28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, July 15, 2016:

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups.

As Breitbart News has reported exclusively, the “Abedin family business” is an academic group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs that is based in the London offices of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and its parent organization, the Muslim World League.

Huma Abedin, born in the United States but raised in Saudi Arabia, has worked closely with Hillary Clinton since 1996 and is now Hillary Clinton’s closest aide and the vice-chairwoman of her presidential campaign. Abedin, who is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, is also at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Page 24 of the 28 Pages report discusses Osama bin Laden’s half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI. Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is “closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War.” In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 Pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 Pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

In the past, all efforts to vet or ask basic questions about Abedin have been shut down by the mainstream media and politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison.

A footnote on page 24 of the 28 Pages is inconclusive but doesn’t rule out the possibility that WAMY’s senior leadership may have supported terrorism.

According to the FBI’s November 8th, 2002 response, although several officials in WAMY support Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, the intelligence is insufficient to show whether the organization as whole and its senior leadership support terrorism.

Although the footnote makes it clear that the depth of WAMY’s full support for terrorism wasn’t fully known in 2003, the matter is clearly a subject that should have been both investigated and discussed, especially given the connection between New York Senator Clinton, and one of her top aides at the time, to the group.

Further, it’s very clear that WAMY supports the Wahhabist strain of Islam that is both the state religion of Saudi Arabia and is behind nearly every terrorist group today, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban.

As Breitbart News previously reported exclusively, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she even admitted that Saudi Arabia was using the Muslim World League and WAMY to fund terrorism, writing in a 2009 memo:

Saudi Arabia has enacted important reforms to criminalize terrorist financing and restrict the overseas flow of funds from Saudi-based charities. However, these restrictions fail to include &multilateral organizations such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY.) Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

For decades, the Saudis have spent millions of dollars promoting Wahabbism through organizations like WAMY, its parent the Muslim World League, and other “charities” that promote Da’wa or Islamic evangelism throughout the world via activities such as building mosques.

The mainstream media has either ignored these clear connections between Huma Abedin and Saudi NGOs or, worse, smeared the people making the charges, most notably the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Further, the fact that the Bush administration’s compliance with the Saudi’s request to bury the information that is damaging to The Kingdom raises new questions of what influence the Saudis has on President Bush.

Breitbart News reported exclusively that just a month after 9/11, Newsweek claimed that the Muslim World League — the parent organization of WAMY with connections to Huma Abedin — was removed from a list of terror funders under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

The 28 Pages were available to members of Congress to read, although only under the right security conditions.

It is not known whether Sec. Clinton, then the Senator for New York, ever read the 28 Pages.

DEVELOPING…

***

Also see:

Nice Terror Attack Cut Short by Civilian Who Jumped into Truck

REUTERS/ERIC GAILLARD

REUTERS/ERIC GAILLARD

Breitbart, by AWR Hawkins, July 15, 2016:

Law enforcement sources in Nice confirmed Friday that the July 14 terror attack was cut short by a citizen who jumped into the cab of the semi-truck and fought with the terrorist driving the vehicle.

The semi-driver, 31-year-old Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, was distracted and slowed by the citizen, allowing police to position, open fire, and end the attack.

According to the Independent, police say “the murderous two kilometer charge of the lorry might have been even longer if it had not been for the courage of a member of the public.”

Police said “the man had hurled himself into the cab when the 20 tonne truck was held up by an obstruction. He wrestled with the driver, who seized a revolver and fired several shots at the man and at police officers who arrived on the scene. None was hurt. The driver was then shot dead by two officers.”

An eyewitnesses to the heinous attack, Eric Ciotti, told Europe 1 that he saw the man jump onto the vehicle. He said, “A person jumped on to the truck to try to stop it.” He added, “It’s at that moment that the police were able to neutralize this terrorist.”

The identity of the citizen who risked his life to save others has not been released. He was not, apparently, armed.

Separately, another civilian on a motorcycle tried to stop the truck by pulling up alongside it and accosting the driver, according to the UK Guardian. The truck was moving slowly at that point. The motorcyclist was apparently unarmed.

Unfortunately, according to eyewitnesses and video, he was shoved aside, lost his balance and evidently fell under the wheels of the truck. He is reportedly in critical condition at a local hospital.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com

Muslims Celebrate Bastille Day: 80 Dead, 68 Injured

rs

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 15, 2016:

The truck was loaded with explosives and hand grenades as it plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, Thursday night. It was no accident: Nice authorities emphasized that it was a terror attack, which was fairly clear already from the fact that the driver exchanged gunfire with police after he rammed into the crowd.

At least eighty people are dead and 68 wounded, and Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi calls it “the worst tragedy in the history of Nice.” But given the harsh realities of the contemporary world, it probably won’t be the worst for long.

Jihadis have had their eyes on France for quite some time. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Yes, “run him over with your car.”

Then again from the Islamic State in May 2016:

“The French must die by the thousands…. Towards paradise, that is the path….Come, brother, let’s go to paradise, our women are waiting for us there, with angels as servants. You will have a palace, a winged horse of gold and rubies….With a little rocket-launcher, you can easily get one of them… you do something like that in the name of Dawla (Islamic State), and France will be traumatised for a century.”

The French are already traumatized. The BBC reported last week that “more than 5,000 French police will be deployed at key venues in and around Paris ahead of the Euro 2016 football final between France and Portugal,” and that “there will be no victory parade if France win.” Why not? For fear of jihad terror attacks.

The Bastille Day jihad massacre demonstrates that the answer to jihad attacks is not to curtail one’s activities and cower in fear. Even if free people do that, the jihadis will strike anyway. Even without a victory parade, the jihadis struck yet again in France. The response should not be to cower in fear, but to recognize that this is a war and act accordingly. France has just suffered a fresh attack in a war that is being fought by people in service of an ideology that France, like other Western countries, refuses to acknowledge even exists.

France, even as it is under serious attack by the warriors of jihad, continues to pursue policies that will only result in the arrival of still more Muslims to France – and with them will come jihad terrorists, and many, many more jihad massacres like the one on Bastille Day in Nice. French curtailing their activities for fear of being struck by jihadis did not save them. The Bastille Day jihad attack should be the last to take place under the regime of politically correct fantasy that forces law enforcement and intelligence officials to pretend that the threat is other than what it is, and that the remedy is to apply, one more time, policies that have failed again and again and again.

Bastille Day should be a day for the releasing of prisoners. In the war against the global jihad, the truth has been prisoner for too long. It is time to set it free – before it, too, becomes irrevocably a casualty of this war against an enemy no one dares name.

“On behalf of the American people, I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians,” Obama said.

Question: did Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on behalf of the American people, condemn in the strongest terms every German and Japanese strike during World War II? Did he add that the U.S. administration was in touch with Hawaiian or Polish or French or Midway etc. officials and was ready to offer any assistance in the investigation?

The answer is no, because there was no need to offer such condemnations. The world was at war, and the world knew it was at war. The fact was obvious, as was which side each combatant was on. Nor was there any need for an investigation after each battle. Everyone knew what was going on, and why.

The reason why Obama offers these condemnations now after each jihad massacre is because he treats each as if it were an isolated incident, not as if it were one more battle in a long war. And he offers help in an investigation for the same reason: if U.S. officials do end up helping the French with an investigation of this latest jihad massacre, they will like come back with a characteristically Obamoid conclusion: they’re unable to determine the motive of the perpetrator.

In reality, there is no need for an investigation, because the jihadi’s motive is obvious. There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war — not just lip-service as French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve offers, but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.

***

Gen. Flynn: I Want Muslim Leaders to Stand Up Tonight and Condemn This Madness

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn sounded off on the terror attack in Nice, France, tonight, saying that he wants to see the leaders of Muslim-majority nations stand up against “this radical form of this ideology in their bloodstream and declare that this thing cannot exist on this planet.”

The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said he doesn’t know who exactly carried out the attack, but said there’s been a lot of “chatter” by jihadist soldiers praising what happened.

“I want these leaders in this Muslim world that have this radical Islamic ideology festering, metastasizing, to stand up, and stand up tonight and be counted, and say something to condemn this attack that we have just seen.”

Flynn said “we have not set up an international set of strategic objectives to go after this very vicious, very barbaric enemy.”

He also called the current situation a “world war,” though not like one anyone has read about in history books.

***

Gingrich calls for deportation of those who ‘believe in Sharia’

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House and talked-about pick for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot, said on Fox News while discussing the Nice, France, terrorist attack that the United States ought to implement a testing system to root out Shariah-compliant Muslims and deport them.

On “Hannity,” Gingrich said the country “should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

***

Gorka: Greatest Number of ISIS Foreign Fighters Are from Tunisia

“This isn’t about workplace violence or some other label. This is again an instance of the jihadis taking the war to the infidel on their home territory,” said Gorka.

Louie Gohmert and Darrell Issa Renew Push to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Organization

meeting-by-Dustin-640x480Breitbart, by Dustin Stockton, July 13, 2016:

Congressmen Darrell Issa (R, CA) and Louis Gohmert (R, TX) pushed a bill, H.R. 3892, that would officially designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization at a meeting organized by the London Center for Policy research in the Russell Senate building on Wednesday.

The panel included several distinguished American and Egyptian speakers. Egypt has already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and H.R. 3892 would apply the terror designation to the Muslim Brotherhood for the U.S. government.

After the London Center’s Vice President Eli Gold started the meeting, Congressman Gohmert spoke first by outlining the case against the Muslim Brotherhood and countering arguments made by detractors of the legislation. The outspoken Texas Congressman addressed accusations of racism over his opposition to radical Islam by saying Radical Islam isn’t a race, it’s a violent ideology. Gohmert also hammered the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as an unindicted co-conspirator in the conviction of the Holyland Foundation for providing material support to terrorists. Gohmert used the words of several prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood to illustrate that the Muslim Brotherhood considers itself an enemy of the United States and that we should take them at their word.

Congressman Issa spoke next,  saying that the Muslim Brotherhood drives hatred of Christians and Jews. Congressman Issa eviscerated arguments from opponents of the legislation that claim the Muslim Brotherhood is just a political organization. “The Muslim Brotherhood should change their name if they want to call themselves a political organization,” Issa said. “They can’t use the same monikers, slogans, and rhetoric and claim they’ve changed their spots.”

After the Congressmen left to attend a vote in the House, President of the London Center for Policy Research, Herb London, talked about the Muslim Brotherhood providing seed money to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He talked about the revolution in Egypt that initially installed the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi as President. Shortly after Morsi was installed nearly a third of Egyptians again took to the streets, this time to remove Morsi. Morsi called on the military to fire on the protesters and General El-Sisi refused, making him a hero and eventually Morsi’s replacement as President, London explained.

London also brought up a speech Egyptian President El-Sisi made denouncing violence and extremism in his own religion and commented that it was unfortunate that it was mostly ignored by the media.

Egyptian actor Mahmoud Kabil also spoke about his experience in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. Kabil talked about heading “veterans against Morsi” and tied the Muslim Brotherhood to an organization that the United States has already designated as a terrorist organization, Hamas.

London Center Senior Military Fellow Major General Bob Newman talked about the Muslim Brotherhood’s potential for non-kinetic attacks including cyber attacks and an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack on American infrastructure.

Egyptian TV host Michael Morgan warned that the Muslim Brotherhood will lie and say anything to get what they want, which is a foothold to attack from within.

Breitbart News asked another panelist, Senator Ted Cruz’s Legislative Assistant Samantha Leahy, what impact the terror designation would have on the Muslim Brotherhood. She answered by saying that it would give the State Department more leeway to open investigations and follow Muslim Brotherhood finances. A member of the audience asked in a follow-up question if the terror designation would compel the government to take action because the current administration isn’t likely to do anything against the Muslim Brotherhood voluntarily. Leahy answered that terror designation would prevent members of the Muslim Brotherhood from entering the country and compel the monitoring of their finances.

Dustin Stockton is a political reporter for Breitbart News, a community liaison for Gun Owners of America, and a political strategist. Follow him on Twitter @DustinStockton or  Facebook.

Islamic State Claims Ramadan ‘Victory’ Praising Month’s Jihadi attacks

REUTERS/STRINGER

REUTERS/STRINGER

Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 13, 2016:

The Islamic State has prepared an infographic celebrating its “victory” over the month-long Muslim holiday of Ramadan. The terror state claims to have killed and injured 5,200 people during the month.

Foreign Desk News reports the infographic touts Ramadan atrocities such as the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida; the bakery massacre in Dhaka, Bangladesh; a suicide bomb attack on the Canadian embassy in Afghanistan that killed 14 Nepalese soldiers; and the stabbing of a police officer and his wife in France.

al-Naba magazine

al-Naba magazine

“Recent attacks against Nigerian, Jordanian and Somali troops as well as the downing of six drones and demolition of 440 tanks are also among their listed successes,” adds Foreign Desk.

The UK Independent finds the infographic boasting of one of the most deadly ISIS attacks to date, the murder of 300 in Baghdad when a truck bomb was detonated in a market during shopping for the Eid al-Fitr feast that concludes Ramadan.

Curiously, the infographic does not mention the attack on Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, which was blamed on ISIS by Turkish authorities, including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

ISIS gleefully divides its victims into 1,988 Shiite Muslims, 965 Kurdish soldiers, 752 Libyan militia fighters, 580 Alawite Muslims in Syria, 285 Christians (described as “Crusaders”), 100 Yemeni soldiers, 50 Egyptian troops, 74 troops from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and 50 troops from Iraq.

It is unclear who the dead counted in these numbers are or whether the number is accurate or inflated. An assessment of all jihadist attacks during Ramadan, not just those claimed by the Islamic State, finds only 421 killed and 729 injured worldwide, including the Istanbul airport attack and documented Taliban bombings.

Also see:

9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad

Sipa via AP Images

Sipa via AP Images

Breitbart, by Jamie Glazov, July 13, 2016:

While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor.

Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism:

1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment.

The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law).

2. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.”

“Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country.

For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security.

The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage.

3. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups.

The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it.

4. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy.

After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them.

Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing.

4. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign.

The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch.

Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam.

Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.”

The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands.

6. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious.

Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious.

7. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools.

Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5).

Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now.

8. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government.

Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam.

(P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.)

9. Ridicule the Enemy.

Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Sharia and Jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches.

Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.

We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other.

Jamie Glazov is the editor of Frontpagemag.com. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of United in Hate, the host of the web-TV show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Immigrant Former National Guard Member Arrested For Aiding ISIS

Waseem Andrabi/Hindustan Times via Getty Images

Waseem Andrabi/Hindustan Times via Getty Images

Breitbart, by Caroline May July 5, 2016:

A naturalized U.S. citizen from Sierra Leone who is also a former member of the Army National Guard is the latest individual arrested for providing material support to ISIS and for attempting to purchase weapons for an attack on U.S. soil.

Mohamed Bailor Jalloh was arrested on July 3 after purchasing a firearm from a dealership in northern Virginia. Unbeknown to Jalloh, he was under FBI surveillance at time of the purchase and the weapon was disabled.

Prior to Jalloh’s arrest, according to the Justice Department, a now-deceased member of ISIS arranged a meeting in March between Jalloh and another individual in the U.S. who was a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI. The ISIS member who arranged the meeting believed Jalloh and the CHS would help in carrying out an attack in the U.S.

Jalloh and the CHS met on two occasions in April and May during which time Jalloh explained that he quit the National Guard after listening to online lectures by Anwar al-Aulaqi. He also revealed that he spent six-months in Africa where he met with ISIS members in Nigeria and began conversations with the ISIS member who introduced him to the CHS.

Jalloh noted said that he had considered conducting an attack himself explaining that he “was close to doing so at one point.” He also praised the terrorist who murdered five U.S. military members in Chattanooga, Tennessee and the Ft. Hood terrorist.

“JALLOH claimed to know how to shoot guns, and that he had been thinking about conducting a Nidal Hassan (Hassan) – style attack,” the complaint reads. “When asked to explain what he meant, JALLOH said, “Nidal Hassan type of things. That’s the kind of stuff I started thinking you know.” Hassan is a former Major in the United States Army who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in a terrorist attack on Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009.”

During their May meeting, Jalloh expressed his desire to conduct an attack during the month of Ramadan. He also sought the CHS’ assistance in sending $500 to assist ISIS, which ended up being sent to an FBI employee posing as an ISIS member.

In June, Jalloh attempted to purchase firearms in North Carolina, but failed. On July 2 he was able to purchase the disabled Stag Arms assault rifle from a northern Virginia gun dealer.

The criminal charges against Jalloh — attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS — carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

Also see:

State and Local Law Enforcement Must Take the Lead Against Jihad

Crime Scene

Crime Scene

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton, July 4, 2016:

In case you haven’t noticed, the global Jihadist insurgency has entered a new, more dangerous phase in the past two years.

The number of Jihadis and the number of attacks that they have carried out–as well as the number of casualties they have inflicted and the number of countries they operate in–has grown drastically.

The excellent, private IntelCenter organization estimates that the Islamic State has killed 18,000 people in 28 countries since they declared their Caliphate on 29 June 2014.

This includes individual acts of Jihad carried out in this country in places like Orlando, Chattanooga, Boston, Garland, San Bernardino, Queens and Philadelphia.

There is no reason to believe that this trend won’t continue. The effort to take down the caliphate is half-hearted at best because it simply isn’t something our president is interested in. He feels as if he killed Bin Laden and that should have been enough. Never mind that the world has become awash in Jihad since then.

Because of the complete lack of leadership on this vital issue, our federal bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus is not even allowed to study Islamic threat doctrine–the very doctrine that the Islamic State cites repeatedly.

Time and time again we find that the warning signs of the Jihadi attackers were missed. We were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston bombers) repeatedly by the Russians and the FBI knew that their mosque was founded by a convicted Al Qaeda member. Yet they were still able to carry out their attack.

There were warning signs about the San Bernardino Jihadis as well. The female, Tafsheen Malik, used a fake address to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. She also gained entry into the U.S. under the horribly flawed federal “Visa Express” program that allows applicants to bypass the interview in the screening process.

Moreover, DHS whistleblower Phillip Haney has testified before Congress and written in his new book, “See Something, Say Nothing,” that he had been ordered to cease investigations into Tablighi Jamaat, the notorious Islamist organization that had ties to the San Bernardino mosque.

Then there is the case of Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, who was twice interviewed by the FBI because he was in the contact list for an American Islamikaze bomber in Syria and because he made “incendiary” remarks to co-workers about Jihad. Oh, and his Dad posted pro-Taliban videos too. He was given the all-clear, only to end up massacring 49 innocent Americans.

What all this points to is the vital need for state and local law enforcement to take the lead against Jihad inside this country. I promise you, the NYPD does not wait for the FBI to vet suspected terrorists. Other state and local agencies around the country need to take the same approach, albeit with resources that can’t match the NYPD, which is probably the most effective counterterrorism law enforcement organization anywhere in the world.

The fact is, the Feds are unaccountable. They can’t follow up all the leads they have now and very often have a lack of knowledge as to what or who they are dealing with. I have a hunch that the FBI agents who interviewed Omar Mateen probably thought he was creepy at best, but they had nothing to charge him with and they had to go about their business. Complicating matters even more is the fact that both the FBI and DHS are forbidden from tying Islam to terrorism. That restriction right there makes them ineffective at conducting counterintelligence operations.

State and local cops are not unaccountable. They have deep roots in their communities. If an Omar Mateen is in someone’s precinct and they know he is a known associate of an Islamikaze bomber and made threatening statements about terrorism, they will keep an eye on him way past the initial interview. There won’t be much more important in that precinct once an Omar Mateen comes to the local cops’ attention.

Furthermore, state and local police are not under any restriction to refrain from studying the enemy threat doctrine. If the local sheriff or police chief is bold enough, he will mandate that his intelligence and investigative people get educated about the threat in an objective, unbiased manner–allowing the subject matter to take them where it leads them, rather than starting from the position that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism.

State and local police are now at the tip of the spear in this war. 15 years ago America sent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines overseas to protect us all from Jihad. Today, local law enforcement is being tasked with protecting soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from Jihad inside our own country. This is a profound shift in this war that has been lost on the overwhelming majority of the American people.

In Garland, Texas, it was a 62-year old motorcycle cop who gunned down the two Jihadi attackers who were wielding AK47s.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, it was the local police who gunned down Mohammad Abdulazeez.

In Boston, it was Boston PD who ran down the Tsarnaev brothers.

In Queens, New York, it was rookie patrolmen who were targeted by and gunned down Zale Thompson.

The San Bernardino shooters were killed by members of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.

In Philadelphia, it was a police officer sitting in his patrol car that was targeted by Edward Archer in the name of ISIS.

And, of course, we know that it was the Orlando Police Department who responded to Omar Mateen’s massacre.

By the time DHS and FBI show up, they have to ask permission to cross the crime scene tape. In Marine Corps parlance, by the time the Feds get involved, it’s “right of bang.”

State and local police need to prepare to operate against Jihadis “left of bang,” and that means taking their own initiative and not depending solely on our bureaucratized, federal counterterrorism apparatus for training or intelligence about potential bad guys in their jurisdictions.

Muslim Nations Defend Palestinian Terror During UN Terrorism Review After U.S. Citizen Murdered Near Hebron

OIC-at-UN.sized-770x415xbPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 3, 2016:

Thirteen-year-old Hillel Ariel, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist last week while sleeping in her bed in her home near Hebron.

The day after her murder the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the group representing all 57 Muslim-majority nations, tried to insert justifications for Palestinian terror during a United Nations review of its counter-terrorism strategy.

Stephanie Granot of The Jewish Press reports:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), attempted to introduce language condoning terrorism under certain conditions into a draft of a UN Counter-Terrorism Resolution. The official document is expected to be finalized on Tuesday when the General Assembly concludes a bi-annual Review of its UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.The OIC, an organization of 57 member-states that considers itself “the collective voice of the Muslim world”, has Permanent Delegations to the United Nations as well as to the European Union. Several days prior to the start of the Review, OIC Representative Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi (Saudi Arabia) sought to insert the following clause to the draft of the resolution: “Terrorism in the name of self-determination and national liberation does not constitute terrorism.”

Shortly after Rep. Al-Mouallimi addressed the General Assembly, Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador David Roet delivered an impassioned and powerful speech…

Subsequent to Ambassador Roet’s speech, some significant diplomatic maneuvering by the Israel’s Mission to the UN, and a steadfast refusal on Israel’s part to allow member-states to compromise draft language for the sake of a unanimous consensus, the clause was ultimately not included in the final draft of the review, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review”.

As the article notes, the OIC, which is the second largest inter-governmental body in the world behind the United Nations, has a permanent delegation at the UN.

In May, just a month before the Orlando terror attack targeting a gay nightclub that killed 49, the OIC blocked LGBT groups from attending a UN conference on AIDS held days before the attack.

The defense of Palestinian terrorism is a recurring topic of the OIC.

In April 2002, in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, the OIC adopted a declaration on international terrorism. But during the debate the OIC could not agree on a definition of terrorism, but did reject “any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.”

The OIC’s Islamic Fiqh Council published a January 2003 resolution explicitly endorsing Palestinian terror attacks, saying suicide attacks are a legitimate form of jihad:

3- The Islamic Fiqh Council asserts that jihad and martyr operations done to defend the Islamic creed, dignity, freedom and the sovereignty of states is not considered terrorism but a basic form of necessary defense for legitimate rights. Thus the oppressed peoples who are subjected to occupation have the right to seek their freedom via all means possible.4- The Islamic Fiqh Council stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with terrorism or suicide. Those operations become obligatory when they become the only way to stop the aggression of the enemy, defeat it, and grievously damage its power.

5- It is not allowed to use terms such as “jihad”, “terrorism”, and “violence”, which have become frequently used by today’s mass media as scientific terms, to mean other connotations beyond their basic well known meanings.

In between its unashamed defense of terrorism, the OIC has taken up the cause of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of combating “Islamophobia.”

As I noted last year here at PJ Media, the OIC remarkably called for more free speech limits immediately following the terror attack on the Paris offices of French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo. After reporting that, the OIC’s representative to the UN, Ufuk Gokcen, blocked me on Twitter.

I also reported exclusively that the OIC had funneled $325,000 to Georgetown University through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front group to push its “Islamophobia” agenda.

Through the OIC’s 2005 10-Year Plan of Action and supporting implementation plan, they stated their intent to push for the international criminalization of criticism of Islam.

Hillary Clinton enthusiastically backed the OIC’s push for criminalizing “Islamophobia,” with the U.S. co-sponsoring UNHRC Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan on behalf of the OIC which calls for free speech restrictions in the name of banning “defamation of religion.”

At a July 2011 meeting with the OIC in Istanbul, she reaffirmed her commitment to Resolution 16/18, vowingto use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

Clinton hosted the OIC in a three-day closed-door conference in Washington, D.C., in December 2011. The official OIC media center characterized the meetings with Clinton as an effort to enact its “defamation of religion” agenda spelled out in the OIC’s annual Islamophobia Observatory.

No word if now-Democratic Party presidential candidate Clinton endorses the attempts by the OIC to justify Palestinian terrorism.

Cruz Tears Into DHS Chief Over ‘Systematic Scrubbing’ of Radical Islam During Contentious Exchange

C-SPAN 2 Screengrab

C-SPAN 2 Screengrab

The Blaze, by Jason Howerton, June 30, 2016:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Thursday over the “systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials,” connecting the issue to the 2014 Fort Hood shooting and other attacks.

Cruz began by comparing the number of references to “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam” found in the 9/11 commission report to the number found in several of the Obama administration’s intelligence and counterterrorism materials.

“The word ‘jihad’ appears in that report 126 times, the world ‘Muslim’ appears in that report 145 times, the world ‘Islam’ appears in that report 322 times,” he said sternly. “And yet since that 9/11 commission report, different policies have come into effect. And as a matter of systematic policy, those terms are no longer allowed to be used in this administration.”

Johnson told Cruz repeatedly that he has no knowledge efforts to “purge” DHS material of references to radical Islam. The DHS chief went on to claim that conceding the Islamic State is connected to Islam only gives the terrorist group what it wants.

Cruz ultimately cut off Johnson to reclaim his speaking time.

“You’re entitled to give speeches other times,” Cruz said. “My question was if you were aware that the information has been scrubbed.”

Watch the entire contentious exchange below:

Cruz also pushed back against Johnson’s assertion that removing references to radical Islam is merely a “semantic difference.”

“When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator suggested the Fort Hood shooting may have been one of those instances. When bluntly asked by Cruz if it was a “mistake” not to respond to the “red flags” in regards to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, Johnson accused Cruz of citing incorrect information.

“In one minute, I couldn’t begin to answer your question,” he said.

“Pick anything,” Cruz shot back. “Pick one thing, sir.”

“You’re assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on Fort Hood saw all these different red flags. That’s not correct,” Johnson said.

That’s when Cruz got specific.

“Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?” Cruz asked.

“How are you defining the ‘Obama administration,’ sir?” Johnson said.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz responded.

“The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here,” Johnson answered.

“The answer is ‘yes’ and it’s public record, sir,” Cruz retorted.

Cruz went on to cite “red flags” missed in the Boston bombings and San Bernardino attack.

Ted Cruz GRILLS Muslim Advocates president who SCRUBBED the FBI lexicon

Capture

The Rebel, by VICTOR LASZLO, June 29, 2016:

Farhana H. Khera, President of Muslim Advocates, is questioned by Ted Cruz June 28 during a congressional committee called, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism”

In this video she tries not to answer the question as to why she pressed the Obama administration to expunge all language referring to Islamic Terror from security services such as the FBI’s lexicons.

It has been argued that the refusal to allow the FBI to pursue avenues of investigation based on terms such as “Jihad” or “Ummah” in the language found on surveillance materials directly led to the Boston Marathon bombing being carried out although the FBI were aware of the perpetrators and aware of the ideology they subscribed to.

Also very likely the San Bernardino attacks for the same reason.

Ms. Khera says in this video: “…Regardless of their race, religion or ideology”.

To discriminate on the basis of ideology is not the same as race.

In fact, ideology is what in rational times, societies based on reason would call “motive”.

Also see:

Senate Hearing: While Feds Scrubbed References To Islam, Terrorists Escaped Notice

tedcruz

A Tuesday Senate hearing Sen. Ted Cruz chaired discussed the ‘willful blindness’ of Democrats’ approach to combatting Islamist terrorism.

The Federalist, by M.G. Oprea, June 29, 2016:

On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz chaired an investigative hearing to determine whether law enforcement agencies are deemphasizing radical Islam while investigating terrorism in the United States. Its purpose, according to Cruz’s website, was to “investigate how the federal government has not only refused to appropriately identify the specific threat of radical Islam, but has sought to undermine the people and information who have sought to highlight the threat.”

Provocatively titled “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism,” the hearing comes just weeks after Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people in an Orlando night club and injured dozens more. In his opening remarks, Cruz said, “the consequence of the willful blindness of a policy, that is a matter of administration policy, that refuses to acknowledge the threat, means over and over again this administration has allowed the threats to go forward.”

In the weeks following the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, Democratic leaders and media elites once again tried to blame the attacks on everything under the sun other than Islamic radicalism. White Christians, Republicans, gun laws, and anti-gay bigotry are for liberals the worst culprits.

But it’s not just the mainstream media and the far-left selling this bill of goods. Incredibly, this rhetoric has been coming from our government. President Obama made a public statement in the days after the Orlando attack doubling down on his commitment not to speak about Islam when addressing any terrorist attacks, even when they are manifestly inspired or encouraged by ISIS or other Islamist ideology.

Denying Reality Gets People Killed

Last week, the FBI released a heavily redacted transcript of Mateen’s 911 call, in which he pledged his allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The FBI had scrubbed references to ISIS and changed his use of “Allah” to “God,” as though it were a translation rather than a transcript. Most damning of all, however, was the revelation that the FBI was aware of Mateen’s presence, had interviewed him three times in the past few years, and knew he belonged to the same mosque as Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American suicide bomber in Syria.

Of course, this latest foray into delusion vis-à-vis the relationship between terrorism and Salafist interpretations of Islam, or what Andrew McCarthy referred to in the hearing as “Sharia supremacism,” is preceded by a long history of the Obama administration’s systemic denial of this relationship. We saw similar reactions on the Left and in our government after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, a few weeks after which Obama held a summit on “violent extremism,” as though one can be violently extreme about nothing in particular. There were similar reactions after San Bernardino, Paris, and Brussels.

The hearing Tuesday was meant to shine a spotlight on what can only be described as a systematic and willful blindness to the reality that Islamist ideology is closely linked to terrorism and radicalization. This blindness is a natural consequence of the Obama administration’s reckless national-security policy of “countering violent extremism,” or CVE. McCarthy describes the CVE as “delusionally forbid[ing] the conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on terrorist plotting.”

Among those who testified was Philip Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, now turned whistleblower. He described ongoing retaliation while working at DHS for investigations he ran that put the dots together for international Islamist groups that also worked within the United States. Haney was ordered by his superiors to redact the use of Islamic terms in 876 documents, something for which none of the Democrats at the hearing expressed even the slightest bit of concern. He surmises that had his work been allowed to continue, DHS very well could have been alerted to the San Bernardino shooters.

As Long As We Keep Saying It, It Will Be True

In the hearing, Cruz repeatedly brought up Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, who was known to have visited radical Islamic websites and been in email contact with a radical cleric. This is important because Hassan’s terrorist attack was one of the earliest occurrences of the Obama administration’s insistence that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, because the White House fundamentally rejects the notion that Islam inspires violence. The military officially labeled the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence,” despite what Hassan himself claims it was.

Another major point raised in Tuesday’s hearing was the scrubbing of terms like “Islam” and “jihad” in DHS training materials over the past several years. This was compared with the 9/11 Commission report, where Islam-related words showed up more than 100 times. Notably, one of the panelists, Farhana Khera, is president of Muslim Advocates, the organization that requested in writing that these training materials be “purged” of these “bigoted” terms.

Not surprisingly, Khera spent much of her time testifying in the exact kind of doublespeak that the hearing was there to discuss. She said dangerous political rhetoric regarding Islam is teaching Americans to fear and hate their Muslim neighbors, despite other panelists arguing that Islam is not a monolithic religion and that there are multiple interpretations, including violent ones, and that these, not the peaceful ones, ought to be condemned. But Khera wasn’t listening. She said she was disturbed by what the other panelists said, calling it “garbage.”

La La La, I’m Not Listening

Panelists like Chris Gaubitz, a national security consultant at Understanding the Threat Consulting Firm, pointed out that we could kill every member of ISIS and al-Qaeda, but without addressing the spread of sharia doctrine, Islamist terrorism won’t end. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, urged an honest conversation about Islamist terrorism, arguing that by refusing to talk about it we are infantilizing Muslims by supposing they are too fragile to hear a frank discussion about Islam. According to him, “to say that Islam has no problems is just as problematic as saying Islam and Muslims are the problem”

Several Democratic senators tried to make analogies to the KKK and Christianity, arguing that just like we don’t call white-supremacist groups “radical Christians” neither should we call individuals and groups who perpetrate terrorist acts in the name of Islam “radical Muslims.” Meanwhile, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, spent much of his time discussing how the focus on Islamic terrorism in the last 15 years has blinded us to the serious problems in our country with radical right-wing terrorists.

During the Senate hearing, Turkey’s Ataturk airport was attacked by suicide bombers, killing dozens, and al-Qaeda released a special edition of their English-language publication Inspire Guide urging lone-wolf attackers to target the “Anglo-Saxon community” so their acts won’t be misinterpreted as “hate crimes” but rather what they really are: religiously motivated terrorist attacks. How painfully ironic that Islamist terrorists are so flummoxed by the liberal West’s insistence on ignoring their motivations that they had to make an official statement to clarify things.

In the end, the hearing appeared an effort in futility. It seemed as though half the room lives in an alternate reality. But only one of those realities is real. And only one of them will win out in the end.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

***

Also see:

Why Our Leaders Won’t Name the Enemy

olThe truth would destroy them.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 28, 2016:

After the Orlando attack, Obama ranted that it did not matter what we called Islamic terrorism. “What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIS less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”

The “Islamic terrorists by any other name would smell as sweet” argument is the last resort of the losing side. It dismisses the whole issue as a matter of semantics with no bearing on the real world.

And that’s a neat rhetorical trick for the political side that relentlessly refuses to acknowledge reality.

One of the more shocking moments in Jeffrey Goldberg’s extended Atlantic write-up of Obama’s foreign policy came with his conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia. Obama, who has refused to recognize any connection between Islamic theology and violence, and made the hijab into a civil rights issue, told the Australian leader how he had seen Indonesia turn to “fundamentalist” Islam and noted, unfavorably, the large numbers of women now wearing hijabs as a sign of that fundamentalism.

Obama blamed the Saudis for pushing Wahhabism through imams and madrassas into Indonesia.

It wasn’t an original critique, but also not one that you hear much in Obama’s circles. When Obama reportedly tells world leaders that there will be “no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity” and undergoes reforms the way that Christianity did, it’s like suddenly having Khrushchev explain why Communism can’t work and will end up falling apart.

It’s shocking and revealing.

In moments like these we see that Obama knows that he’s lying. And Obama makes the awkward semantics argument because he knows that the existence of Islamic terrorism can’t be debated. When you are reduced to arguing that names don’t matter, it’s because you know that the name is right.

Plenty of leftists lie to themselves about Islamic terrorism. Obama is not lying to himself. He’s lying to us. He is willing to say things about Islamic terror to foreign leaders that he refuses to say to Americans.

He can tell them that Islamic terrorism is real and that the only way to stop it is to reform Islam.

And here is where we come back to his question of why naming Islamic terrorism matters. It’s a question that Obama has already answered. You can’t solve a problem until you define it. It may not matter what you call a rose, as long as you know that it’s a plant. If you don’t know that a rose is a flowering plant that grows out of the ground, then you’ll never figure out how to plant one. If you don’t know that Islamic terrorism is a theological implementation of its core religious identity, you won’t even know what it is you are supposed to be fighting. And you won’t win except through brute force.

We have never defined the problem of Islamic terrorism because that would just be too dangerous.

Why is Obama willing to talk about Saudi support for terrorism to the Prime Minister of Australia, but not to Americans? Why does he only suggest reforming Islam to foreign leaders in private?

The official story is that it would “empower” Islamic terrorists, but that’s a nonsensical claim. ISIS doesn’t derive its legitimacy from whether we call it ISIS, ISIL or Daesh. Nor are Muslims going to determine the theological legitimacy of a Jihadist group based on whether we refer to it as Islamic.

Telling the truth would no doubt “offend” Muslims. And the threat of offending Muslims continues to occupy far more branches of our government than fighting Muslim terrorism.

But Obama isn’t really afraid of offending Muslims. If he were, he wouldn’t have provided this little peek into his private meetings at all. Obama isn’t afraid of Muslims, terrorists or otherwise, he’s afraid of Americans.

Tell the truth and Americans might suddenly get the naughty idea that instead of waiting for Islam to “reform”, they ought to just deal with the problem at its source with a travel ban. They might decide that extra scrutiny for mosques really is warranted and that airport profiling would save everyone grief.

And, worst of all, they might realize that they have no reason to feel guilty about our foreign policy. If Islamic terrorism exists and is caused by Islam, then America isn’t and was never the problem.

That kind of thinking frightens Obama and the left far more than a hundred Orlando terror attacks.

Name the enemy and Americans might suddenly start feeling good about themselves. That outraged confidence which we associate with Pearl Harbor, but that made a brief return after September 11, might come back to stay. Americans would embrace patriotism and pride without doubt or guilt.

That is why Islamic terrorism can’t and won’t be named.

Whatever dislike Obama may harbor for the Islamization of Indonesia, he appears to be far less concerned by it than by the Americanization of America. He may indeed recognize Islamic terrorism to be a threat of some degree, but he views American patriotism as a much bigger threat.

He can give enlightened Atlantic readers a small peek behind the scenes to show them that he recognizes the obvious problem, but he isn’t about to extend that confidence nationwide.

And it’s not just Obama.

The real reason that our leaders won’t name the enemy is that they don’t like us and they don’t trust us. Running through their heads are nightmare scenarios like Brexit and Trump. They see their job as shepherding us away from our “worst impulses” toward a proper role within the global community.

They are quite capable of recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it is. They may not be terribly bright, but people in their positions have more than enough access to information for the conclusions to be inescapable. But they are determined not to allow Islamic terrorism to disrupt their larger plans for us.

It isn’t another 9/11 or 7/7 that worries them, but a resurgence of nationalism in response to it. That is why they will lie, mislead and even criminalize any dissent. Their response to every Islamic terrorist attack is to make us feel responsible, ashamed and helpless by transforming Muslims into the victims.

For these same reasons they will push mass Muslim migration no matter what the terror risks are. They will champion the hijab, even though they know it harms Muslim women. Why? Because these policies undermine our values and transform our countries. And that is their overriding agenda above all else.

That is what we are up against.

They know that they are lying about Islamic terrorism. It’s why Obama dismisses the subject as mere semantics. But it’s only one of many things that they are lying to us about. Obama lies to us about Islamic terrorism for the same reason that he lies to us about being able to keep your doctor.

He knows the truth, but the truth would interfere with the left’s larger plans to transform America.

On September 11, Huma Abedin Worked For Hillary Clinton and Saudi Charity Suspected of Terror Funding

Getty images

Getty images

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, June 28, 2016:

On September 11, 2001 Huma Abedin — Hillary Clinton’s aide for twenty years and co-chair of her current Presidential run — was working for an organization located in the offices of Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League.

That’s a Wahhabist Islamic group that Breitbart News recently reported was going to be put on a list of terror funders by U.S. government but was removed, reportedly under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

This latest revelation ties the Muslim World League directly to the The Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs and the Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization that Vanity Fair writer William D. Cohan called “the Abedin family business.

Huma Abedin is scheduled to give a deposition today on her role in the Hillary Clinton email server scandal, which involved classified documents.

Muslim World League London Office & Abedin Family Business Have Same Address

An archived webpage from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from a little over a year after 9/11 — December 2, 2002, the earliest date available — shows that then-New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin was an assistant editor of the Journal.

Aside from Huma herself, also listed on that same date as editors are her sister Heba, her brother Hassan and her mother, Saleha S. Mahmood.

Listed on the Board of Advisers on that date is former Muslim World League Secretary General Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is listed as being on the “Majlis as-Shura.”

Majlis as-Shura or Shura Council, also known as the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, is a 150 member board of advisers—all appointed by the Saudi Arabian King—that proposes laws to the King and cabinet in the Kingdom’s absolute monarchy.

From that same December 2002 date, another webpage on the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs site about how to reach the Journal says “Editorial Correspondence including submission of articles and books for review should be addressed to: Editor, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 46 Goodge Street, London WIP 1FJ, U.K.”

The current official Journal website also lists the same 46 Goodge Street address, which is the same exact address listed on the Muslim World League’s London office address.

The official website for the Muslim World League’s London office lists its address as 46 Goodge Street.

The current day London Online website also lists the Muslim World League office in London and the Journal’s parent organization Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs as having the exact same 46 Goodge Street address.

A Yelp! listing for the Muslim World League shows the same 46 Goodge Address and a photo of the entrance.

Google Maps from 2008—the earliest date available—shows the Muslim Word League London office entrance, which appears to have office space above a pizza restaurant.

The Muslim World League Was Reportedly Pulled From Terror Funder List

Although she was working for Senator Hillary Clinton in 2001, at that time Huma Abedin was an unknown but influential aide, so her connection the the Muslim World League went unexamined.

Reports from mainstream media sources at the time of the 9/11 terror show that U.S. intelligence officials thought for years that the Muslim World League was connected to terror, but failed to inform the public of the connections due to pressure from Saudi Arabia.

Newsweek reported less than a month after the 9/11 attack:

Two interrelated global charities directly financed by the Saudi government–the International Islamic Relief Organization and the Muslim World League –have been used by bin Laden to finance his operations. The organizations were left off the list of groups sanctioned by the United States last week, U.S. officials hinted to NEWSWEEK, in order to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.

Harper’s magazine confirmed in a 2004 story:

In other cases, the Bush Administration made a conscious decision not to pursue major Saudi conduits for terrorist funding. The clearest example involves two ostensible charities that are long known to have funneled money to Al Qaeda–the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and the Muslim World League (MWL). Both are financed directly by the Saudi government. MWL is an evangelical organization that was created to help spread Wahhabism, the Saudi brand of Islamic fundamentalism; IIRO is a humanitarian relief organization that operates primarily in Muslim countries.

There is no record of either Hillary Clinton or Huma Abedin ever coming forward with information about the Muslim World League, even though the group was suspected of terrorist funding at the time.

Hillary Clinton Needs To Answer Questions About Huma Abedin

This clear connection between the Muslim World League and the Institute of Muslim Minority raises even more questions about the mysterious Huma Abedin.

A recent Breitbart News article from Republican political operative Roger Stone called for the media to force Hillary Clinton to break her silence about how Huma Abedin got into her current position as a Hillary Clinton confidant and how she was able to get a security clearance. Stone asked three questions: number one was What is Huma’s relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

It’s a question that neither Hillary Clinton nor Huma Abedin ever appears to have been asked by the media.

Follow Breitbart News investigative reporter and Citizen Journalism School founder Lee Stranahan on Twitter at @Stranahan.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia?

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 20, 2016:

One of the reasons Western liberal culture has so much difficulty grappling with the reality of radical Islam is that liberals think religion, in general, is a quaint hobby no one is really serious about. Islam, however, has a code of law called sharia, which is meant to transcend secular law.

In Muslim countries, sharia principles are either incorporated into national law, the national laws are expressly based on sharia code, or there is a parallel legal system of sharia courts.  That’s not an idea that meshes comfortably with the Western ideal of pluralism.

In the United States, we’re accustomed to decades of battle over “separation of church and state,” which liberals tend to interpret with such severity that they believe serious religious believers aren’t really qualified to hold office, no matter how vigorously they declare their support for the secular religious system. Our academic culture has chafed for generations against the idea that our Constitution was inspired by Judeo-Christian tradition.

During the gay marriage wars of the past few years, same-sex marriage proponents seemed to believe religious Americans couldn’t possibly be sincere about their objections to the new definition of marriage; they were portrayed as cynically invoking religion to cover unreasoning bigotry. There’s a similar whiff of condescension about the way liberals approach sharia law. Muslims can’t be serious about that stuff, can they? Certainly not moderate Muslims, at any rate – and it’s an article of (secular) faith that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are moderate.

And yet, polling finds generally strong support for making sharia the law of the land, in most countries where Muslims live. Support for official sharia tends to be much lower in south-eastern Europe and central Asia, but it’s very high in the regions where all the migrants are coming from.

Polling firms are nervous about measuring sharia support in American and European populations – it’s another one of those data points American hicks apparently need to be protected from by their wise elites – but when the question is asked, support for sharia comes up strong, and seems to be holding strong among younger Muslims, who should theoretically be losing their appetite for Islamic law as they assimilate.

Integrating sharia concepts with Western law is not easy. Sharia’s treatment of homosexuality and free speech have been much discussed, but there are other areas in which the Islamic code clashes with Western legal concepts. You can see the conflicts on the websites dedicated to helping devout Muslims reconcile the contradictions. They make for lively reading.

For example, at the website of the Shariah Board of America – an organization linked to the mosque attended by the Mateen family – a question about the righteousness of paying taxes was answered by a quote from a mufti: “Income tax is an unjust and oppressive system. If a person opts a way in order to avoid or save from it will not account any sin.”

The overtaxed American non-Muslim might be inclined to agree with sharia in this case, but it matters why income taxes are considered unjust. A lengthier discourse from 2012 atSyaria.com explains that sharia states only a few kinds of tax are allowed in Islam: zakat (charity), jizya (the tax paid to by non-believers to their Muslim overlords), kharaj (a land tax), and usyur (basically a tariff against infidel countries.)

Sharia law also has a problem with loans and collecting interest, which is regarded as a form of theft. There are ways for observant Muslims to work around this restriction without disturbing civil society, taking advantage of “sharia-compliant loans” that restructure the repayment system so that no “interest” is explicitly paid, but the lender still makes money, essentially becoming an investor in the loan applicant’s enterprises. Even some big mainstream banks have entered the sharia-compliant loan market, offering everything from business to home and auto loans.

It’s a voluntary work-around that appears to address sharia’s prohibitions against interest to the satisfaction of all involved. (Some advocates of sharia finance maintain that Islamic banks weather financial crises better than conventional institutions, because sharia loans are inherently more conservative – there’s a tighter relationship between loan amounts and physical assets.)

Many of the questions asked at the Shariah Board of America pertain to the treatment of women, in ways that should make “War on Women” liberals turn purple with rage. Sharia is especially rough on women when it comes to inheritance and marital strife. It remains a constant source of amazement that aggressive feminist liberals, ready to take umbrage at everything from patriarchal Father’s Day celebrations to insufficient enthusiasm for female-helmed summer movies, are silent on sharia law.

There are also a great many questions about how Muslims should interact with non-believers, ranging from casual social contact to inter-marriage. In theory, the American principle of free association should cover Muslims who wish to remain insular, but in practice, free association for virtually everyone else is under constant assault by the Tolerance Police.

A common theme running through sharia guidance is that Islamic law either transcends secular law, or should replace it. There is nothing wrong with people voluntarily choosing to live by a strict religious code – that’s another bedrock American principle that’s been under attack for everyone but Muslims, but it’s a key element of our founding philosophy. It becomes problematic when such a code is made superior to secular law, or imposed upon others.

Some of the Q&A at the Shariah Board of America delves into mysticism and superstition, which have no particular legal relevance, but help create a social world alienated from the rest of the American community. These are the sort of cultural markers that intelligence analysts tracking Islamist cells should understand, but if they are prohibited from studying or discussing sharia law, they’ll never understand how it can form a bridge between moderate and radical Muslims.

How are counter-terrorist experts supposed to predict the behavior of radicals, and how can government agencies hope to counter radical messages, if they refuse to study and understand the unique concept of sharia? It’s not like the codes in any other major religious faith.

Islamic extremists usually promote themselves as enforcers of sharia, claiming to understand it better and interpret it more strictly than moderates (who the radicals often denounce as not merely wishy-washy, but apostates, more hated than infidels.)

Many of the radicals’ grievances against Western governments amount to violations of sharia, most famously the ban against insulting Mohammed, although many other complaints are sprinkled through extremist propaganda. By deliberately ignoring sharia’s unique nature and demanding tenets, our government is essentially giving radicals and terrorists a secret language they can use to communicate with potential recruits. The government also handicaps its ability to work productively with moderate Muslims, or even to identify who they are.

Frankly, the track record of the U.S. government picking out actual moderate Muslim groups to work with, post-9/11, is dismal. Officials are routinely suckered by dubious activists with unlovely overseas connections, in part because they treat Islamic law as a secret kingdom they dare not enter. Politicians who love to lecture Christians and Jews on what their faith “really means” are completely unwilling to study what the Koran and associated writings and actual Muslims actually say. Politicians prefer to assume that “moderate Islam” must be the exact opposite of whatever the extremists are saying.

But Islamic reality is much more Islamic than Americans really prefer, and until our politicians and officials acknowledge reality, they will continue to view “radicalization” as a sudden and inexplicable fall from “moderate Islam.”