Soft Jihad in America

American Thinker, by Itu Laze, June 17, 2018:

“False Identity” – the second and more explosive of two documentaries. (first part here) – unmasks ‘soft Jihad’ in America. In it, Arabic-speaking Israeli Channel 10 journalist, Zvi Yehezkeli courageously concealed his identity to expose Islam’s somewhat shocking “quiet conquest” of the U.S.

Since the August 2004 discovery of the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum and The Investigative Project‘s 2012 film, Grand Deception, these documentaries have further revealed the extent of societal penetration sought or achieved by a large and growing, but secret, Islamic soft jihad army that seeks to subvert the U.S. and enfold it within a global Islamic empire.

The success of supremacist Muslims has gone unchallenged primarily since U.S. political decision-makers and media outlets refuse to publicly discuss this immense threat, let alone stop this terrifying reality.

“Da’wa is the Number 1 Weapon!” asserts an American Muslim in Belle Dale, Florida – a convert renamed Abu Bakar, and author of the book, 2064 – Islamic America. Formerly a successful U.S. corporate strategic consultant, he now levers his profession to propagate Islam.

“Why wouldn’t I take the knowledge and experience that Allah has blessed me with to advance Islam in America,” asks Abu Bakar, rhetorically. He labors together with Belle Dale Muslim Yusuf al-Muslet to transform that locale into a model Islamic town for the rest of America to follow.

In this new documentary, al-Muslet expounds on the Jihad stages that also coincide with the classic Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) scheme. “The first Jihad is an internal [political] Jihad, and then comes Jihad of war (sword).”

Abu Bakar and al-Muslet shared their objective with Yehezkeli – whom they believe to share their goals. “Our mission is to inculcate Islamic values in the heart of every American. It’s all in this book – 2064. This is our vision for the next 50 years –America – a place united under its banner; “There is no god but Allah.”

Short-term, they plan to buy a closed Belle Dale public school and make it the town’s “first Islamic school” for children – aged only six weeks through high school. They trust that when “parents will bring their kids to Islamic schools, their kids will convert, and the entire family will convert as well,” and thus guarantee the fulfillment of their plan in Belle Dale and the ability to “scale it up to the rest of the country.” They argue, “there is nothing more beautiful than Sharia.”

As regards the nation, Abu Bakar plans first to run for Belle Dale town commissioner, because the Ikhwan “need more Muslims; commissioners, senators, congressmen, whatever political position; in cities, in big and small administrations.” Clearly, they observe, the plan is well on its way. “In Dearborn they already have control.”

Just consider the numbers. This year, over 90 (mostly Democrats) U.S Muslims are running for public office.

Zvi then notes that all Muslim Brotherhood insurgences to date started precisely this way, as seemingly inconsequential individuals perused their course with tremendous Eastern-style patience.

Skeptics argue that Islam won’t threaten the U.S., Zvi explains. Muslims participate in the American dream, and are free to build mosques and engage in Da’wa and spread Islam. But they do not understand: as Muslims like Abu Bakar and Muslet spread their Sharia ideology specifically to transform America, widespread developments within the Muslim community will inevitably, and relatively soon, present the kind of great challenge they cannot now imagine, much less foresee.

Says Zvi, while generally a very few people recognize soft Jihad for what it is; it continues to progress in almost every location, both in America and abroad. The engines of political Islam operate worldwide at full speed, especially outside the Middle East. In each nation, this ideological threat advances apace, based on appeals craftily adjusted to local needs and tastes.

Molded in the 1970s in Egypt, the Da’wa system focuses first on the disadvantaged, and represents Islam as a solution for all problems.

This program has since been severely damaged in the Middle East admits Hasan Shibly – head of the Florida chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, (CAIR) and an expert in ‘double talk.’ “The freedom we enjoy in the U.S. to practice our religion, is much greater than the freedoms granted in most Muslim countries…,” says Shibly. “Islam will be victorious and spread in this country. It’s for the benefit of this country…”

Zvi laments that without concerted free world effort to apply the brakes, the system’s growth and global reach will shortly enter a place of no return. First, however, the West must realize that soft Jihad is far more dangerous even than open Jihad warfare.

Yehezkeli in his documentaries warns the U.S., you cannot successfully fight terror unless you also understand its fundamental ideological base. Sharia has no place at all for freedom of speech. Its values and those of the dream for the Caliphate do not allow it.

In modern Turkey, Islamization evolved quietly until the Muslim Brotherhood’s final triumph. Recep Erdogan and his regime now control everything, as secularism disappeared. (Turkey / Germany episode here). In Germany, within 20 years, the Brotherhood plans to establish universal Sharia law there. In France, the Muslim Brotherhood has already laid the foundations for an established Islamic society, as demonstrated in Yehezkeli’s chilling episode on France.)

Laments Ayan Hisi Ali, the Western obsession with terror makes it blind to the longer-term effects of Da’wa outreach. Even Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in his recent Time magazine interview stated that the biggest current danger of political Islam is not in the Middle East, but in the West.

“False Identity” presents a series of extremely sobering documentaries. However, this superb series does not cover MB infiltration into institutions like law enforcementeducation, interfaith centersmedia agencies and even economic institutions.

The film’s monumental message: this is America’s 11th hour wake-up call.

We must protect our community, families, children and grandchildren and destroy Islamic ideology. We should not let Muslims dictate the rules for public or private discourse. The media, political leaders and educational institutions must cease political correctness in its tracks. We must publicly and proudly re-define the false “Islamophobe” label to a true moniker: “legitimately Islamo-scared.”

Calmly explain the ideological dangers to all who will listen. Join and support individuals and organizations that fight this menace. Counter the threat with zeal equal to that used by supremacist Muslims (and their Leftist enablers) to implement Sharia.

Otherwise, subversive Muslim Brotherhood activities will eventually destroy everything dear to us; as the notorious Yusuf al Qaradawi indicated “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword, but through Da’wa.

The Strange Death of Europe is already a reality. What will it take to prevent such a disastrous outcome here in America?

Itu Laze is a pen name.

Video: Robert Spencer on The Hagmann Report on jihad in history and the destruction of the West today

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, June 17, 2018:

On The Hagmann Report several days ago, I discuss the history of Islam and conquest and how it relates to our current day situation both in America and Europe.

Preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS here.

June 15, 1389: Islam Enters and Conquers Eastern Europe

The Battle of Kosovo

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, June 15, 2018:

Editor’s note: The following account is partially excerpted from the author’s new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (with a foreword by Victor Davis Hanson). 

—————————-

Why Eastern Europeans are much more reluctant to accept Muslim migrants than their Western counterparts can be traced back to circumstances surrounding a pivotal battle that took place today, June 15, in the year 1389. The Battle of Kosovo raged between Muslim invaders and Eastern European defenders, or the ancestors of those many Eastern Europeans today vociferously hostile to Islam.

Because the jihad is as old as Islam, it has been championed by diverse peoples (Arabs in the Middle East, Moors — Berbers and Africans — in Spain and Western Europe, etc.). Islam’s successful entry into Eastern Europe was spearheaded by the Turks, specifically that tribe centered in westernmost Anatolia (or Asia Minor) and thus nearest to Europe — the Ottoman Turks, so-named after their founder Osman Bey. As he lay dying in 1323, his parting words to his son and successor, Orhan, were for him “to propagate Islam by yours arms.”

This his son certainly did; the traveler Ibn Batutua, who once met Orhan in Bursa, observed that, although the jihadi had captured some one hundred Byzantine fortresses, “he had never stayed for a whole month in any one town,” because he “fights with the infidels continually and keeps them under siege.” Christian cities fell like dominos: Smyrna in 1329, Nicaea in 1331, and Nicomedia in 1337. By 1340, the whole of northwest Anatolia was under Turkic control. By now, and to quote a European contemporary:

[T]he foes of the cross, and the killers of the Christian people, that is, the Turks, [were] separated from Constantinople by a channel of three or four miles.

By 1354, the Ottoman Turks, under Orhan’s son, Suleiman, managed to cross over the Dardanelles and into the abandoned fortress town of Gallipoli, thereby establishing their first foothold in Europe: “Where there were churches he destroyed them or converted them to mosques,” writes an Ottoman chronicler. “Where there were bells, Suleiman broke them up and cast them into fires. Thus, in place of bells there were now muezzins.”

Cleansed of all Christian “filth,” Gallipoli became, as a later Ottoman bey boasted, “the Muslim throat that gulps down every Christian nation — that chokes and destroys the Christians.” From this dilapidated but strategically situated fortress town, the Ottomans launched a campaign of terror throughout the countryside, always convinced they were doing God’s work. “They live by the bow, the sword, and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil,” explained Gregory Palamas, an Orthodox metropolitan who was taken captive in Gallipoli, adding:

[A]nd not only do they commit these crimes, but even — what an aberration — they believe that God approves them!

After Orhan’s death in 1360 and under his son Murad I — the first of his line to adopt the title “Sultan” — the westward jihad into the Balkans began in earnest and was unstoppable. By 1371 he had annexed portions of Bulgaria and Macedonia to his sultanate, which now so engulfed Constantinople that “a citizen could leave the empire simply by walking outside the city gates.”

Unsurprisingly, then, when Prince Lazar of Serbia (b. 1330) defeated Murad’s invading forces in 1387, “there was wild rejoicing among the Slavs of the Balkans. Serbians, Bosnians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Wallachians, and Hungarians from the frontier provinces all rallied around Lazar as never before, in a determination to drive the Turks out of Europe.”

Murad responded to this effrontery on June 15, 1389, in Kosovo.

There, a Serbian-majority coalition augmented by Hungarian, Polish, and Romanian contingents — twelve thousand men under the leadership of Lazar — fought thirty thousand Ottomans under the leadership of the sultan himself. Despite the initial downpour of Turkic arrows, the Serbian heavy cavalry plummeted through the Ottoman frontlines and broke the left wing; the Ottoman right, under Murad’s elder son Bayezid, reeled around and engulfed the Christians. The chaotic clash continued for hours.

On the night before battle, Murad had beseeched Allah “for the favour of dying for the true faith, the martyr’s death.” Sometime near the end of battle, his prayer was granted. According to tradition, Miloš Obilić, a Serbian knight, offered to defect to the Ottomans on condition that, in view of his own high rank, he be permitted to submit before the sultan himself. They brought him before Murad and, after Milos knelt in false submission, he lunged at and plunged a dagger deep into the Muslim warlord’s stomach (other sources say “with two thrusts which came out at his back”). The sultan’s otherwise slow guards responded by hacking the Serb to pieces. Drenched in and spluttering out blood, Murad lived long enough to see his archenemy, the by now captured Lazar, brought before him, tortured, and beheaded. A small conciliation, it may have put a smile on the dying martyr’s face.

Murad’s son Bayezid instantly took charge: “His first act as Sultan, over his father’s dead body, was to order the death, by strangulation with a bowstring, of his brother. This was Yaqub, his fellow-commander in the battle, who had won distinction in the field and popularity with his troops.” Next Bayezid brought the battle to a decisive end; he threw everything he had at the enemy, leading to the slaughter of every last Christian — but even more of his own men in the process.

So many birds flocked to and feasted on the vast field of carrion that posterity remembered Kosovo as the “Field of Blackbirds.” Though essentially a draw — or at best a Pyrrhic victory for the Ottomans — the Serbs, with less men and resources to start with in comparison to the ascendant Muslim empire, felt the sting more.

In the years following the battle of Kosovo, the Ottoman war machine became unstoppable: the nations of the Balkans were conquered by the Muslims — after withstanding a millennium of jihads, Constantinople itself permanently fell to Islam in 1453 — and they remained under Ottoman rule for centuries (as documented in my new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West).

The collective memory of Eastern Europeans’ not too distant experiences with and under Islam should never be underestimated when considering why they are significantly more wary of — if not downright hostile to — Islam and its migrants than their Western counterparts.

Europe: Ramadan Roundup, 2018

In London, Southwark Cathedral hosted an iftar dinner — a meal after sunset during the month of Ramadan — as part of the program of events to mark the anniversary of the London Bridge attack. (Garry Knight/Wikimedia Commons)

Gatestone, by Soeren Kern, 

  • In France, the government, which previously vowed to reduce foreign influences on the practice of Islam in the country, approved visas for 300 imams from Algeria and Morocco to lead Ramadan services in French mosques.
  • “Every message, no matter how poisonous the message is, should have the right to be expressed.” — Ahmed Aboutaleb, Mayor of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  • “The Turkish minister of foreign affairs tried to teach me a lesson about my Islamic identity. It is going too far if a foreign state, which is far away, tries to teach the mayor of Rotterdam about Dutch law and how I should apply it.” — Ahmed Aboutaleb, Mayor of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Muslims across Europe are marking the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month, which in 2018 was observed between May 17 and June 15, in accordance with the Islamic lunar calendar.

Ramadan, a major topic for public discussion in Europe this year, received considerable media coverage, a reflection of Islam’s rising influence.

Muslim leaders sought to leverage the media attention to showcase Ramadan — a time when Muslims abstain from eating and drinking between sunrise and sunset, to commemorate, according to Islamic tradition, the revelation of the Quran to Mohammed — as the peaceful nature of Islam in Europe.

European multiculturalists, normally strict enforcers of secularism when it comes to Christianity, made great efforts to draw up guidelines, issue instructions and carve out special privileges to ensure that Muslims were not offended by non-Muslims during the festival.

Breaking with the past, however, a growing number of European politicians publicly spoke out against Ramadan, especially regarding the adverse effects of prolonged fasting on school-aged children. The backlash, evidenced by the emergence of politically incorrect political parties in Europe, appears to reflect a growing wariness of runaway multiculturalism and the steady erosion of Western values.

Following is a brief summary of a few Ramadan-related occurrences in several European countries:

In Austria, the Secretary General of the Austrian People’s Party, Karl Nehammer, called for a ban on fasting for school-age children. He said that he had received “innumerable” reports from teachers about the welfare of children during Ramadan. “If religious rituals, regardless of religion, endanger the health of children, this is clearly going too far,” Nehammer said. “If religion is placed above the welfare of the child, that must stop.”

The Islamic Religious Community in Austria (Islamischen Glaubensgemeinschaft in Österreich, IGGiÖaccused Nehammer of trying to “ban” Ramadan. IGGiÖ spokeswoman Carla Amina Baghajati described Nehammer’s comments as “offensive and humiliating” and, in a twist of logic, claimed that Nehammer was actually pushing Muslim children toward Islamic fundamentalism:

“This leads to a dangerous alienation in society. Children and adolescents especially feel this enemy policy. They are in danger of deliberately turning away from local society and becoming even more susceptible to radical ideas.”

Peter Kusstatscher, director of HTL Villach, the largest school in Austria, said that Ramadan itself was radicalizing some Muslim students: “You now notice how they radicalize themselves in the subject matter of Islam and radically live out their beliefs.” He described an incident where a Muslim student insulted a female classmate because she was wearing make-up during Ramadan. “Of course, we intervened because this was not about showing tolerance towards a religious community,” he said.

In Belgium, Saint John’s Catholic church in Brussels hosted an iftar dinner — a meal after sunset during the month of Ramadan. “What we are doing tonight is an extraordinary symbol of the power that comes from common initiatives like this,” said Catholic priest Jacques Hanon. “We want to show a strength that lies in responding to setbacks, fears, violence, hatred and discrimination together.”

The chairman of the Islamic communities in Brussels, Lahcen Hammouche, said:

“We have chosen this moment of the holy month of Ramadan, the month of sharing and forgiveness, to celebrate and share with churches of all faiths and all cultures, to show that Muslims are not all terrorists and that we are all capable and must have a good coexistence among religions and other philosophies.”

Hammouche did not say whether Belgian mosques would reciprocate by celebrating Christian holidays at their facilities.

In Cyprus, the Department of Public Works announced that it had fast-tracked the taxpayer-funded renovation of a mosque in Paphos so that it would be available for use during Ramadan:

“Despite delays in the project, the Department of Public Works, respecting the request of the Muslim community to secure a comfortable and safe site in order for them to exercise their religious rights and given that it was not possible to find another site managed to get the contractor to go ahead with construction work in the mosque so that it may be completed and used with safety during Ramadan.”

In Denmark, Integration Minister Inger Støjberg called on practicing Muslims to take a vacation during Ramadan to avoid negatively impacting the rest of society. In an opinion article published by the Danish newspaper BT, she wrote:

“We must address the problems that Ramadan presents us in the present. Undeniably, the demands of a modern and efficient society such as that of Denmark are quite different from those in Mecca during the time of Mohammed….

“It can be very dangerous for all of us if the bus driver neither eats nor drinks during the whole day, and of course one does not perform at the same level at the factory or at the hospital if you do not eat and drink during daylight hours for a whole month.

“I respect that Muslims want to practice their religion and traditions, but I think religion is a private matter and that it is necessary for us to ensure that it does not become a social issue. I do not want to deprive Danish Muslims of the opportunity to cultivate their religion and religious holidays, but I would encourage them to go on vacation during the month of Ramadan so that it does not adversely affect the rest of the Danish society.”

In France, the government, which previously vowed to reduce foreign influences on the practice of Islam in the country, approved visas for 300 imams from Algeria and Morocco to lead Ramadan services in French mosques. The move sparked a backlash from across the political spectrum. “To ask Algeria and Morocco to send us imams during the month of Ramadan is unacceptable,” said the former Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who has pledged to “cut all bridges” between Muslims in France and “third countries.”

The leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, said that “it is unacceptable that the Ministry of the Interior organizes the arrival of 300 foreign imams in our country for Ramadan; it is a violation of the principle of secularism (laïcité).” Her former ally in the 2017 presidential race, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, demanded that foreign imams be required to swear an “oath of loyalty to France and the Republic.”

Elsewhere in France, in Chambourcy, the managers of a Carrefour hypermarket complied with Muslim demands to remove Israeli dates from the store’s “Ramadan department.” Customers complained that the presence of Israeli products was “an affront to Muslim customers.”

Europe 1 radio reported that Ramadan was a “commercial bonanza” for French retailers. Mimoun Ennebati, the head of a French Muslim association, said that “a priori, large distributors do not want to offend a certain clientele” during Ramadan. He estimated that practicing Muslims increase their spending by 30% during the month of Ramadan.

Meanwhile, in Mantes-la-Jolie, a suburb of Paris, a 42-year-old man was charged with manslaughter after shaking his five-month-old daughter to death. The man, confessing to the crime, said: “I was observing Ramadan and without eating, my nerves were on edge.”

In Germany, Martin Sichert, a lawmaker from the anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), called for Muslim doctors, nurses, pilots, bus and train drivers to be banned from working during Ramadan if they are fasting. “What patient should have to be operated on by a surgeon who has not had anything to drink for 12 hours?” asked Sichert, a member of the parliamentary committee for labor and social issues. “Why should people have to be transported around by other people who might face concentration problems and dehydration because they have been fasting for hours?”

Family Minister Franziska Giffey warned that “strict interpretations” about fasting were having an adverse impact on Muslim students: “Children need to drink and eat regularly, otherwise they can no longer pay attention in class or work together in physical education.” She also said there was growing peer pressure to observe the fast during Ramadan: “There should be no discrimination, no matter if someone is fasting or not.”

Heinz-Peter Meidinger, president of the German Teachers Union (Deutsche Lehrerverband), expressed concern that “a lot of students now take the fast very seriously.” He complained that Muslim parents increasingly were pressuring teachers to reschedule exams until after Ramadan. This delay, he said, was having a negative impact on non-Muslim students.

In Landshut, Bavaria, Christian politicians and clergy walked out of an inter-cultural Ramadan festival after Quranic verses were sung in Arabic, rather than in German, as initially promised. “Singing the Quran in Arabic is incompatible with the goals of successful integration,” said Thomas Haslinger, the district chairman of the Christian Social Union in Landshut.

Meanwhile, Deutschlandfunk, a German public radio station, in a segment about Ramadan, claimed that “Ramadan is an old German custom that has been around here longer than Oktoberfest.” Author Eren Güvercin added: “Islamic religious practice has long since found its home in Germany. And we German Muslims are looking forward to Ramadan in our Germany. Nobody can deny that to us.”

In Greece, hundreds of Arab and Kurdish asylum seekers clashed in a dispute over the Ramadan fast at the Moria Refugee Camp, on the island of Lesbos. Mohammed Khalil, a 19-year-old Kurdish migrant from Syria explained: “The fight began when some Arab youths started to fight with Kurds over fasting…. Some Arabs from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Algeria came and said Rojava [Syrian Kurdistan] Kurds are infidels and are not allowed to fast. Then the fight started. The refugee Arabs left and later returned with reinforcements. A bloody fight ensued.”

In Iceland, where the sun at this time of the year rises at 3am and sets at midnight, Muslims observed the Ramadan fast according to Mecca time, where the sun sets at around 7pm, to avoid having to fast for 20 hours or more. Ahmad Seddeeq, an imam at the Islamic cultural center of Iceland who is originally from Egypt, said it was easier to fast in a cool climate: “I have done this for years, and I find it more difficult in my country, where it is 40 to 45 degrees Celsius (104-113F).”

Read more

Andrew C. McCarthy on Russiagate, Clinton-Trump Investigation Double Standards, Mueller’s Mandate, DOJ-FBI-CIA Politicization (Part II)

My Guest

Andrew C. McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) is senior fellow at the National Review Institute, contributing editor of National Review and author most recently of essential books on the threat of Islamic supremacism including Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the JihadThe Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America and Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

In Part II of my in-depth interview with Andy, we discussed Russiagate, the pervasive unethical and at times lawless behavior of law enforcement and the intelligence community with respect to Donald Trump and Russia versus Hillary Clinton and her e-mail server, the apparently limitless mandate of Robert Mueller’s special counsel, obstruction of justice and much more.

If you missed Part I of my conversation with Andy on his experience prosecuting the jihadist mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack and what it taught him about the Islamic supremacist threat America faces, the primacy of religion and why Islamic supremacists choose jihadist savagery over assimilation, willful blindness in American national security and foreign policy, folly in American foreign affairs from Syria to Libya, and the imperative to collapse the Khomeinist Iranian regime, be sure to catch up here.

What We Discussed

  • Russia’s historical attempts to “interfere” with U.S. elections, and its imperceptible impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential vote
  • McCarthy’s dissection of the double standard in the DOJ/FBI’s handling of its investigation of Hillary Clinton versus that of Donald Trump, and the unwillingness to bring Clinton to justice over Clinton Foundation impropriety if not worse and destruction of State Department emails
  • Former FBI Director James Comey’s monumental error in testimony on the counter-intelligence investigation implicating the Trump campaign that ultimately served as the basis for Robert Mueller’s special counsel
  • Mueller’s limitless special counsel mandate and brazen tactics against Paul Manafort
  • Politicization of law enforcement and the intelligence apparatus, and its detrimental long-term impact on American national security
  • How to root out corruption in the FBI, CIA and DOJ, and the suspicious if not lawless acts of Obama DNI Chief James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan
  • The disingenuous nature of the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian meddling in the 2016 election
  • The double standard in the treatment of Paul Manafort versus Hillary Clinton and her email server
  • McCarthy’s obliteration of the obstruction of justice theory
  • President Obama’s involvement in Russiagate

Full Transcript (go there for the audio also)

Also see McCarthy’s article at NRO yesterday: 

From 9/11 to Spygate: The National Security Deep State

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 14, 2018:

On September 4, 2001, Robert Mueller took over the FBI. At his confirmation hearings, fraud had overshadowed discussions of terrorism. And as FBI Director, Mueller quickly diverged from the common understanding that the attacks that killed 3,000 people had been an act of war rather than a crime.

In 2008, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who had been unleashed from Guantanamo Bay, carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq. Al-Ajmi had been represented by Thomas Wilner who was being paid by the Kuwaiti government.

Wilner was a pal of Robert Mueller. And when the families were having dinner together, Mueller got up and said, “I want to toast Tom Wilner. He’s doing just what an American lawyer should do.”

“I don’t know what he was doing from inside the government. I’d like to find out,” Wilner mused.

We know some of what Mueller was doing. The same official who paved the way for raiding the president’s lawyer, who illegally seized material from the Trump transition team and whose case is based in no small part on illegal eavesdropping, fought alongside Comey against surveilling terrorists. Materials involving the Muslim Brotherhood were purged. Toward the dawn of the second Obama term, Mueller met with CAIR and other Islamist groups and a green curtain fell over national security.

But the surveillance wasn’t going anywhere. Instead it was being redirected to new targets.

Those targets were not, despite the wave of hysterical conspiracy theories convulsing the media, the Russians. Mueller’s boss was still quite fond of them. Barack Obama did have foreign enemies that he wanted to spy on. And there were plenty of domestic enemies who could be caught up in that trap.

By his second term, the amateur was coming to understand the incredible surveillance powers at his disposal and how they could be used to spy on Americans under the pretext of fighting foreign threats.

Two birds. One stone.

While the Mueller purge was going on, Obama was pushing talks with Iran. There was one obstacle and it wasn’t Russia. The Russians were eager to play Obama with a fake nuke deal. It was the Israelis who were the problem. And it was the Israelis who were being spied on by Obama’s surveillance regime.

But it wasn’t just the Israelis.

Iran was Obama’s big shot at a foreign policy legacy. As the year dragged on, it was becoming clear that the Arab Spring wouldn’t be anything he would want to be remembered for. By the time Benghazi went from a humanitarian rescue operation to one of the worst disasters of the term, it was clearly over.

Obama was worried that the Israelis would launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. And the surveillance and media leaks were meant to dissuade the Israelis from scuttling his legacy. But he was also worried about Netanyahu’s ability to persuade American Jews and members of Congress to oppose his nuclear sellout. And that was where the surveillance leapfrogged from foreign to domestic.

The NSA intercepted communications between Israelis and Americans, including members of Congress, and then passed the material along to the White House. Despite worries by some officials that “that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress”, the White House “believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign.”

The precedent was even more troubling than it seemed.

Obama Inc. had defined its position in an unresolved political debate between the White House and Congress as the national interest. And had winkingly authorized surveillance on Congress to protect this policy in a domestic political debate. That precedent would then be used to spy on members of the Trump transition team and to force out Trump’s national security adviser.

National security had become indistinguishable from the agenda of the administration. And that agenda, like the rest of Obama’s unilateral policies, was enshrined as permanent. Instead of President Trump gaining the same powers, his opposition to that agenda was treated as a national security threat.

And once Obama was out of office, Comey and other Obama appointees would protect that agenda.

We still don’t know the full scope of Spygate. But media reports have suggested that Obama officials targeted countries opposed to the Iran sellout, most prominently Israel and the UAE, and then eavesdropped on meetings between them and between figures on the Trump team.

Obama had begun his initial spying as a way of gaining inside information on Netanyahu’s campaign against the Iran deal. But the close election and its aftermath significantly escalated what had been a mere Watergate into an active effort to not only spy, but pursue criminal charges against the political opposition. The surveillance state had inevitably moved on to the next stage, the police state with its informants, dossiers, pre-dawn raids, state’s witnesses, entrapments and still more surveillance.

And the police state requires cops. Someone had to do the dirty work for Susan Rice.

Comey, Mueller and the other cops had likely been complicit in the administration’s abuses. Somewhere along the way, they had become the guys watching over the Watergate burglars. Spying on the political opposition is, short of spying for the enemy, the most serious crime that such men can commit.

Why then was it committed?

To understand that, we have to go back to 9/11. Those days may seem distant now, but the attacks offered a crossroads. One road led to a war against our enemies. The other to minimizing the conflict.

President George W. Bush tried to fight that war, but he was undermined by men like Mueller and Comey. Their view of the war was the same as that of their future boss, not their current one, certainly not the view as the man currently sitting in the White House whom they have tried to destroy.

Every lie has some truth in it. Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty, his frequent claims of allegiance to American ideals, are true, as he sees it, if not as he tells it. Men like Comey and Mueller believed that the real threat came not from Islamic terrorists, but from our overreaction to them. They believed that Bush was a threat. And Trump was the worst threat imaginable who had to be stopped by any means.

What Comey and Mueller are loyal to is the established way of doing things. And they conflate that with our national ideals, as establishment thugs usually do. Neither of them are unique. Washington D.C. is filled with men and women who are registered Republicans, who believe in lowering taxes, who frown at the extremities of identity politics, but whose true faith is in the natural order of government.

Mueller and Comey represent a class. And Obama and Clinton were easily able to corrupt and seduce that class into abandoning its duties and oaths, into serving as its deep state against domestic foes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? It’s the old question of who watches the watchmen that no society has found a good answer to. And the answer is inevitably that the watchers, watch themselves and everyone else. What began as national security measures against Islamic terrorism was twisted by Obama and his deep state allies into the surveillance of the very people fighting Islamic terrorism.

Spygate was the warped afterbirth of our failure to meaningfully confront Islamic terrorism. Instead, the political allies of the terrorists and the failed watchmen who allowed them to strike so many times, got together to shoot the messengers warning about the terror threat. The problem had never been the lack of power, but the lack of will and the lack of integrity in an establishment unwilling to do its job.

After 9/11, extraordinary national security powers were brought into being to fight Islamic terror. Instead those powers were used to suppress those who told the truth about Islamic terrorism.

***

France in shock: Islamist rapper to give shows in theatre where 90 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists

Tribute to victims of the Nov. 13, 2015 terrorist attack in Paris at the Bataclan – Photo: Frederic Legrand – COMEO

Voice of America, By ABDELHAMID KADDOUR, June 11, 2018:

Medine, a 37-year-old openly Islamist rapper, will play in Paris’s theatre, Bataclan, the place where 89 people were killed by Islamist terrorist, the Huffington Post France reports.  

The controversial rapper, who made the album “jihad”, produces songs with lyrics like “Crucify the secularists (…) I put fatwas on the head of herks”.

Besides his Islamist and jihad promoting songs, Medine is following the teaching of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder’s grandson, Tariq Ramadan.

After the people of France heard that Medine will rap at the place where one of the most horrific Islamist attacks happened, it immediately became a political issue.

While right-wing politicians and the victim’s families wanted him to play in another place, liberals and far-left politicians support the controversial rapper.

“No French person can accept that this guy goes pour his filth at the same place where the carnage took place”, Marine le Pen twittered yesterday.

Far-left politicians such as Daniel Obono,  a deputy of party “La France Insoumise”, fully backs Medine. “It doesn’t shocks me, it’s just an artist who play at the Bataclan”, she said to BFMTV this morning.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time a Muslim-friendly artist played in there since the massacres took place. Just one year after the Bataclan’s attacks, Sting sung “Inshallah”, a title dedicated to refugees.