DHS John Kelly: Islamic Terrorists Are Sincere, So Regulate the Internet

Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, June 23, 2017:

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly acknowledged Thursday that sincere Islamic beliefs are fuelling deadly jihad attacks during Ramadan — but he quickly hid that key recognition behind vague calls for Internet regulation and suggestions that Christian and Jewish beliefs are also causing terrorism.

“As far as Ramadan goes, you know, first of all, the uptick in violence and activities [during Ramadan is] done by a very, very small percentage of people who have just corrupted the whole concept of Islam as a religion, but it is what it is,” Kelly told the chairman of the House homeland defense committee on June 22. He continued:

We are in the middle of it, so they are out there doing what they think is their religion and think [it is] what they are supposed to be doing. In Flint, Michigan, as an example, a completely off-the-screen individual who attacked this police officer — who will be okay, as I understand it… We’ve seen these terrible things happen in Europe.

Instead of focusing on the jihad doctrine that is part-and-parcel of orthodox Islam, Kelly quickly tried to spread the blame for terror attacks, saying “Whether they are church, synagogues or mosques [we need] an open line of communication so they know if they see this [belligerence] happening in the home or they see it happening — that is to say, the move towards radicalism — or they see it happening in the churches or mosques, they know to call someone before that person typically crosses the line,” he told the chairman, Texas Rep. Michael McCaul.

Kelly added racist and even anti-Semitic groups to the blame gallery, even though Islamic radicals are anti-Semitic, saying: “Whether they are white supremacists, anti-Jewish or neo-Nazi or Islamic radicalism, until they do something [criminal], generally speaking, the best law enforcement can do is watch,” adding “I don’t know how to predict it.”

Kelly also blamed the Internet and urged businesses to block access to “some” websites. “The one constant that I have seen, Mr. Chairman, since I have been in this job, the one constant in all of this has been the Internet … The one constant is the Internet. I’m not blaming the Internet but I’m just saying that we probably need to step back, and say, maybe [have] stricter rules on what is hung on the Internet,” he said.

The secreary also cited existing laws against child pornography, which require companies to disconnect websites offering images of sexualized children, saying “just like in terms of child pornography sites that are taken down like that, we need to have probably a stricter set of rules to look at some of these [jihad] sites and bring them down maybe faster.”

He suggested the United States should follow the example set by Europe’s new policies against free speech, which this week prompted teams of black-clad German secretive police to raid 60 homes of people accused of illegal speech. Kelly said about the Europeans:

I think kind of the [Internet] rules and thinking they are operating under — that frankly that our country has been operating under — is probably five or ten years old … I know the Europeans are, particularly in the last five months, what they have dealt with — whether it is Paris, Manchester, I mean all of it, running people down on London bridge or Westminster bridge, they have really stepped back from their thinking [on free speech], as I think we should.

Kelly’s refusal to focus on jihad as the problem can lead his agency down a blind alley, said Robert Spencer, the best-selling author of books on Islam, and the director of the Jihadwatch website. “Instead of dealing with the threat, he’s threatening the freedom of speech of all Americans to maintain his politically correct veneer,” Spencer said.

“He needs to look at [Koran verses] 47.4 or 9:5, where there is an abundant incitement to violence in a place where he dares not acknowledge where it comes from,” said Spencer. According to those Islamic scriptures:

So when you meet those who disbelieve {Islam} [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds …

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the {non-Muslim} polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Pointing the blame at the Internet also ignores the danger of Islamic teachings in U.S.-based mosques, said Spencer. “We’ve seen again and again that there are jihadis who are very active in their mosques and yet nobody will monitor them, so he has to find some scapegoat … [and] he finds it with the Internet, which is practically a cliche,” Spencer added. “I just hope that his politically correct euphemism don’t lead him to waste time and resources charging down what he knows are blind alleys.”

Chairman McCaul did not push Kelly to justify spreading blame for the Islamic attacks, but Kelly also admitted that the courts are pressuring his agency as it tries to prevent planned attacks:

My guidance to the department is to be very very cautious about getting near where the court tells us we can’t go … I have a real good sense of right and wrong but that doesn’t always work when it comes to courts and lawyers. So I’ve just said [to agency officials] ‘Be very very conservative about where we go on this.’”

The recent court decisions have repeatedly claimed President Donald Trump’s effort to curb Islamic attacks are motivated by unreasoning hatred, threaten the religious freedom of Islamic immigrants, and have not been endorsed by government experts.

But amid Kelly’s court-pressured, blame-everyone rhetoric, he only cited Islamic attacks, saying:

In Paris the other day they dodged a huge bullet because the individual ended up that rammed the police car ended up dying before he could do all of what he had planned to do…

[Parents say] ’My son was on the internet and he did this,’ whatever this was, or San Bernardino, or ‘My daughter was on the Internet and she ran away to Syria to become someone’s bride.’…

I know the Europeans are, particularly in the last five months, what they have dealt with — whether it is Paris, Manchester, I mean all of it, running people down on London bridge or Westminster bridge..

Kelly also recognized that one of the long-term fixes to terrorism is better vetting of immigrants to prevent “hostile attitudes,” including Islamic immigrants, saying:

I think we have a long way to go before we can be comfortable as to identifying who the [immigrant] person is, why they are coming to the United States and whether they can support themselves when they come here. So as [what] defines extreme vetting, that’s what we’re looking at. Those three questions need to be answered [for each would-be immigrant], I think, properly.

That comment echoes Trump’s January Executive Order on immigration, which sought to exclude refugees and immigrants with “hostile attitudes.”

But Kelly’s refusal to focus on the jihad ideology means “more Americans will suffer,” said Spencer. Kelly “is not facing the real root-cause of the threat, and it will continue to proliferate.”

Watch Kelly’s statements here.

One Year After Pulse Nightclub Attack, Orlando Sentinel Gaslights Omar Mateen’s Motive

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, June 12, 2017:

One year ago today, the Pulse nightclub in Orlando became a killing zone and the site of the worst terror attack in the U.S. since 9/11 — 49 patrons killed and 58 more injured:

During the attack, the killer Omar Mateen called 911 three times and also called a local TV station to claim credit, saying he did the attack in support of the Islamic State.

But in a trend I’ve documented here at PJ Media, despite these obvious “investigative clues,” there are media outlets, family members, and law enforcement officials who still puzzle over Mateen’s motive.

Remarkably, the Orlando Sentinel, the largest newspaper in the city where the Pulse nightclub attack occurred, published an article last week before the one year anniversary of the attack gaslighting the killer’s motive:

Sentinel reporter Paul Brinkmann floated debunked conspiracy theories that Mateen was secretly gay and self-loathing, interviewing two former law enforcement behavioral profilers — neither of whom worked the case.

Brinkmann also interviewed a gay rights activist who claims that ISIS was a convenient scapegoat for his true motives:

Multiple people have said over the past year they think Omar Mateen was a regular at the club or that he was gay himself — even though U.S. law enforcement officials and the FBI reportedly found no evidence to support those theories. Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch originally called the shooting a hate crime and a terrorist attack.

Jessica Stern, executive director of OutRight Action International, the group tracking gay killings, sees no conflict between those ideas, and neither do criminal profilers and others interviewed about Mateen’s motive.

“There are domestic factors and international factors, and both are so important,” Stern said, referring to Mateen’s history, life experiences and ISIS. “For Omar Mateen, ISIS was simply the justification.”

It bears repeating that these conspiracy theories floated by the media for weeks last year after the shooting were investigated by the FBI, which found zerp support for them:

Are we really to believe that if the FBI had discovered some support for this conspiracy theory, the Obama administration and Attorney General Loretta Lynch wouldn’t have rode that horse until it died?

As I reported here at PJ Media, the New York Times, too, engaged in gaslighting the killer’s motive:

The fact is that Omar Mateen himself repeatedly stated what his motive was — during the attack.

The evidence: three 911 calls, the phone call he made to a local TV station, discussions he had with the hostage negotiator on the scene, posts he made to Facebook during the attack, and even comments he made to the victims.

All of that evidence is consistent and unmistakably clear.

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the media conspiracy theories now attempting to call into question all of these verified pieces of evidence:

First are the infamous 911 calls made by Mateen where he openly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State:

As readers might recall, the Obama administration initially redacted the transcript of the 911 calls of any Islamic references:

Only after public criticism did the Obama Justice Department and the FBI release the unredacted transcripts:

The DOJ/FBI joint statement attempted to explain their eyeroll-worthy reasoning for initially redacting the 911 call transcript, claiming the redactions were for the sake of “transparency” but also to be “sensitive”:

The purpose of releasing the partial transcript of the shooter’s interaction with 911 operators was to provide transparency, while remaining sensitive to the interests of the surviving victims, their families, and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. We also did not want to provide the killer or terrorist organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda.

Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime.  As much of this information had been previously reported, we have re-issued the complete transcript to include these references in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances.

Second is the phone call that Mateen made to a news producer at News 13 Orlando where he said that he did the attack for the Islamic State:

CNN aired an interview with that news producer:

Third, a hostage negotiator on the scene who spoke with Mateen inside the night club says Mateen told him he was retaliating for the U.S. killing of an ISIS leader in Syria a month earlier:

Read more

‘Mental illness’ blamed in recent attacks ‘for Allah’

Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris

WND, by Art Moore, June 8, 2017:

While police continue to investigate the Manchester and London Bridge jihadist attacks, several incidents this week conducted in the name of Allah by Muslims in Europe have gained considerably less attention, dismissed as irrational acts of the mentally ill.

In London, a man roamed a heavily Jewish area Thursday morning shouting “Allah Allah” and “I’m going to kill you all,” and, in another part of the city Thursday, a nursery worker suffered broken ribs and was slashed with a knife by three women chanting “Allah will get you.”

Meanwhile, in Paris, the nephew of Farid Ikken, who attacked a police officer with a hammer Tuesday outside the Notre Dame Cathedral, expressed disbelief that his uncle — “a progressive, not an extremist” — would declare allegiance to ISIS and perpetrate a violent act, noting the whole family is “in shock.”

Ikken’s former boss, Algerian journalist Kamel Medjoub, suggested, the London Express reported: “Maybe he lost it that day and attacked a police officer in a moment of madness. But I refuse to believe he would pledge allegiance to ISIS.”

However, a video of Ikken pledging allegiance to ISIS was found in his apartment in a counter-terrorism raid.

And the 22-year-old police officer who was the target of the attack said Ikken was “not crazy” and “knew exactly what he was doing.”

The officer told Europe 1 radio: “I’m ready to go back to work now. Things could have been much worse.”

Ikken, 40, had worked in Sweden as a journalist, receiving the EU Commission’s National Journalist Prize Against Discrimination award in 2009 for a report on alleged racism towards migrants.

The incident Thursday morning in the heavily Jewish area of north London, the Daily Mail of London said, was reported by a member of a Jewish neighborhood watch group called Shomrin.

Michael Scher said the man was “shouting threats, with members of the public rushing away from him, fearing for their immediate safety. Thankfully police were able to detain him, and prevent further incident.”

A police spokesman told the Daily Mail the suspect was detained by officers under the Mental Health Act, and the case is “not being treated as terror-related.”

In northeast London, a nursery worker suffered broken ribs after she was kicked to the ground and slashed with a knife by three women chanting “Allah will get you.”

The London Evening Standard reported the incident is not being treated as a terrorist attack. A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the “Met’s Counter Terrorism Command has been made aware of the incident but is not investigating at this time.”

Islam expert Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, which noted both incidents in London, commented: “This denial and willful ignorance on the part of British authorities will ultimately result in nothing less than the death of Britain.”

Last August, after a 19-year-old Somali Muslim stabbed to death an American woman injured five others in a tourist-filled London square, Spencer observed to WND that authorities regularly have ascribed attacks by Muslims to mental illness only to later change their assessment to terrorism, including in the Orlando, San Bernardino and Chattanooga attacks in the United States.

In the case of the Chattanooga attack, it was five months before the FBI determined Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a jihadist and not simply a mentally disturbed young man who suddenly snapped before shooting to death five unarmed U.S. servicemen.

“What could account for this global outbreak of mental illness that always manifests itself in similar ways?” Spencer told WND at the time. “Authorities should start asking themselves why so many mentally ill people embrace Islamic jihad violence.”

‘Something to do with Allah and the Quran’

In the case of the attacked nursery worker, the BBC has been accused of censorship after Twitter users said references to Allah and the Quran were edited out of a TV interview with the worker’s boss, Karrien Stevens. The Twitter users note a BBC Online article has Stevens saying the women shouted out “something to do with Allah and the Quran,” but that statement was cut in the TV version.

Stevens said the women pulled the nursery worker to the ground, punched her and kicked her in an attack that lasted 10 minutes.

“One of them pulled out a knife and cut her arm from her wrist to her elbow,” she said, as they chanted “Allah” in the quiet, leafy street.

Last summer, WND compiled a list of more than 20 reported knife attacks by Muslims in just a two-month period, many of which were attributed to mental illness.

The Religion of Peace website, monitoring news reports, has counted 73 Islamic jihadist attacks during the first 13 days of the current Islamic Ramadan holiday, resulting in 809 deaths.

The site counts 30,973 attacks attributed to Islamic jihad since 9/11.

David Kupelian, author of “The Marketing of Evil,“How Evil Works” and his latest, “The Snapping of the American Mind,” said in a WND story last August that in response to all of the cases of jihad-type assaults that have been labeled “mental illness,” the question should be asked: “Where does ‘radical Islam’ end and ‘mental illness’ begin? And what if they are the same thing?”

For more than 150 years, the legal standard for claiming innocence by reason of insanity has been the M’Naghten rule, noted Kupelian, WND vice president and managing editor, stipulating the perpetrator was unaware his criminal actions were wrong at the time he committed them, Kupelian noted.

“But by that definition, every Islamic terrorist in the world is innocent, since his religious delusions persuade him that not only is it right and moral to massacre innocent men, women and children, but it is mandatory, required by their god as a prerequisite for salvation,” he said.

In his book ‘How Evil Works,’ Kupelian provides evidence the Western world is in the grip of a massive case of “Stockholm syndrome,” in which governments and journalists “have essentially befriended the enemy sworn to destroy them.”

“One manifestation of this syndrome,” Kupelian said, “is these reflexive, almost comical, efforts by Western authorities to eliminate jihad as a motive, no matter how obvious the truth is to everyone else.”

Theresa May’s New Approach: More of the Same

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, June 5, 2017:

The United Kingdom has just suffered its second major jihad massacre in as many weeks, and Prime Minister Theresa May, facing an unexpectedly tough electoral challenge, is talking tough. “It is time,” she proclaimed, “to say enough is enough….Our society should continue to function in accordance with our values but when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism things need to change.”

Indeed they do. Nothing is clearer at this point than the catastrophic failure of the approach to jihad terrorism that May and her predecessors David Cameron, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair have pursued since 9/11. For years, the British government has hounded, stigmatized, and demonized foes of jihad terror, falsely claiming that they represent a “far-right” equivalent to jihad terrorists, and has appeased and accommodated Muslim groups in Britain, many of which were by no stretch of the imagination “moderate,” and allowing numerous jihad preachers to operate without hindrance.

What has been the result? The jihad massacre at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May, and Saturday night’s jihad attacks in London. And there is much, much more to come. The British government’s approach has failed so dismally that “when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism things need to change” may be wisest thing Theresa May has ever said, or ever will say, during her tenure as Prime Minister.

One of the chief things that needs to change, if May is really serious about “taking on extremism and terrorism,” is the official denial of the jihad terrorists’ motivating ideology. No one can defeat an enemy that he doesn’t understand, much less one that he refuses to understand, and yet that is the position of the May government (and of the U.S. government as well, although we may hope that this swamp will eventually be drained): jihad terror has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Yet the London attackers were hardly shy about what motivated them. One eyewitness recounted: “They went, ‘This is for Allah,’ and they had a woman on the floor, and they were stabbing her, all three, constantly.” The mother of a young man who was wounded in the attacks said: “He just stepped outside the bar for a second and a man ran up to him and said: ‘This is for my family, this is for Islam’, and stuck a knife straight in him. He’s got a seven-inch scar going from his belly round to his back.”

But Theresa May is convinced that they didn’t do it for Allah or Islam at all. She said that the jihadis were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

“A perversion of Islam.” May didn’t bother to explain how killing non-Muslims was a “perversion” of a religion with a holy book that thrice exhorts believers to kill those who dare to worship others besides Allah (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5), tells them to “strike the necks” of the unbelievers (47:4) and to fight “the People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). She didn’t elucidate the mysterious process by which Muhammad, who is supposed to be the founder of Islam, ending up holding a “perversion” of it, as he directed his followers to invite unbelievers to accept Islam or pay the jizya, or to go to war with them if they refused both options (Sahih Muslim 4294).

May’s continuing willful ignorance will doom to defeat her effort to change things, if she really attempts one at all. The main thing she needs to change is her mindset, and that of the British political and law enforcement establishment. But the mindset of denial and willful ignorance is deeply entrenched in Britain, such that if she loses the upcoming election, the new Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn, will make her look, of all things, tough on terror.

And so it is likely that in the near future, the British people will look back on the good old days when Islamic jihadis hit Manchester and London within two weeks, and marvel that they waited so long between terror attacks. Jihad mass murder is going to be an increasingly common feature of the British landscape for a considerable period to come, and for that, Britons have no one to thank more than…Theresa May.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

***

***

***

***

Also see:

No you’re not more likely to be killed by a right-wing extremist than an Islamic terrorist

AEREO Magazine, by Damion Daniels, May 28, 2017:

On 22nd May, 2017, a 22 year old jihadist named Salman Ramadan Abedi wandered into the Manchester Arena during a concert populated primarily by young teens and their parents, and detonated a suicide bomb, killing 22 people including an 8 year old girl, and injuring approximately 120 others. This was the deadliest terror attack on U.K. soil since a group of jihadists murdered 52 commuters in the London transport attacks of 2005.

We are often told that in the wake of a large scale atrocity of this kind, we should defy the terrorists by simply carrying on as normal. Well, it just so happens that what I would normally be doing is writing about Islamic terrorism and berating the apologists who shamefully obfuscate the issue. Which is exactly what I intend to do now.

The fact that the two deadliest attacks upon the U.K. in recent memory were at the hands of Islamic terrorists is not simply pub trivia. I mention it because when these apologists for Islam get bored of claiming that jihadists are incessantly and inexplicably lying about their religious motivations, they invariably engage in the crass exercise of throwing around skewed data in a desperate attempt to deemphasize the danger posed by Islamic terror. As far as I can tell, this is not due to some well-meaning concern for people worrying unnecessarily, or to ensure that counter terrorism strategy is accurately focused upon the most serious threat, it seems rather to be a tactical attempt to prioritize the protection of odious 7th century folklore over the welfare of real human beings.

In the not uncommon event of an Islamic lunatic slaughtering a crowd of innocent people, Americentric articles and tweets lying about the likelihood of this happening to you, instantaneously begin to surface, like gunk from the ocean floor after a depth charge detonation.

Each of these claims are variations on the assertion that right-wing or far-right terrorism poses a greater danger than Islamic terrorism, and they are based on several studies which attempt to make the same claims.

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by non-Muslim extremists than by jihadists,

insists this MSNBC article based on this report by research center New America.

I understand that a deconstruction of statistics may read as a little sterile and dispassionate, but I think it’s important to nip this particular line of obscurantism in the bud once and for all. And disappointingly, I’ve noticed that some high profile secularists and liberal atheists also appear to have been taken in by this propaganda which contains a multitude of errors and inconsistencies resulting in inaccurate figures and starkly misleading conclusions. For instance; the MSNBC article referenced above was published in the summer of 2015. And whilst the information contained within it is frozen at this point in time, the source report that it cites is not. The report has since been updated, and so anyone citing the article now, is citing statistics that do not include the 49 Orlando clubbers murdered the following year by ISIS inspired gunman Omar Mateen in the deadliest mass shooting in American history. The updated statistics which now include this attack, along with other attacks in 2016, show that deaths from jihadist terror attacks in the U.S. are now almost double those attributable to far-right terrorists.

What’s more, this very same study that is routinely cited in order to downplay the threat of jihadism, shows not only that jihadists have claimed more fatalities in the U.S., but also that “most U.S. attacks are also carried out by individuals inspired by jihadism.”

The practice of quoting outdated figures to further a false narrative is sloppy in some cases and outright disingenuous in others, but even when using the most up-to-date figures, there are a number of issues with the actual dataset this report relies on which further skew the statistics towards downplaying the Islamic threat. As John Sexton of Breitbart notes, the numbers here ostensibly focus on the threat to Americans, but do not take Americans killed abroad by Islamic terrorists into account. The beheading of Daniel Pearl by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 7 Americans killed in the 2002 Bali Bombing, the 6 Americans killed in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 4 Americans killed in the 2016 Brussels bombings, the American killed in the Zamboanga City bombing, the American killed in the 2015 Bamako hotel attack, the 22 year old American student killed in the 2015 Paris attacks, for example, are all absent from these figures. Nor do the figures take into account the number of Islamic plots foiled as a result of the asymmetric counter-terrorism focus placed upon jihadism as a result of 9/11. As former counter-terrorism analyst Daryl Johnson acknowledges:

The U.S. government currently employs hundreds of analysts focused on Islamic extremism, but only a couple dozen who monitor domestic terror.

Fortunately I didn’t need to undertake a great deal of arduous research to find this quote. Why? Because it’s mentioned in the very same MSNBC article that is routinely circulated as proof that Islamic terrorism is essentially a non-issue in comparison to “far-right” terrorism.

The lopsidedness of this report is also evident in the fact that, according to the article, it treats terrorists with an Islamist agenda as one dataset, and compares it to terrorists with a white supremacist agenda, terrorists with an anti-government agenda, and terrorist with a fundamentalist Christian agenda, by treating all three non-Islamic motivations as one dataset. This is not an apples to apples comparison. This is an apples to fruit bowl comparison.

But surely the most blatant and deliberate skewing of the numbers here is in the fact that the biggest terror attack in the history of the United States is discounted by beginning the tally on 12th September 2001. Florida State College Professor Andrew Holt issued a thorough debunking of this report and the methods it uses. In it he points out that if one were to start the clock a day earlier and therefore include the approximately three thousand innocent lives taken on 9/11, then “there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist.”

Read more (h/t Kyle Shideler)

Damion Daniels is a writer focusing on religion, secularism, and free expression with an emphasis on Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. You can connect with him on Twitter @concretemilk

Anne Marie Waters Moment: Easy Guide to Debating the Useful Infidel. Part I: “Not All”

This special edition of the Glazov Gang presents the Anne Marie Waters Moment with Anne Marie Waters, the Director of Sharia Watch UK.

Anne Marie unveils the Easy Guide to Debating the Useful Infidel. Part I: “Not All”, exposing the cowardice and malice behind the Left’s Jihad Denial.

Jihad in South Dakota – Muslims Threaten, Officials Do Nothing

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 17, 2017:

Last Sunday evening, April 9, 2017, over 500 people gathered for the Worldview Weekend Rally in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  The Muslim Brotherhood threatened, a Muslim showed up in what was a possible thwarted attack, and local officials did nothing.

This is how America will lose this war if it does not change course immediately at the local level.

The Sioux Falls Police Department notified the speakers, radio personality Brannon House and Shahram Hadian, a former Iranian muslim who is now a Christian pastor, that the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls filed a permit to protest the Worldview Weekend Rally event because they viewed the event as bigoted and Islamophobic.

The property for the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), meaning it is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America waging “Civilization Jihad.”

At the event on April 9th, a muslim man entered the event while filming on Facebook Live.  He filmed a Koran he was holding in his hand, scanned/filmed the audience with his phone, and was then stopped by security/police because filming was not permitted.  He told them he was leaving, and then lied to them and said his name is “John Smith.”  In fact, the man’s name is Ehab Jaber.

On Jaber’s facebook page it is clear he is anti-police and pro-sharia (Islamic Law).  During his video of the event in question, he made very derogatory remarks about those in attending.

On video, Jaber proceeded to his car where he filmed several weapons including  3 pistols and two rifles.  While brandishing the weapons Jaber commented, “be terrified.”

It should be noted two South Dakota legislators were in attendance at the event.

The good news is that within hours of the event, Jaber was visited by two FBI agents.  The problem, he is still free on the streets of Sioux Falls.

The other problem is the FBI has interviewed nearly all of the jihadis who have killed Americans in the last several years declaring them “not a threat.”

Organizers of this event have been told the local prosecutors are refusing to charge Jaber with any crime.

Stay updated on this ongoing incident by checking out Worldview Radio’s website.

These incidents are occurring all over the United States with similar results.  This comes from a lack of training of police officers, prosecutors, and judges at the state and local level.

As a direct result of UTT training, terrorism cases have been opened and in one case – only a couple weeks ago – an Al Qaeda operative was identified and is now under investigation.

This is the value of UTT’s training and the importance and immediate need for it in every state in the U.S. UTT is the only organization in America providing this training to law enforcement.

We will win this war at the local level.

Do your part to bring UTT to your town today!