Islamic Operatives Use Soviet Tactics to Target Conservatives

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 9, 2018:

The Islamic Movement in the United States manifests primarily as an espionage and counterintelligence threat, not merely as a “terrorist” threat.

When operatives in the Islamic Movement meet with police chiefs, elected officials, FBI Directors, business leaders, Pastors, Rabbis and others, they portray themselves as friendly, but they are working to recruit and use them, much as U.S. government counterintelligence operatives recruit foreign assets.

These jihadi operations may take months or years to develop, but the benefits of having an influential American official working for jihadis is a major victory for the Islamic Movement.

Examples of successful penetration operations include:

President Clinton’s Islamic Advisor Abdurahman Alamoudi, who created the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Department of Defense and met with Mr. Clinton more than any other muslim in America, was an Al Qaeda financier who is now in federal prison.

Senator Richard Durbin’s go-to guy for all things Islamic prior to his hearing on the civil rights of muslims in America was Mohamed Magid and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  Magid was the leader of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which was identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and a financial support arm for Hamas leaders and Hamas groups overseas.

The Islamic Movement also identifies conservative threats to their Movement and targets them for destruction, ensuring they lose their influence.

When Irving, Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne publicly decried the Sharia Courts in Irving, she was targeted by muslim leaders.  Several months later the Clock Boy Operation was launched against her.  Democrats attacked her for her “civil rights” failures in the incident, and Republicans called for a review of the zero tolerance policy in incidents of this nature.  Mayor Van Duyne was left standing alone as Islamic leaders planned.

Most Patriots aware of Milwaukee’s Sheriff David Clarke were drawn to him for his outspoken call for law and order, strong stance on national defense, and for boldly stating America needs to police muslim communities.

Sheriff Clarke was also considered for positions inside the Trump Administration.

In walks Hedieh Mirahmadi.  A classic honey trap.

Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi grew up a shia muslim of Iranian decent who later converted to sunni Islam.  Mirahmadi is an attorney with a degree in Islamic doctrine from the As-Sunna Foundation.  She is the founder of the World Organization for Resource and Development and Education (WORDE), and the former Secretary General of the Islamic Supreme Council of America.

Red flags about Ms. Mirahmadi include her close working relationships with Muslim Brotherhood organizations and leaders like Salam al Marayati, participation in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative, and the fact she publishes articles about Islamic doctrine (sharia) that are patently false despite the fact she has a degree in the subject.

Most notably, Ms. Mirahmadi works with federal agencies and police organizations around the United States to discuss “extremism” and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Yet, none of the groups with whom she works have demonstrated any level of understanding of the jihadi’s doctrine – sharia – nor the Muslim Brotherhood network and their modus operandi.

In fact, the agencies with which Mirahmadi work, have a completely counter-factual understanding of sharia and the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, the Islamic Movement targeted Sheriff David Clarke and sent Mirahmadi in.  To demonstrate the effectiveness of this operation, UTT offers the following:

Sheriff Clarke went from calling for police to patrol muslim neighborhoods 18 months ago to recently calling people on social media speaking truth about Islam “racists.”

When articles written by investigative journalist Laura Loomer were published a year ago about Hedieh Mirahmadi’s questionable background, Sheriff Clarke publicly attacked and mocked Loomer.

This week Sheriff David Clarke admitted he was duped, and openly stated Hedieh Mirahmadi is a Muslim Brotherhood operative.

The lesson for everyone reading this article is that David Clarke is one of many Patriots who have been duped by Muslim Brotherhood operatives acting on behalf of our Islamic foes, even if they are not intentionally doing so.

Twenty years Abdurahman Alamoudi was the “pillar of the Islamic community in Washington, D.C.” and turned out to be an Al Qaeda operative.

After 9/11, Anwar al Awlaki was considered the “new face of Islam in America” and gave presentations at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, but turned out to be an Al Qaeda operative killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

In 2005, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office Mike Rolince gave Mohamed Magid an award, and in 2016 FBI Director James Comey presented Magid with the FBI Director’s Award.

Mohamed Magid was the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), identified by the Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood organization which seeks to overthrow the U.S. government and establish an Islamic State.  Evidence entered into the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v HLF, Northern District of Texas, 2008) reveals ISNA provides financial support to Hamas organizations and Hamas leaders overseas.

Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization.

The threat from the Islamic Movement in the United States manifests itself primarily as an espionage and counterintelligence threat, not merely as a “terrorist” threat.

It is high time the U.S. government treats Islamic spies working to destroy America the same way it treated the Rosenbergs.

11 Quick Things To Know About The Inspector General’s Report

Photo DoD photo by Cherie Cullen

The Justice Department inspector general report about the FBI reveals a shocking anti-Trump, pro-Hillary bias endemic to the agency’s related investigations.

The Federalist, by Mollie Hemingway, June 15, 2018:

On Thursday, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a long-anticipated report on the FBI’s handling of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server that handled classified information. Here are some quick takeaways from the report.

1. Learn How To Interpret An IG Report

The best way to understand an inspector general (IG) report is less as a fiercely independent investigation that seeks justice and more like what you’d expect from a company’s human resources department. Employees frequently think that a company’s human resources department exists to serve employees. There’s some truth in that, but it’s more true that the human resources department exists to serve the corporation.

At the end of the day, the HR department wants what’s best for the company. The FBI’s IG Michael Horowitz has a good reputation for good reason. But his report is in support of the FBI and its policies and procedures. As such, the findings will be focused on helping the FBI improve its adherence to those policies and procedures. Those who expected demands for justice in the face of widespread evidence of political bias and poor judgment by immature agents and executives were people unfamiliar with the purpose of IG reports.

The IG is also a government bureaucrat producing government products that are supposed to be calm and boring. In the previous report that led to Andrew McCabe’s firing as deputy director of the FBI and referral for criminal prosecution, his serial lying under oath was dryly phrased as “lack of candor.” In this report detailing widespread problems riddled throughout the Clinton email probe, the language is similarly downplayed. That’s particularly true in the executive summary, which attempts to downplay the actual details that fill the report with evidence of poor decision-making, extreme political bias, and problematic patterns of behavior.

2. FBI Agent Who Led Both The Clinton and Trump Probes Promised He’d Prevent Trump’s Election

Such as this one! On page 420, the IG says that the conduct of five FBI employees who were caught talking about their extreme political bias in the context of their duties “has brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.” The Midyear investigation was the code for the Clinton probe. Or note this blistering passage:

[W]hen one senior FBI official, [Peter] Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, [Lisa] Page, that ‘we’ll stop’ candidate Trump from being elected—after other extensive text messages between the two disparaging candidate Trump—it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

The report goes on to say that the text messages and Strzok’s decision to prioritize the counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign over the Clinton email criminal investigation “led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

This text is not just interesting because the FBI’s deputy head of the counterintelligence division who was investigating a major-party candidate told the woman he was cheating on his wife with that “we” would stop the candidate from becoming president. It’s also interesting because this text was hidden from congressional committees performing oversight of the FBI.

3. Comey Mishandled The Clinton Probe In Multiple Ways

It’s worth re-reading Acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 9, 2017, recommendation that James Comey be fired as FBI director. He cited Comey’s usurpation of the attorney general’s authority in his press conference announcing that Clinton’s case would be closed without prosecution, the release of derogatory information about Clinton despite the decision to not indict her, and Comey’s letter to Congress announcing the FBI had reopened a probe against Clinton.

The IG backs up each and every one of those critiques, and adds much more detail to them.

We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.

The IG said Comey violated longstanding department practice to avoid “trashing people we’re not charging.” He also inadequately and incompletely explained how Justice prosecutors came to make decisions. “Many of the problems with the statement resulted from Comey’s failure to coordinate with Department officials,” the IG wrote. Had he talked with them, they would have warned him about the problems his statement posed. What’s more, the prosecutors had a very different understanding of why they were declining to charge Clinton than the one Comey claimed they had in his public press conference.

Comey also violated departmental practice in announcing publicly he reopened the probe after additional relevant emails were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Both of these decisions were controversial inside and outside the agency.

4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird

The 568-page report includes many examples of Comey being duplicitous and sneaky during his handling of the Clinton email probe. For instance, he asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch how to handle questions regarding the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information on a secret server. She told him to call it a “matter.” He didn’t object and even complied.

But a year later, the conversation was leaked to The New York Times in a story that painted Comey as a non-partisan truth-teller beset by both Democrats and Republicans. Daniel Richman, the same man who was used to leak Comey’s anti-Trump memos, was a source for the anti-Lynch story.

Comey threatened to appoint a special counsel in the Clinton probe if Justice officials didn’t help him get what he wanted. He bizarrely claimed he was going to announce he’d make no recommendation on the Clinton email probe. He decided he was going to make a solo announcement trashing Clinton while announcing she was not being charged, but let the Justice Department think they would be making a statement together:

Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions.

He claimed that he didn’t grasp the significance of the hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails being found on Weiner’s computer because he didn’t know that Weiner was married to Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Beyond being too ridiculous to believe, the claim is hardly exonerating. It would mean he was not interested to learn that hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails relevant to a highly charged criminal investigation were found on the laptop of an unrelated man.

Comey asked Justice officials for feedback on his decisions but did so through assistants, suggesting he viewed any feedback as a dangerous encroachment on his decision-making.

“We asked Comey why he asked for the Department’s feedback and then ignored the feedback that he received,” the IG wrote. Later, “Both Lynch and [Deputy Attorney General Sally] Yates explained that they were concerned that any direct discussion with Comey—particularly any discussion in which they told him not to send the letter—would be perceived as an attempt to prevent him from fulfilling his ‘personal ethical obligation’ to notify Congress. Both stated that they were concerned that the fact of any such direct discussions would leak and would be portrayed as Department leadership attempting to ‘prevent information damaging to a candidate from coming out’ (Lynch) or ‘strong-arming’ Comey (Yates).”

5. FBI Has A Massive Leak Problem And Is Doing Nothing About It

As mentioned, both Lynch and Yates were worried that performing legitimate oversight of Comey would be leaked against them to the media. Fear of leaks was also mentioned by many top FBI officials as a major reason that the Southern District of New York was able to force the FBI to reopen the Clinton probe.

“We have profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized media contacts by FBI personnel that we have uncovered during our review,” the report stated. Two attachments were included showing rampant discussions with reportersby people not authorized to be talking to reporters. One FBI executive was caught having had 26 conversations with one reporter and seven conversations with another reporter. They even created charts to help show how rampant the conversations were:

The report showed myriad FBI employees violating FBI policy and department ethics rules.

FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from journalists, went on golfing outings with media representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work by reporters, and were the guests of journalists at nonpublic social events.

The IG said the leaks were difficult to track down because of how many people had access to classified and non-public information. The IG also said the culture of widespread leaking made it difficult to crack down:

Second, although FBI policy strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media, we found that this policy appeared to be widely ignored during the period we reviewed. We identified numerous FBI employees, at all levels of the organization and with no official reason to be in contact with the media, who were nevertheless in frequent contact with reporters. The large number of FBI employees who were in contact with journalists during this time period impacted our ability to identify the sources of leaks.

6. FBI Almost Got Away With Ignoring Clinton Emails On Weiner Laptop

In September 2016, when an investigator in the Southern District of New York found hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails and Blackberry messages on a laptop being searched in relation to an investigation of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, he immediately alerted his supervisors. They alerted the FBI, who sat on the information for weeks, only acting after the New York office complained repeatedly.

By October 3, the case agent assigned to the Weiner investigation expressed concern that the FBI appeared to be sitting on what he’d told them. Later he told the IG:

The crickets I was hearing was really making me uncomfortable because something was going to come crashing down…. And my understanding, which is uninformed because…I didn’t work the Hillary Clinton matter. My understanding at the time was I am telling you people I have private Hillary Clinton emails, number one, and BlackBerry messages, number two. I’m telling you that we have potentially 10 times the volume that Director Comey said we had on the record. Why isn’t anybody here? Like, if I’m the supervisor of any CI squad in Seattle and I hear about this, I’m getting on with headquarters and saying, hey, some agent working child porn here may have [Hillary Clinton] emails. Get your -ss on the phone, call [the case agent], and get a copy of that drive, because that’s how you should be. And that nobody reached out to me within, like, that night, I still to this day I don’t understand what the hell went wrong.

And I told her, I’m a little scared here. I don’t know what to do because I’m not political. Like I don’t care who wins this election, but this is going to make us look really, really horrible. And it could ruin this case, too. And…I said the thing that also bothers me is that Comey’s testimony is inaccurate. And as a big admirer of the guy, and I think he’s a straight shooter, I wanted to, I felt like he needed to know, like, we got this. And I didn’t know if he did.

Although all the relevant information was given to the FBI by September 29, they came back to the agent weeks later to ask questions he’d repeatedly answered. But the FBI agents claimed that the information they learned in late October was new to them. The IG says this is not true: “By no later than September 29, the FBI had learned virtually every fact that was cited by the FBI in late October as justification for obtaining the search warrant for the Weiner laptop.”

The FBI claimed that they didn’t take action on the laptop because “1. The FBI Midyear team was waiting for additional information about the contents of the laptop from NYO, which was not provided until late October. 2. The FBI Midyear team could not review the emails without additional legal authority, such as consent or a new search warrant. 3. The FBI Midyear team and senior FBI officials did not believe that the information on the laptop was likely to be significant. 4. Key members of the FBI Midyear team had been reassigned to the investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. election, which was a higher priority.”

The IG said these excuses were hogwash, saying that the first was “unpersuasive,” the second “illogical,” the third “inconsistent” and “insufficient,” and the fourth “unpersuasive and concerning.” The overarching feeling of the report is that the FBI leaders who handled both the Clinton and Trump probes worked very hard to pretend the Weiner incident didn’t happen, only being forced by the New York office’s insistence that protocol be followed.

7. Breathtaking Bias

Some FBI defenders latched onto the IG’s claim that he “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific
investigative decisions we reviewed.” All that means is that none of the politically biased texts specifically said political bias was leading them to make certain decisions. Of course, that would be a weird thing to find in any case.

What the investigators found, however, was breathtaking anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias from five of the key employees handling the Clinton email probe. No evidence was found of pro-Trump bias. And this evidence of profound bias is only for those who were foolish enough to record their extreme views. The IG also apparently had no texts from Justice Department officials, perhaps because Justice didn’t preserve them.

The texts range from vile insults of Trump and his supporters to fears about how awful a Trump presidency would be and the need to prevent it. One employee said Trump voters were “all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer discussed feeling “numb” by Trump’s November 2016 election win, later proclaiming “Viva le Resistance” when asked about Trump.

Strzok wrote in July 2016, “Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be.” After the election, Page wrote that she’d bought “All the President’s Men,” adding, “Figure I needed to brush up on watergate.” The two openly fantasize about impeachment.

In the preparation to interview Clinton as part of the criminal probe, Page tells a handful of her colleagues to take it easy on Clinton. “One more thing: she might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear.”

After each text exchange, the IG report includes defenses from the agents, some even harder to believe than the previous:

August 8, 2016: In a text message on August 8, 2016, Page stated, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, ‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.’ When asked about this text message, Strzok stated that he did not specifically recall sending it, but that he believed that it was intended to reassure Page that Trump would not be elected, not to suggest that he would do something to impact the investigation.

Sure, hoss.

All five of the FBI employees were referred back to the FBI for disciplinary action.

8. Clinton Got Breaks, But Some Backfired

While Comey harmed Clinton with how he handled his public announcements about her case, the IG report paints an investigation that was overall quite favorable toward her and her associates. During the Robert Mueller investigation, the federal government has played hardball with Trump associates, ringing them up on false statement charges, raiding their offices, arresting them without warning, and encroaching on attorney-client relationships. For Clinton, a much different approach was taken.

To take just one example, look at the case of Paul Combetta, an employee who handled the migration of Clinton’s email accounts across servers then later deleted the emails. Clinton probe members were sure he was lying about the deletion of the emails in violation of a congressional preservation order. In repeated interviews, he claimed he didn’t delete her emails.

The agents had an email where he talked about the “Hilary coverup operation.” They decided that wasn’t a big deal. One agent said he believed Combetta should have been charged with “false statements for lying multiple times.” But overall they decided it was just so confusing, that the failure to tell the truth was “largely due to a lack of sophistication and poor legal representation.” They gave him immunity, and he started singing. He admitted deleting the emails “despite his awareness of Congress’s preservation order and his understanding that the order meant that ‘he should not disturb Clinton’s email data on the PRN server.’” Sounds nice.

It seems likely that Clinton’s handling of classified information on a secret server, and the FBI’s investigation of it, caused her problems during the 2016 election. But it’s also interesting how the efforts by many to help Clinton kept backfiring. More than anything, there is a lack of confidence that political considerations were absent from the decision to let Clinton skate.

President Obama gave interviews where he stated that Clinton didn’t have intent to harm national security, a talking point later carried by Comey himself. Even before Comey followed Obama’s lead, observers worried that Obama was giving guidance as opposed to offering his opinion. An Obama White House spokesman said he knew Clinton was not a “target” of the investigation, suggesting he had insider knowledge. The FBI claimed he didn’t have insider knowledge.

When the New York office told the FBI about Weiner’s laptop, it appears that the FBI tried to run out the election clock before dealing with it. It would have worked, too, if the New York office hadn’t pushed the matter right before the election — the absolute worst time to deal with a reopening of the investigation.

9. Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme

The IG found that Obama was “one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail[.]com account.”

In fact, Clinton used her private email for “an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary,” a move that led investigators to believe hostile actors had likely gained access to her server. But a paragraph in a draft of Comey’s exoneration of Clinton was changed from Obama to “another senior government official,” and later deleted.

Obama had falsely told reporters he didn’t know of Clinton’s private email system.

10. FBI Agent Joked Clinton Associate Who Lied Would Never Be Charged, Questioned Legitimacy Of Investigation

FBI agents discussed how a witness who obviously lied to them about the Clinton probe would never be charged:

FBI Employee: ‘boom…how did the [witness] go’
Agent 1: ‘Awesome. Lied his -ss off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,’
FBI Employee: ‘would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal’
Agent 1: ‘I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax – aint noone gonna do sh-t’

That same agent also openly discussed political considerations affecting the Clinton probe. The IG gave a few examples:

January 15, 2016: Responding to a question of when the investigation would be finished, Agent 1 stated, ‘[M]y guess is March. Doesnt matter what we have, political winds will want to beat the Primarys.’
January 28, 2016: ‘…The case is the same is all of them. Alot of work and bullsh-t for a political exercise.’
February 1, 2016: ‘…Its primary season – so we’re being dictated to now….’
February 1, 2016: ‘This is the biggest political sh-t show of them all. No substance. Up at dawn – pride swallowing seige. No headset and hermetically sealed in SIOC.’
February 2, 2016: Responding to a question about how the investigation was going, ‘Going well…. Busy, and sometimes I feel for naught (political exercise), but I feel good….’
May 6, 2016, to Agent 5: ‘pretty bad news today…someone has breathed some political urgency into this…. Everyday DD brief and once a week D brief from now on.’

11. FBI’s Insulting Response

FBI Director Christopher Wray gave a press conference in front of a compliant press corps where he said, “nothing in this report impugns the integrity of our workforce as a whole or the FBI as an institution.” In fact, the report paints a picture of an FBI with a problematic culture.

It’s not just Comey’s usurpation of authority and failure to comply with practices. Multiple people were involved in his condemned decisions. Others were cited for bad judgement in recusal decisions or failure to adhere to recusals. Political bias was rampant in the team of people who handled both the Clinton and Trump email probes. So were leaks, accepting gifts from reporters, incompetence, and other problems.

Instead, Wray issued a strawman defense of employees, bragged about the high number of applicants to the agency, and talked about the low percentage of recruits who were accepted.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
***

***

***

Also see:

Islam’s Conquest of America One Town at a Time

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, June 5, 2017:

From Minneapolis (MN) to Hamtramck (MI) to Falls Church (VA) to Paterson (NJ) and many other towns and cities across the fifty states, the Islamic Movement is quietly conquering America.

The federal government sleeps, many state governments – including those controlled by Republicans – do their best to accommodate muslims waging Civilization Jihad against America, and the hard-left Marxists – including nearly all of the local and national media – are collaborators in the enemy’s efforts.

As UTT has previously reported, Minneapolis, Minnesota is currently enemy-held territory and will require force to take back.

Somali Muslims in Minneapolis

Hamtramck, Michigan is a small suburb of Detroitistan, and is the first town in America to have a majority muslim city council.  This formerly Polish-Catholic town has been overrun by sharia-adherent muslims who have already achieved accommodations for sharia in the community.

Falls Church, Virginia is home to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center.  The Muslim Brotherhood leader of Dar al Hijra, Sheikh Shaker Elsayed (former President of the MB’s Muslim American Society), recently gave a lecture promoting female genital mutilation.  Dar al Hijra is a jihadi factory whose property is owned by the MB’s bank NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).

Al Qaeda’s Anwar al Awlaki was the Imam of the Dar al Hijra beginning in January 2001 and serving for over a year there.

The community around Dar al Hijra has been taken over by sharia-adherent muslims.  Law enforcement calls the two twin apartment buildings in the area “Taliban Towers,” and the number of jihadis in this area of Northern Virginia, only minutes from the nation’s capital, is significant.

Historically, Paterson, New Jersey has been a melting pot of Irish, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Eastern Europeans and others.  Christians and Jews made a home in this town approximately 20 miles outside of New York City.

Now, estimates put the number of muslims in Paterson at over 30% of the total population.  This number – possibly over 40,000 – makes Paterson, New Jersey the town with the one of the highest concentrations of muslims in the United States.  Many Turks and Syrians are a part of the muslim community, but the majority are Palestinians/Hamas.  Many citizens are concerned for their safety and security.

Muslims on the streets of New York City near Trump Tower on June 1, 2017

What do these four communities – Paterson, Falls Church, Minneapolis, and Hamtramck – have in common?

  1. Muslims concentrated their efforts in these communities, built up their numbers, and then asked for accommodations.  Once their numbers were significant enough, they made DEMANDS of local officials to accommodate sharia.
  2. Islamic leaders (read: Muslim Brotherhood et al) purchased numerous plots of land in these communities – often with funds from Saudi Arabia – and began building of Mosques/Islamic Centers, Islamic schools, etc.
  3. Once the mosques were built, land immediately around the mosque was purchased for muslims and, over time, muslims began occupying the land around the mosque up to a radius of approximately 3 miles.
  4. Islamic organizations (read: Muslim Brotherhood) began outreaching to local Christian and Jewish leaders, as well as law enforcement and elected officials with positive results.  The majority of Pastors and Rabbis stood/stand with jihadis (“terrorists”) and publicly defend them because the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Interfaith Outreach” efforts work; many elected officials believe they “have to” meet with jihadi leaders to show how “progressive and open minded” they are; and law enforcement remains unaware of the grave threat growing like a cancer in their communities.
  5. Collaborators in the media wrote/write glowing stories about how wonderful the jihadis muslims are and defend them right up to and, in some cases, after they kill Americans (eg New York Times defending Anwar al Awlaki after the U.S. government killed him because he was the Al Qaeda leader in Yemen).
  6. Elected officials defend and even promote the jihadis. Example: Mayor Jones in Paterson, NJ raised the Palestinian flag over the City Hall and declared “Palestinian-American Day.”

Jihadis celebrating “Palestinian-American Day” in Paterson, NJ

Al Qaeda jihadi Anwar al Awlaki (R) and citizen Patricia Morris (L) who organized a “vigil” at the MB/Hamas Dar al Hijra Islamic Center after the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States

Cities which stand up against this onslaught, at least under the previous administration, find themselves fighting a lawsuit from the Department of Justice and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups.  In Bernard Township, NJ the town council said no to Islamic leaders’ request to build an Islamic center/mosque for a number of reasons.  The DoJ and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Center of Basking Ridge sued and forced the city to allow the mosque be built.

As each day goes by the problem gets worse and the enemy digs in and enhances their fighting positions in the United States.

UTT encourages all Americans to pay attention to what is going on around them in their community.  The enemy is inside the wall.  A muslim representing an Islamic organization has a 99.9% probability of being a jihadi because all of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are jihadi/hostile as a matter of fact.  Islamic leaders may give a friendly appearance, but they want what ISIS an Al Qaeda want – an Islamic state under sharia.

What are you doing to prevent your town from surrendering to the jihadis in your community?  Are you holding your leaders accountable?  Are you boldly speaking truth?  Do you understand the threat?

Sheriffs and Pastors are the most important people in this war.  We will attain victory when sheriff’s and their deputies understand the threat and aggressively go after it.  Law Enforcement can only do this if the citizens also understand the threat.  Pastors are the key to ensuring that happens, so they must speak truth in love to open the eyes of the American people.

***

CAIR Works “Tirelessly to Advance the Agenda & Goals of the Muslim Brotherhood & Hamas”

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, May 8, 2017:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a terrorist organization.  Specifically, it was created in 1994 by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.

This week’s UTT Radio Broadcast (30 mins) – which can be heard at http://www.WorldviewRadio.com – features an interview with UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz who worked undercover at Hamas’ headquarters in Washington, D.C. (CAIR) nearly ten years ago while posing as a converted muslim.

Listen to the UTT radio broadcast HERE.

In the interview, Chris Gaubatz explains CAIR’s objectives are no different than those of ISIS and Al Qaeda, and that CAIR works “Tirelessly to advance the agenda and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.”

Chris Gaubatz testifies before Senator Ted Cruz’s hearing on “Radical Islam and Terrorism”

Here are a few of the comments from Chris Gaubatz from the UTT broadcast:

Chris Gaubatz undercover at Hamas headquarters with U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader and Hamas (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad

“As I testified in front of the U.S. Senate, the Muslim Brotherhood is no different than Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.  They have the same goals, which is to establish an Islamic state under sharia…Whether its jihadi groups all over the world, the Islamic State, Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically Hamas in this case with CAIR, they all say that they’re muslims waging jihad to establish an Islamic state under sharia…My workspace (at CAIR) was right outside the office of Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of Hamas doing business as CAIR, and Ibrahim Hooper’s office was right next door to Nihad’s office.  So I had daily interactions with them.”

“I was able to see exactly how they (CAIR) go about doing what they do, which is ultimately civilization jihad.  They want to destroy Western civilization from within per their own goals and documents, and I was able to witness that daily.”

In the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), Dallas 2008 – which was the culmination of a 15 year FBI investigation, the FBI and the Department of Justice entered into evidence a “wide array” of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking CAIR to Hamas.

See UTT’s CAIR is Hamas brief sheet HERE.  Hamas is a designated terrorist organization per the United States government.  See the Department of State’s designation of Hamas HERE.

Yet, despite all the evidence from the HLF trial, the over 12,000 documents Chris Gaubatz pulled out of CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. as well as the 300 hours of covert video/audio recordings revealing CAIR is involved in fraud, sedition, and terrorism, CAIR continues to operate and CAIR leaders walk free on the streets of America.

The book Muslim Mafia details Chris’ experiences and the evidence uncovered.  Purchase a copy today HERE!

CAIR frequently appear in the media and is defended by local and national media outlets as a “civil rights” organization.  CAIR organizes “Muslim Capital Day” at state capitals around the United States, influences national policy related to the Islamic threat, attacks individuals and organizations who speak truth about the threat of Islam, and they defend jihadis (“terrorists”) while putting out the propaganda that what “terrorists” do has nothing to do with Islam.

Hamas leader Nihad Awad, who is the General Masul (leader) of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, is now steering the MB’s accelerated efforts to prepare for war in the United States through the efforts of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO).

Three things citizens can do to help thwart the efforts of the CAIR terrorists (Hamas) are:

  1.  Encourage local and state law enforcement to prosecute CAIR entities in your state.  If they have no idea where to begin, please refer them to UTT.
  2.  Work to ensure none of the local public entities in your area work with Hamas terrorists (dba CAIR) such as media, businesses, schools, etc.
  3.  Support and defend organizations and individuals being attacked by CAIR.

CAIR is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Attacks on UTT Intensify, But Have Less Effect

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March 9, 2017:

In the summer of 2014, UTT scheduled a one-day training program for law enforcement in the Phoenix, Arizona area hosted by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO).  The program was designed to teach police officers and investigators about the Islamic Movement in the United States and Arizona, and provide them with tools to help them identify and investigate the threat.

The attacks against UTT and the MCAO were immediate.

On August 14th the Muslim Advocates along with 75 other organizations sent a letter to President Obama’s Counterterrorism Advisor Lisa Monaco which called UTT’s training “bigoted” and asked the administration to re-train all law enforcement officers who have been through such training.

By September 10th, the ACLU and several Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations called for the training to be cancelled, saying the speakers (UTT President John Guandolo, Former CIA Case Officer Clare Lopez, and Former Department of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz) were “known for inaccurate, dangerous statements about the Muslim community.”

The letter, signed by the ACLU’s legal director in Arizona, was also signed by the current and previous leaders of Hamas (dba CAIR) in Arizona (Imraan Siddiqi and Mohamed El-Sharkawy), the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim American Society (AZ), and the leaders of the MB’s Islamic Community Center of Tempe (ICCT) and Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP).  The properties of the ICCT (1131 East 6th Street, Tempe) and ICCP (7516 North Black Canyon Hwy, Phoenix) are owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) which is the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.  In the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas 2008), NAIT was identified by the Department of Justice as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood which directly funds Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

In fact, the two jihadis who attacked the Draw Mohammad competition in Garland, Texas came from the ICCP.  Fortunately, they were killed before they could harm anyone.

On September 19, 2014, 300 police officers from all over Arizona sat through approximately 8 hours of training from UTT which detailed the jihadi threat with facts and evidence.  At the end of the program, when asked, all of the officers admitted they did not previously know the information presented, and all agreed the information is critical to protecting their community.

A victory for the good guys.

So why did the ACLU, the Arizona media, and religious leaders join with the terrorist group Hamas (doing business as CAIR) to condemn fact/evidence-based training which law enforcement calls “critical” to doing their jobs and has led to investigations into terrorism matters being opened in Arizona?  That is a fair question.

This week, UTT finds itself in Louisiana training over 150 law enforcement officers from all over the state. Six days ago, attacks and threats targeting UTT and the host – the Rapides Parish District Attorney – came from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Hamas (dba CAIR), the Associated Press and local media, and local Islamic organizations, including the Islamic Society of Central Louisiana.

What a shock.

Yet, over 150 law enforcement officers now know, from reviewing facts and evidence, the Muslim Brotherhood has a massive jihadi network here in America.

Police also now know CAIR was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the U.S., and got to hear from UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz as he shared about his experience undercover inside Hamas’ (CAIR) headquarters in Washington, D.C.  Chris shared about retrieving over 12,000 documents from CAIR’s headquarters which revealed CAIR is involve in fraud, sedition, and terrorism.  The police now know CAIR is Hamas.

Chris also shared other experiences he had visiting mosques across America and what is being taught there.

Another victory for the truth and for freedom.

Now these officers will be able to take what they have learned back to the streets to identify real threats so they can use the full force of the law to protect their communities.

What are the common denominators for the successes then and now?

First is the power of UTT’s message, built on facts and evidence – real truth about real threats.

Secondly, the courage and tenacity of leaders like Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and Rapides Parish District Attorney Phillip Terrell are an important key to these successes.

These warriors are ensuring their citizens are well-served by the men and women in blue.  Citizens of Maricopa County (AZ) and Rapides Parish (LA) should thank and support these men of courage.

Obama DOJ drops charges against alleged provider of Libyan weapons

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks with President Barack Obama on Sept. 12, 2012, where he spoke about the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. | AP Photo

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks with President Barack Obama on Sept. 12, 2012, where he spoke about the death of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. | AP Photo

Arms dealer had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s talks about arming anti-Qadhafi rebels.

Politico, by  Kenneth P. Vogel and Josh Gerstein, October 4, 2016:

The Obama administration is moving to dismiss charges against an arms dealer it had accused of selling weapons that were destined for Libyan rebels.

Lawyers for the Justice Department on Monday filed a motion in federal court in Phoenix to drop the case against the arms dealer, an American named Marc Turi, whose lawyers also signed the motion.

The deal averts a trial that threatened to cast additional scrutiny on Hillary Clinton’s private emails as Secretary of State, and to expose reported Central Intelligence Agency attempts to arm rebels fighting Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi.

Government lawyers were facing a Wednesday deadline to produce documents to Turi’s legal team, and the trial was officially set to begin on Election Day, although it likely would have been delayed by protracted disputes about classified information in the case.

A Turi associate asserted that the government dropped the case because the proceedings could have embarrassed Clinton and President Barack Obama by calling attention to the reported role of their administration in supplying weapons that fell into the hands of Islamic extremist militants.

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” said the associate.

In the dismissal motion, prosecutors say “discovery rulings” from U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell contributed to the decision to drop the case. The joint motion asks the judge to accept a confidential agreement to resolve the case through a civil settlement between the State Department and the arms broker.

“Our position from the outset has been that this case never should have been brought and we’re glad it’s over,” said Jean-Jacques Cabou, a Perkins Coie partner serving as court-appointed defense counsel in the case. “Mr Turi didn’t break the law….We’re very glad the charges are being dismissed.”

Under the deal, Turi admits no guilt in the transactions he participated in, but he agreed to refrain from U.S.-regulated arms dealing for four years. A $200,000 civil penalty will be waived if Turi abides by the agreement.

A State Department official confirmed the outlines of the agreement.

“Mr. Turi cooperated with the Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls in its review and proposed administrative settlement of the alleged violations,” said the official, who asked not be named. “Based on a compliance review, DDTC alleged that Mr. Turi…engaged in brokering activities for the proposed transfer of defense articles to Libya, a proscribed destination under [arms trade regulations,] despite the Department’s denial of…requests for the required prior approval of such activities.”

Turi adviser Robert Stryk of the government relations and consulting firm SPG accused the government of trying to scapegoat Turi to cover up Clinton’s mishandling of Libya.

“The U.S. government spent millions of dollars, went all over the world to bankrupt him, and destroyed his life — all to protect Hillary Clinton’s crimes,” he said, alluding to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Republicans hold Clinton responsible for mishandling the circumstances around that attack. And Stryk said that Turi was now weighing book and movie deals to tell his story, and to weigh in on the Benghazi attack.

Representatives of the Justice Department, the White House and Clinton’s presidential campaign either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on the case or the settlement.

Turi was indicted in 2014 on four felony counts: two of arms dealing in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and two of lying to the State Department in official applications. The charges accused Turi of claiming that the weapons involved were destined for Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, when the arms were actually intended to reach Libya.

Turi’s lawyers argued that the shipments were part of a U.S. government-authorized effort to arm Libyan rebels.

It’s unclear if any of the weapons made it to Libya, and there’s no evidence linking weapons provided by the U.S. government to the Benghazi attacks.

“The proposal did not result in an actual transfer of defense articles to Libya,” the State Department official told POLITICO on Tuesday.

But questions about U.S. efforts to arm Libyan rebels have been mounting, since weapons have reportedly made their way from Libya to Syria, where a civil war is raging between the Syrian Government and ISIL-aligned fighters.

During 2013 Senate hearings on the 2012 Benghazi attack, Clinton, under questioning from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), said she had no knowledge of weapons moving from Libya into Turkey.

Wikileaks head Julian Assange in July suggested that he had emails proving that Clinton “pushed” the “flows” of weapons “going over to Syria.”

Additionally, Turi’s case had delved into emails sent to and from the controversial private account that Clinton used as Secretary of State, which the defense planned to harness at any trial.

At a court hearing in 2015, Cabou said emails between Clinton and her top aides indicated that efforts to arm the rebels were — at a minimum — under discussion at the highest levels of the government.

“We’re entitled to tell the jury, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the Secretary of State and her highest staff members were actively contemplating providing exactly the type of military assistance that Mr. Turi is here to answer for,” the defense attorney said, according to a transcript.

Turi’s defense was pressing for more documents about the alleged rebel-arming effort and for testimony from officials who worked on the issue the State Department and the CIA. The defense said it planned to argue that Turi believed he had official permission to work on arms transfers to Libya

“If we armed the rebels, as publicly reported in many, many sources and as we strongly believe happened and as we believe at least one witness told the grand jury, then documents about that process relate to that effort,” Cabou told Campbell at the same hearing last year.

Emerson with Judge Pirro on U.S. Counter-Terrorism Strategy

 

by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
October 11, 2014

Clip from 60 Minutes: Ultimately an American citizen unless the passport is revoked is entitled to come back. So if someone who has fought with ISIL with an American passport wants to come back, we’ll track them very carefully.

Judge Jeanine: That’s FBI director Jim Comey saying they’ll track any Americans returning here after fighting alongside ISIS. Really, track them, that’s it? Why are these guys even allowed back into the country? With me now founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson, and National Review columnist Tom Rogan. Good evening gentlemen. You know Tom, Prime Minister Cameron faced with the same issue on the return of ISIS fighters returning to the UK is trying to actually prevent them from coming in. How is he trying to do this?

Tom Rogan: Yes, thank you for having me on, Judge. He’s doing a number of things and all of that flows from the fact that British intelligence are incredibly concerned about the threat that the Islamic State poses to the UK mainland. But one of the main things he is doing is trying to pass a law in Parliament that would actually allow the British government to refuse entry to people coming back in, sort of extension perhaps of being denied British citizenship and nationality, and sending the message that if you go and fight with the Islamic State which because of David Haines and Alan Henning is a clear enemy of the United Kingdom, then you will face the consequences for action. So it is a much tougher line than perhaps we’ve seen from the US Government.

Judge Jeanine: Well certainly, and Steve, I am sure you can speak to that. But Steve what we’re seeing is, and what you’re investigating, is the uptick in terms of the recruitment by ISIS in Western Europe as well as the United States.

Steve Emerson: Judge, there has been a tremendous uptick in recruitment. In the last month alone intelligence estimates say up to more than 5,000 volunteers have come from Europe alone and several hundred from the United States. And the notion that we can track them when they come back to the United States I think is somewhat questionable since it takes about 24 agents just to track one person for a 24 hour period nonstop. Number two, I think our policy on the issue of radical Islam is really screwed up here. Here you have a president at the UN praises a radical sheikh who says he’s opposed to ISIS but issues a fatwa calling for killing of American soldiers. You have the President basically sending a welcome message to the Oklahoma mosque which produced that crazy Islamist who beheaded, Mr. Nolen, who beheaded his co-worker and who had on his Facebook page photos praising bin Laden, praising 9/11, and even a picture of somebody being beheaded. So I think our own policies [ are actually constraining us], including that the fact that the Attorney General has prohibited the FBI from using religious criteria from investigating Islamists. I think right now, Judge, we have a [counter-terrorism] policy that doesn’t exist.

Judge Jeanine: Steve you may not know, Tom was nodding his head while you were speaking. Tom, one of the things that Steve is referencing is the fact that by our not identifying certain things as terrorism and calling things work place violence, the United States and the Department of Justice is almost tying the hands of our investigators. What is the perception from Britain as to how we’re approaching this in the United States? We’re both facing the same disaster.

Rogan: The British government is reluctant to criticize the US government. But there is certainly much greater concern in the UK and frankly I think that should be a great are concern here because the simple fact is the Islamic State have learned from their predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq. They know to stay off of the internet and they know to actually come back and not engage in some of the open extremist activities that previous terrorists had done before. So they can actually stay, bide their time and then move toward an attack. And that makes it very, very difficult for intelligence services – the NSA and the British equivalent GCHQ – to be able to develop the kind of intelligence picture, the same monitoring that Steve is talking about, large teams of officers. MI5 is stretched to the brink. That’s why you see David Cameron so concerned about preventing people coming back, because frankly MI5 officers are telling him we do not have the capacity physically to monitor these people.

Judge Jeanine: What is interesting Tom, I have an article here that says terrorist chatter raises the threat level for UK police, and that it’s been raised there from moderate to substantial. What can we do here, Steve, given the constraints that we have and reluctance to even identify things as work place violence? We’ve got this guy Nidal Hasan who writes the Pope who says I am a terrorist. What can we do?

Emerson: First of all we have to reverse the damage done by the Attorney General.

Judge Jeanine: How?

Emerson: First of all stop the purge that was done two years ago in the FBI of all material that was considered to be ‘offensive against Islam’ that stripped the FBI of thousands and thousands of books, pamphlets and power points of anything that dealt with radical Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood. That [material] has to be restored. Number two, the training of FBI informants, that budget was slashed in half under the Attorney General. Number three, there has to be a policy decision that recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood, these other [Islamist] groups, are just as much a threat to the United States and to our way of life as ISIS is. And if we don’t recognize that Judge, we’re gonna be doomed.

Judge Jeanine: I couldn’t agree with you more. Steve, Tom, thank you so much for being with us this evening.

Rogan: Thank you, Judge.