

The “racist” narrative was turbocharged with the concept of “White Privilege,” the notion that whites – the dominant group in capitalist America – are irretrievably racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, fill-in-the-blank-ophobic, imperialistic oppressors who exploit everyone. Whites are the only true evil in the world and should be exterminated.

The “White Skin Privilege” idea was created in 1967 by Noel Ignatiev, an acolyte of Bell and professor at Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute (Du Bois was a Communist black leader who helped found the NAACP). Ignatiev was a member of CPUSA’s most radical wing, the Maoist/Stalinist Provisional Organizing Committee to Reconstitute the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party (POC). POC was the intellectual forerunner to FRSO.

Writing under the alias Noel Ignatin, Ignatiev co-authored an SDS pamphlet with fellow radical Ted Allen, titled “White Blindspot.” In 1992 he co-founded “Race Traitor: Journal of the New Abolitionism.” Its first issue coined the slogan, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Its stated objective was to “abolish the white race.” More specifically, the New Abolitionist newsletter stated:

“The way to abolish the white race is to challenge, disrupt and eventually overturn the institutions and behavior patterns that reproduce the privileges of whiteness, including the schools, job and housing markets, and the criminal justice system. The abolitionists do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal (emphasis added).”

But do not be confused; “White” does not mean white. “White” in radical construction means anyone of any race, creed, nationality, color, sex, or sexual preference who embraces capitalism, free markets, limited government and American traditional culture and values. By definition, these beliefs are irredeemably evil and anyone who aligns with them is “white” in spirit and thus equally guilty of “white crimes.” Ignatiev still teaches, now at the Massachusetts College of Art.

The Black Lives Matter movement carries this narrative to unprecedented heights, claiming that only whites can be racists. And while justifying violence to achieve “social justice,” the movement’s goal is to overthrow our society to replace it with a Marxist one. Many members of the black community would be shocked to learn that the intellectual godfathers of this movement are mostly white Communists, “queers” and leftist Democrats, intent on making blacks into cannon fodder for the revolution.

Also see:

***

Gilbert: Inside Obama’s Communist/Islamic Dreams

Truth Revolt, July 11, 2016:

Whatever you may think of InfoWars’ Alex Jones, check out his recent interview with filmmaker Joel Gilbert on President Obama’s true heritage and why he seems to hate America so much.

Gilbert is the director and writer of the controversial political documentaries There’s No Place Like Utopia (2014) and Dreams from My Real Father (2012), as well as others. He speaks often in the media about Obama’s Marxist agenda.

In this interview, Jones picks Gilbert’s mind about “the end times of the Republic,” where Obama wants to take us, and why. Check it out above. The interview begins at 3:40.

Dallas and the Leftist/Islamic Alliance

cair-terrorist-organization-hp_3

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 11, 2016:

Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said it plainly at the 14th Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America) Convention in December 2015: “Black Lives Matter is our matter. Black Lives Matter is our campaign.” Khalilah Sabra, another Muslim activist, told the Muslim conference: “Basically, you are the new black people of America….We are the community that staged a revolution across the world. If we could do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?” With the murder of five policemen in Dallas by a sniper during a Black Lives Matter protest, that revolution may be upon us – the revolution of hatred and violence that Islamic supremacists and race hustlers have worked so long to bring about.

Awad and Sabra were by no means the first to identify their own efforts with those of the people who want to bring about a race war in the United States. The far-Left Counter Current News reported in January 2015: “Recently, a number of representatives from the Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter and various Ferguson anti-police brutality protesters made history through a solidarity trip to Palestine.”

This merry little group toured the West Bank in order to see for themselves the purported “link between oppression emanating from the Israeli State as well as that which victims of police brutality are experiencing in America.” Ahmad Abuznaid of Dream Defenders explained: “The goals were primarily to allow for the group members to experience and see first hand the occupation, ethnic cleansing and brutality Israel has levied against Palestinians, but also to build real relationships with those on the ground leading the fight for liberation.”

What was the purpose of building such relationship? Abuznaid continued: “In the spirit of Malcolm X, Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael and many others, we thought the connections between the African American leadership of the movement in the US and those on the ground in Palestine needed to be reestablished and fortified. As a Palestinian who has learned a great deal about struggle, movement, militancy and liberation from African Americans in the US, I dreamt of the day where I could bring that power back to my people in Palestine. This trip is a part of that process.”

Another activist on the trip, Cherrell Brown, delved deep into Leftist conspiratorial fantasy as she claimed: “So many parallels exist between how the US polices, incarcerates, and perpetuates violence on the black community and how the Zionist state that exists in Israel perpetuates the same on Palestinians. This is not to say there aren’t vast differences and nuances that need to always be named, but our oppressors are literally collaborating together, learning from one another – and as oppressed people we have to do the same.” So expect the same tactics to be employed in both wars by those who wish to kill and destroy.

The New York University chapter of the radical Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) group repeated Brown’s equation of police forces in the U.S. with the “Zionist state” just this past week:

In the past 48 hours another two black men have been lynched by the police. The total number of black people lynched by cops in 2016 now totals 136. We must remember that many US police departments train with the #‎IsraeliDefenseForces. The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians. What this means is that Palestinians must stand with our black comrades. We must struggle for their liberation. It is as important as our own. #‎AltonSterling is as important as #‎AliDawabsheh. Palestinian liberation and black liberation go together. We must recognize this and commit to building for it.

After getting criticized for this, the SJP issued a clarification:

Our statement regarding the murders of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile—and the rampant murders of Black Americans by the police—was not a suggestion that their deaths are part of an Israeli conspiracy. Israel did not literally kill either of these men: that much is obvious. What is also clear is that American police departments and the IDF train together. The IDF assists the NYPD and other American police departments in their oppression and murder of black people. These groups share a common logic that manifests in several types of oppression, white supremacist racism among them.

If we in SJP and in the Palestine solidarity movement more generally are serious about ending Israeli oppression then we must stand with black americans [sic]. We need to be in the streets with them and we need to organize against police brutality.

Counterterror investigator Kyle Shideler noted in Townhall last March that “this merging ‘revolutionary’ alliance goes back as far as the first outbreak of disorder in Ferguson. Few may recall the attendance at Michael Brown’s funeral of CAIR executive director Nihad Awad….In November of 2014, Fox News reported on an effort by CAIR Michigan Director Dawud Walid to link the death of Michael Brown at the hands of police and the death of Luqman Abdullah, a Detroit imam shot during an FBI raid. Abdullah was described by the FBI as a leader of a nationwide Islamic organization known as ‘The Ummah,’ run by convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Amin. Abdullah’s group engaged in criminal activity in order to raise funds in order for an effort to establish Sharia law in opposition to the U.S. government.”

CAIR and the SJP have clearly hitched their star to the Black Lives Matter movement; in Dallas, they saw what they’re backing. Both Leftists and Islamic supremacists want to destroy the existing order and replace it with a system that they believe will be more just and free of racism; both Leftists and Muslims have resorted to violence in service of this goal, and both will again. CAIR itself does not openly advocate violence, but it shares the goal of every violent jihad group in the world: to impose Islamic law (Sharia) wherever it can be imposed, and ultimately over the whole world – as CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper said back in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Whether Black Lives Matter and its allies will accept Sharia is an open question, but in the meantime, subversion of the existing order, by both violent and peaceful means, proceeds apace. The murders in Dallas (regardless of the cosmetic condemnations from Black Lives Matter, which fly in the face of its incendiary rhetoric) reveal how all these allied groups will manifest their hatred and accomplish their goal of destruction. Did Nihad Awad have five dead police officers on his mind when he told the MAS-ICNA conference that “Black Lives Matter is our campaign”? Would Awad, who has publicly expressed support for the murderous jihad terror group Hamas, have stopped short of saying this if he had?

The American Gulag

550px-censored_rubber_stampFront Page Magazine, by Phyllis Chesler, June 27, 2016:

For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having “gone over to the dark side,” as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.

My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken–although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.

Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right–but not quite as much.)

A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need “love and compassion,” not profiling or detention.

I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes–or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.

“But,” I said, “on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?”

That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”

His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him:  If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.

I welcomed him to the American Gulag.

He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.

Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.

Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a “right-wing hater.” He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.

I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.

The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.

For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.

Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view “mental illness,” “gun control,” and “American right-wing hatred of gays”–not Jihad–as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer “Palestine” to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.

A number of European activists have recently visited me.  They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey;  along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.

So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.

And now, European women are being told to “dye their hair black,” stay home “after 8pm,” “always have a male escort at night;” a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to “cover up” because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.

Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?

Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.

Geller: Islam Is ‘The Real Problem,’ And Liberals Are Taking Advantage Of The Bloodshed

pamela-geller-cartoonDaily Caller, by John Griffing, June 22, 2016:

AUSTIN, Texas – In the aftermath of the tragedy in Orlando, Pamela Geller — an outspoken critic of Islam — says that liberal Democrats are using Islamic violence against their fellow citizens to achieve total political control.

“Islam is indeed the real problem,” Geller insists, and she says Donald Trump is “the first presidential nominee since John Quincy Adams even to come close to speaking honestly about this threat.”

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend sums it up well,” Geller told The Daily Caller. “They [Islam, liberals] both hate America and Israel. They both hate Western civilization. So they make common cause,” Geller continued.

Geller believes the consequences of such an unholy alliance to be “no less ominous than the death of free societies on earth,” and likens the actions of the vocal liberals capitalizing on the terror attack in Orlando to opening Pandora’s box.

“All infidels,” will suffer, Geller said, “The Islamic imperative is to subjugate all infidels under the hegemony of Islamic law — those on the left as well as those on the right.”

The left shares many of the same goals as Islam, said Geller. “They [the left] hate freedom, and everything that goes with it. The left and Islam both share a totalitarian, violent and supremacist imperative.”

Former DHS official Phil Haney claimed recently that President Obama is “deliberately dismantling America’s defenses,” and charged Obama and other defense officials with dereliction of duty.

Said Haney: “It’s an abrogation of the basic responsibility of any elected official…to protect Americans from threats both foreign and domestic.”

“And as long as we stand by and allow the administration to misinform us and disinform us, then we’re going to see the same results we’ve seen so far over and over again.”

Previously, Haney claimed that he was ordered by the Obama administration to “scrub records of Muslims with terror ties.”

As Haney claimed back in February 2016, “I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System.”

In spite of Geller’s belief that many on the political left are attempting to use radical Islam to catalyze “change,” she applauds those who recognize the dangers of Islam to traditional liberal value — ideas like equal protection, free speech, and separation of church and state.

Geller praised famous liberal comedian and talk show host Bill Maher for his intellectual honesty and courage in standing up to Islam.

Referencing Maher’s remarks on Jerry Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars, where he said, “The left is so tolerant, they’re tolerating intolerance,” Geller approved, saying, “Maher is absolutely right in this.”

“Islam is the most intolerant, supremacist, violent, misogynistic and anti-Semitic ideology on the face of the earth – now being brought to the US under the guise of ‘tolerance’,” Geller said.

Unlike many of her colleagues in the conservative movement, Geller does not believe that “radical Islam” or “radicalization” are the central problem – she believes it is the religion of Islam itself, which she points out, commands death for nonbelievers and death for homosexuals.

Orlando is Islam “in its truest form,” said Geller. “Muhammad said that gays must be killed. Muhammad is the supreme example whom all Muslims must obey. So killing gays is indeed the faith itself.”

Geller seeks to differentiate between other faiths and Islam, debunking the notion that “all faiths are the same,” and morally equivalent. She said that becoming less tolerant, more violent and more deceptive “are taught in the Qur’an, so they are the essence of what it means to be a ‘better Muslim.’”

The mainstream media, Geller insisted, are “lying” on a “massive scale.”

“The political and media elites are lying to us constantly about Islam. It is no wonder that so many Americans are ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat,” said Geller.

“But because Islam is indeed the real problem, Trump is so popular. He is the first presidential nominee — or presumptive nominee at this point — since John Quincy Adams even to come close to speaking honestly about this threat.”

On the mainstream media’s insistence that Islam is a religion of “peace,” Geller has some stern words. “Here’s the thing: the enemedia has to admonish us constantly about how Islam is a religion of peace because it so obviously isn’t,” exclaimed Geller.

“They keep having to club us over the head with this so that we ignore what we see in the daily headlines — Orlando is just the latest example. They’re banking on no one actually reading the Qur’an and Hadith, because if they did, the lies would be exposed.”

Geller also believes the events in Orlando have awakened a sleeping giant in the gay community.

“Certainly, it has created a rift in the gay community. A good rift: the gays aren’t all marching in lockstep with the leftist agenda. Look at the recent statements of Milo Yiannopoulos and other gays who have come out against the jihad and the Muslim migrant invasion.”

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists

2211774854

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 20, 2016:

Two former U.S. government officials made explosive revelations on national radio this past Friday including the charge the U.S. government is a “tool” for the jihadi movement here, and that the driving force behind America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and our foreign policy is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

The exchange took place on the Sean Hannity radio program between the host, Philip Haney (former DHS law enforcement officer with Customs and Border Protection) and Richard Higgins (a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programs at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section).

Both Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins revealed there is a massive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States, and made clear the MB’s influence is so significant they control how the issue of terrorism is discussed and how it is handled at the national security level.

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

When asked about language being scrubbed from the U.S. government Mr. Higgins responded by saying, “What (leaders in the US government) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies.”

He went on to say, “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.  And the way they control it is by prohibiting US national security personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil (Haney) had it.”

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood:  the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him.  Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”

UTT has written about the willful surrender to our enemies by American leaders here, here, and here.

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

With regard to the Marxist/Socialist collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood – as UTT has detailed via the Black Lives Matter/Hamas relationship – Mr. Higgins warned, “Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately respond with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments.  That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Philip Haney’s story is devastating to hear because he publicly states he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of terrorists and terrorist organizations from DHS databases which he inputted through the course of investigations he was conducting.

This is a violation of the law.  The names removed included several known Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

His story can be found here or here, and his powerful new book See Something, Say Nothing is now available.

Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years:  “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”

It’s all about sharia.

Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the jihadi threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies.

Philip Haney said it best when he articulated, “This is the first and foremost obligation of the U.S. government:  to protect it’s citizens from a threat, both foreign and domestic.  And I can also tell you that if we don’t address it voluntarily with courage and conviction now, we’re going to be addressing it involuntarily, and we are going to be at a much greater disadvantage than we already are right now.”

The full audio for the show can be found HERE and the discussion with Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins begins at approximately minute 14.

Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist

Obama

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, June 18, 2016:

Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.

Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.

I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security.

To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.

Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.

For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.

Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.

As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists:

(1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences.

(2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq).

(3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable).

(4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture.

Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals.

This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world.

Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.”

As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted.

The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find.

On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability.

The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom.

The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical.

Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists.

Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies.

Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits:

First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations.

Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge.

There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism.

That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Omar Mateen Told Us in His Own Words Why He Carried Out His Terror Attack… But Why Believe Him?

hqdefaultTruth Revolt, by Tiffany Gabbay, June 16, 2016:

Leftists are currently engaged in a concerted effort to bury the truth behind the catalyst for the Orlando terror attack, pushing the narrative that because Omar Mateen drank alcohol and seemed to have gay proclivities (taboos in Islam) he could not have been a religious Muslim and therefore could not have been a radical Islamic terrorist. Some, who try exculpate Islam at all cost, insist that Mateen was “never all that religious” and thus could not have been motivated to carry out the carnage in the name of Islam.

This apologetic — for a butcher who perpetrated the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9-11 — is gravely flawed on a number of levels.

To begin with, one of ISIS’ trademarks is its effectiveness in radicalizing and recruiting otherwise “normal-seeming” Westerners — even those with no prior Islamic sympathies — in very short order, sometimes in a matter of mere weeks. So to say that Mateen never seemed all that “radical” or “religious” before means nothing, because all that can turn on a dime. But the truth is, Mateen was anything but “normal-seeming” even as far back as high school, when classmates say he celebrated the 9/11 terror attacks.

We know that Mateen’s father openly supported the Afghan Taliban, thus exposing the kind of ideological upbringing Mateen likely had at home. What’s more, Omar Mateen made not one — but two — haj’s (holy pilgrimages) to Mecca in 2011 and 2012. He then found himself on the FBI’s radar back in 2013 for terror ties. Former colleagues also reported Mateen for his disturbing behavior and virulent bigotry against Jews, women, and members of the LGBT community. So no, his “radicalization” did not come out of nowhere.

In terms of Mateen’s vices, those too do not negate the fact that he could simultaneously be a terrorist harboring radical views. For instance, it is well known that the terrorists who carried out the heinous attacks in Paris at the Bataclan nightclub and even the 9-11 hijackers routinely drank alcohol and visited strip clubs, and it is also well-documented that homosexuality — including pedophilia — is practiced even among the “pious” Taliban. In other words, it would not be the first time someone claiming piety were also a hypocrite.

It is likewise plausible that Mateen’s alleged homosexuality catalyzed an internal desire to “prove himself” in the eyes of Islam and seek redemption all the more.

Regarding Mateen’s alleged “lack of religiosity,” even if true, it would not nullify radicalization. One only need look to the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat and just about every other Palestinian terrorist — none of whom have been religious zealots but rather Arab nationalists guided by Islamic ideology — to see that Islamic terror is not a monolith.

And now to the heart of the matter: Mateen’s own words and deeds. Before and during his bloody massacre, Omar Mateen told us in his own words — both verbal and written — the motivation for his attack. In addition to calling 9/11 and pledging allegiance to ISIS, Mateen also called a CNN affiliate from the Pulse night club, informing a network producer that he was indeed the Orlando shooter and that he was carrying out his attack “for ISIS.” It’s now also been revealed that through several different Facebook accounts, Mateen reiterated his loyalty to ISIS and vowed more attacks on the West.

Senate Homeland Security Chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, led his committee’s investigation into Mateen’s social media accounts, which have since been taken down from public view. Johnson has called on Facebook to hand over all information it has on Mateen.

Here’s a sampling of Mateen’s Facebook posts during the attack, which TruthRevolt shared in an earlier post:

“I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi..may Allah accept me,” Mateen wrote in one post early Sunday morning. “The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west” …“You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes..now taste the Islamic state vengeance.”

Rightfully, Sen. Johnson is pressing Facebook about Mateen’s violent rhetoric and asking for more information on his social media activities.

“It is my understanding that Omar Mateen used Facebook before and during the attack to search for and post terrorism-related content,” read Johnson’s letter. “According to information obtained by my staff, five Facebook accounts were apparently associated with Omar Mateen.”

Johnson’s committee uncovered Mateen’s actions in the hours during the attack, revealing that Mateen accessed his Facebook account to search for media reports of the attack with search words like “Pulse Orlando” and “Shooting.”

Mateen also posted the following on Facebook:

“America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic state,” Mateen wrote.

“In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the usa.”

Mateen also conducted online searches for the San Bernardino terror couple and speeches given by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

But you know, why take Mateen at his own words? Let’s instead claim he was not motivated by radical Islam ideology, but was just a self-loathing “psychopath” who could not accept his own sexuality and thus targeted the LGBT community for massacre. Let’s focus on America’s obsession with guns, even though Mateen told officers that he was also wearing a suicide vest.  Interestingly, guns were also used at the Bataclan nightclub in Paris and the Charlie Hebdo massacre (in one of the strictest gun-control countries in the world) — yet those incidents were rightfully labeled as “terrorist acts.” But not this.

One would expect such false narratives from the likes of President Obama, or the leadership of CAIR, but the disturbing reality is that people of goodwill are now also buying into the lie. I’m not quite certain what good that serves — either in honoring the dead, or in ensuring more innocent Americans don’t lose their lives to terror.

***

Also see: