The Inside Story of How John Kerry Secretly Lobbied to Get CAIR Removed From UAE’s Terrorist Organization List

cairhamas2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
January 19, 2017

On Nov. 16, 2014, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) took the unusual step of designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim American Society (MAS) – as terrorist organizations.

They were among 83 groups named for their connections to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

This outraged CAIR officials, who immediately began efforts to get their organization removed from the list. They found a powerful ally in Secretary of State John Kerry, who authorized State Department officials to meet regularly with UAE officials to lobbying on behalf of CAIR and MAS .

CAIR already had a sympathetic ear in the Obama administration, including the State Department, that had openly embraced and legitimized the entire spectrum of radical Islamist groups falsely posing as religious or civil rights groups, which both CAIR and MAS had done.

At a daily State Department press briefing two days after UAE released its list, a spokesman said that State does not “consider CAIR or MAS to be terrorist groups” but that it was seeking more information from UAE about their decision. He added that “as part of our routine engagement with a broad spectrum of faith based organizations, a range of U.S. government officials have met with officials of CAIR and MAS. We at the State Department regularly meet with a wide range of faith based groups to hear their views even if some of their views expressed at times are controversial.”

In making that admission, the State Department official had effectively affirmed the Obama Administration policy of embracing radical Islamist group under the euphemism of calling them “faith based groups.”

The UAE had good reason to designate CAIR, as records obtained by the FBI indicate it was created as front group for a Hamas support network. While CAIR bills itself as “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” the reality is quite different.

Before helping launch CAIR, Executive Director Nihad Awad worked as public relations director for the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas propaganda arm in the United States. A 2001 Immigration and Naturalization Service memo documented IAP’s support for Hamas and found that the “facts strongly suggest” that IAP was “part of Hamas’ propaganda apparatus.”

IAP was part of the “Palestine Committee,” created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas politically and financially. CAIR was added to the Palestine Committee’s roster just after its 1994 creation.

In 2008, the FBI cut off official contact with CAIR, citing evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial which documented the connections between CAIR and its founders to Hamas.

In a letter to U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, the FBI explained, “until we [the FBI] can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”

During a 2003 Senate hearing, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said that CAIR is known “to have ties to terrorism.” In 2009 correspondence with the FBI, he wrote that cutting off contact with the Islamist group “should be government-wide policy.”

CAIR and its representatives, meanwhile, often espouse radical ideology and propagate the jihadist narrative that the United States is waging a “war on Islam.” Awad repeated that message as recently as September when he denounced legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

CAIR officials often side with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists.

Read more

Son of Muslim Brotherhood Official Visits White House

In this March 9, 2015 photo, Mohammed Soltan is pushed by his father Salah during a court appearance in Cairo, Egypt / AP

In this March 9, 2015 photo, Mohammed Soltan is pushed by his father Salah during a court appearance in Cairo, Egypt / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, January 19, 2017:

The son of a Muslim Brotherhood official who was imprisoned in Egypt until mid-2015 visited the White House earlier this week, according to photos posted on social media.

Mohamed Soltan is an American citizen who served as the unofficial spokesperson for a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated protest movement that sought to reinstate Mohamed Morsi following his ouster in 2013. Soltan visited the White House just days before President Barack Obama is set to vacate the presidential home.

Soltan, the son of a senior Muslim Brotherhood official Salah Soltan, was sentenced to life in prison by Egyptian authorities for his role backing the Muslim Brotherhood as it carried out deadly protests following Morsi’s ouster.

The younger Soltan was released from prison after a lengthy hunger strike and efforts by the Obama administration to secure his freedom.

screen-shot-2017-01-19-at-9-14-33-am-3

Soltan, who has been critical of the Muslim Brotherhood in the past and claims to not be an official member of the organization, thanked the Obama administration in comments accompanying the photo of him in the White House, which was posted on Facebook.

The Obama administration has come under fire in the past for hosting official members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which some lawmakers in Congress have sought to designate as a terrorist organization.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported in 2015 that the State Department had lied to reporters about a meeting it held with Muslim Brotherhood members.

One member of that delegation, a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture in which he held up the Islamic group’s four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.

Because Nothing Says ‘I CAIR’ Like a Pardon

cair-pleaNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, January 18, 2017:

Thinking about what else could happen in the next 48 hours?

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that CAIR (the Council on America-Islamic Relations) is leading a furious lobbying campaign by Islamists in the U.S. to persuade President Obama to free the five Hamas operatives convicted in the Holy Land Foundation case.

Isn’t that rich?

The HLF prosecution is the most significant terrorism financing case the Justice Department has ever done. Hamas, a designated terrorist organization under federal law, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the HLF case, the government proved not only that leading Islamist organizations in America were helping the Brotherhood transmit millions of dollars overseas to Hamas; prosecutors further demonstrated – using the Brotherhood’s own internal memoranda – that the Brotherhood saw its mission in the United States as “a grand jihad to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within.”

In this grand jihad, the Brotherhood was in cahoots with these leading Islamist organizations, many of which had roots in the Brotherhood. One of these was … CAIR.

Indeed, Hamas and Brotherhood activists created CAIR in 1993-94 because they realized they needed an organization with legal know-how and media polish to advance the Islamist agenda. Having studied the United States (in a way that we resist studying radical Islam), they also realized that if they labeled their new creation a Muslim “civil rights” organization, the media would play along – CAIR would be lauded as a social justice warrior rather than revealed as a jihadist mouthpiece.

So CAIR was shown to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case. After the convictions of the five HLF officials in 2008, however, the incoming Obama administration opted against prosecuting CAIR and the other Islamist organizations that had assisted the conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization. In fact, early in his administration, Obama proclaimed his commitment “to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”

As I explained at the time, zakat is often misleadingly translated as “charitable giving” by commentators and government officials. Actually, it is the fortification of the ummah (the notional worldwide Muslim community). Under classic sharia, zakat may only be contributed to Muslims. There are eight categories of permissible zakat recipients; one is Muslims who are fighting in jihad operations. (See the ancient sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller, sec. h8.17: “Zakat: The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster[.]”)

I assume the president was simply uninformed about Islamic law – although this is Obama we’re talking about, so maybe it’s that he figures he knows more about how it should be construed than anyone on earth, including those who’ve spent their lives immersed in it. But Islamists would interpret his stated commitment to “ensure that they can fulfill zakat” as ensuring that they could do what the HLF defendants were convicted of doing: providing material support to terrorists. To Islamists, the five HLF convicts have been stuck serving between 15- and 65-year prison sentences for something they believe Obama has said should not be a crime in the first place.

Following the HLF convictions, it was reported that the Obama Justice Department had blocked prosecutions against a top CAIR official and leaders of other Brotherhood-tied organizations.

And now CAIR is pushing for the HLF defendants to be released from their very lengthy sentences. The Islamists’ narrative, as the Investigative Project explains, is that these Hamas operatives are really victims of, yes, “anti-Muslim hysteria.”

It’s a shrewd campaign. The Obama administration has been wholesale onboard the anti-anti-jihad bandwagon since day-one, and it often spouts the anti-Muslim hysteria party line. The administration has championed the Muslim Brotherhood; worked with Islamist governments to restrict American free speech rights (regarding criticism of Islam); armed and trained militias in Libya and Syria that were threaded with jihadists; and colluded with the Islamist government of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan – a Muslim Brotherhood backer who is among the world’s leading supporters of Hamas. As illustrated by the administration’s shameful orchestration last month of an anti-Israel resolution at the U.N. Security Council, Obama is sympathetic to the hard left’s view that Palestinian terrorists are not really terrorists – they are members of “political organizations” whose regrettable brutality is best understood as “resistance” to “occupation.”

If he were to release the Hamas convicts from the HLF case, Obama would (again) be a hero to both Islamists and leftists. He would simultaneously enrage national-security conservatives in the United States and the Israeli government.

In other words, he’d be doing what he’s done for eight years.

Also see:

Where is Suit-Wearing Jihadi Suhail Khan Today?

khanUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, January 17, 2017:

Prolific suit-wearing jihadi Suhail Khan was in the White House on 9/11.  After officials discovered his father was a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader, he was moved out, but found himself back in the fold in a relatively short amount of time, serving two Secretaries of Transportation in the Bush administration. This gave Suhail Khan a security clearance, access to America’s infrastructure, and a great resume boost.

He continues his war against America as a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement here.

Mahboob Khan

Mahboob Khan

Khan’s father, Mahboob Khan, founded the Muslim Students Association as well as the Muslim Brotherhood’s largest organization in North America, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  ISNA has an annual award entitled the “Mahboob Khan Award,” which should give readers and idea of his influence in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

This would explain why- at the 1999 ISNA conference – Khan said, muslims love death more than non-muslims love life – a common statement heard out of the mouths of ISIS and Al Qaeda jihadis on the battlefield.

Al Qaeda Financier & Close Friend of Suhail Khan – Abdurahman Alamoudi

Al Qaeda Financier & Close Friend of Suhail Khan – Abdurahman Alamoudi

He also thanked an praised Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi, who also spoke fondly of Suhail’s father.

See the UTT video of Suhail Khan:

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-11-51-33-pm

Khan also serves with the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) where Muslim Brotherhood propaganda is supported, encouraged, and directed at a significant level in the United States.  IGE’s Board of Advisors includes Muslim Brotherhood stooge John Esposito of Georgetown University, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, President Bush’s Former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, Ambassador Robert Seiple (Chairman Emeritus), and others.

Suhail Khan continues his work with Republican strategist Grover Norquist, and has been a guest at CPAC, where he is defended by Republicans against those who speak truth about his terrorist ties.

Jihadi Suhail Khan with Grover Norquist

Jihadi Suhail Khan with Grover Norquist

This penetration into our system continues.  Suhail Khan is still walking the streets welcome in Republican circles and wreaking havoc in a suit.

Khan is now the Director of External Affairs for Microsoft, which might explain the pro-Muslim add campaign from Microsoft in December 2016.

The Muslim Brotherhood Isn’t The Only Gang In Town

MA Senator Liz Warren and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh greet Al Qaeda terrorist supporter Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on December 11, 2016.

MA Senator Liz Warren and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh greet Al Qaeda terrorist supporter Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on December 11, 2016.

Daily Caller, by Sam Westrop and Charles Jacobs, January 16, 2017:

Americans for Peace and Tolerance, like so many other counter-extremist and moderate Muslim groups, has focused almost exclusively on the Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by its influence inside American civic institutions, media and the Muslim community.

But as we have found now in Massachusetts, this singular focus risks overlooking equally-dangerous threats posed by preachers and operatives from other Islamist networks and ultra-conservative Islamic groups.

Tomorrow, for example, after a series of events in Connecticut, the Indian Islamist cleric, Yusuf Islahi will be addressing crowds at the Islamic Society of Great Worcester, at an event organized by Helping Hand for Relief and Development – a prominent Islamic charity feted by U.S. government officials and media alike.

Yusuf Islahi is a prominent Islamist, not part of the Brotherhood but rather a leading member of Jamaat-e-Islami  (JeI), a South Asian Islamist organization that promotes terrorism and incite hatred against Jews, women, homosexuals and other minorities. Today, the Bangladeshi war crimes tribunal holds JeI responsible for mass-murder, abduction and torture during the 1971 War of Independence, and has convicted several Western JeI leaders for their complicity. The good people of Worcester surely don’t know this.

Read more

Republicans Propose Bills Designating Iranian Guard And Muslim Brotherhood As Terror Groups

irgc-e1484171929343

Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, January 12, 2017:

Two bills reintroduced in the Congress late Wednesday designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz re-proposed the two bills in the upper chamber while Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul and Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart dropped companion bills in the House.

The bills, according to a press release, will direct the State Department to hold accountable both the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood “two foreign entities that espouse a violent Islamist ideology with a mission of destroying the West. Both bills require a report on whether these organizations meet the criteria to be designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and if so, will enable the U.S. to take action that could stifle the funding they receive to promote their terrorist activities.”

McCaul introduced the IRGC Terrorist Designation Act in the House, which asks the State Department to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization and Diaz-Balart filed legislation for the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, which urges State to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

The passage and adoption of such legislation would be very different from the Obama administration’s relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly in Egypt, where the administration supported the previous Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government headed up by Mohamed Morsi.

“I am proud to reintroduce these bills that would codify needed reforms in America’s war against radical Islamic terrorism,” Sen. Cruz said of the legislation. “This potent threat to our civilization has intensified under the Obama administration due to the willful blindness of politically-correct policies that hamper our safety and security.

Rep. Diaz-Balart agreed saying a statement, “I am proud to once again work with Senator Cruz to introduce this legislation in the 115th Congress. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to support terrorist organizations that are responsible for acts of violence around the world.” He added, “This bill would impose tough sanctions on a hateful group that has spread violence and spawned extremist movements throughout the Middle East. This designation is long overdue, and I look forward to working with the incoming administration and the appropriate committees to ensure that this bill becomes law. We have an incoming president who appreciates the threat of terrorism and has vowed to defeat it. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is an important step in defeating violent extremists.”

The IRGC terrorist designation bill comes on the heels of reports that the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran announced delivery of 116 metric tons of natural uranium to the Iranian regime on Monday.

Rep. McCaul said of the IRGC legislation that “If a foreign organization looks like a terror group, operates like a terror group, and supports terrorism, then it should be called for what it is – a foreign terrorist organization.” He added, “As obvious as that seems, for years the IRGC has been allowed to operate clandestinely using front companies and illicit networks to evade formal designation. The Obama Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to these activities for the sake of a flawed nuclear agreement which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stated publicly would not alter Iran’s behavior.”

Trump has Islamic clerics wetting their pants

fatwa-amjaWND, by Leo Hohmann, January 9, 2017:

North American Islamic scholars have issued a legal ruling or “fatwa” in the wake of Donald Trump’s stunning victory and imminent presidency, instructing the faithful on what to expect and how they should respond to shifting political realities.

Changes are coming, warns the Assembly of Muslim Jurist of America, and Muslims are told to get ready. The fatwa is titled “AMJA Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap.”

While the fatwa received no media attention, this declaration contains the principles to which imams in the nation’s more than 3,100 mosques will be looking for guidance on how to instruct their congregations.

Philip Haney, a retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing,” said the document is loaded with coded language that signals a possible uptick in jihadist attacks during Trump’s presidency.

The fatwa starts out by referring to a “political storm” that has “taken over this country.”

The Islamic scholars at AMJA go on to explain that “Muslims of America are neither guests nor strangers” and they will strengthen their bonds with the country’s civil rights organizations and work to defend Muslim rights “whenever needed.”

“However, at the same time, we must always fulfill our obligations completely and be active participants in society working to protect the security and well-being of its inhabitants,” the fatwa states.

And what are their “obligations?”

“Their obligations are set by Shariah law,” Haney said.

The AMJA never had to issue such a declaration under President Obama because he gave the Muslim community everything they wanted, Haney said.  Now, they are expecting to meet resistance and they are preparing the troops.

“This whole fatwa is about fitnah,” Haney said.

“Fitnah” is an Arabic word meaning “trial” or “test,” which can take the form of oppression against Muslims in a society dominated by infidels. In the modern sense, “fitnah” equals “Islamophobia.”

“And the whole fitnah they expect to encounter is the new administration of Donald Trump,” Haney said. “That is what this whole fatwa is about, that the American Muslim community is about to encounter an intensification of what they consider Islamophobia.”

The AMJA’s Fatwa Committee is led by its senior member, the Egyptian-born radical Waleed Idris al-Maneese, imam of al-Faroq mosque in Bloomington, Minnesota, which has been attended by at least five Somali refugees who ended up being terrorists, as previously reported by WND.

The fatwa committee never mentions Trump by name, but it’s clear who they are talking about. They quote the Quran to reiterate that they themselves are the proper authorities to which all American Muslims should look for guidance in the coming days of trial.

“They’re laying the groundwork on the response to this fitnah,” says Haney. And what is the response?

While they don’t come right out and say it, the language of the directive will be understood by Muslims to mean that violent jihad could be within the realm of what is expected of them in the fight against the Trump-led fitnah or “oppression,” Haney said.

The threat is made with the following statement:

“There is no blame upon a country if it does what is needed to protect its interests and security as long as it does not transgress or oppress by denying or violating rights.”

Of course under Islamic law, where Muslims are able to rule, the government tramples all over people’s “rights,” especially those of Christians, Jews and other religious minorities. But in a Western democracy where Muslims are the minority, it helps further the cause of Islam to play the victim and claim to be “oppressed.”

“Osama Bin Laden was always talking about oppression,” Haney said. “These are capital offenses in Islam,” he added, as long as it is non-Muslims who are doing the oppressing. Otherwise it is expected that Muslims should oppress and subjugate non-Muslims where Muslims have the upper hand in a Muslim-majority society.

The fatwa continues by stating that Islam, with respect to its beliefs and legal foundations, is “unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change.”

That’s a warning to any moderates within the Islamic community, that they have no standing to make any claims on behalf of Islam, Haney said.

“What about all this talk about moderate Muslims? This is AMJA telling you there is no conceivable flexibility in Islam, it’s fixed, it will not change,” he said. “This ruling or fatwa is to accommodate anybody through any time or place, that’s why AMJA exists, to help Muslims in this non-Muslim community navigate the challenges of fitnah under Donald Trump.”

The fatwa states that only the AMJA can be trusted to represent the face of Islam in America:

“One must refer to the people of knowledge to know that the principle is being applied properly. A Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in which one is required to flee with one’s faith or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.”

“They’re telling the people you have to comply with the parameters of Shariah law,” Haney explains. “They’re telling Muslims, ‘we’re about to go down into a danger zone, so don’t go off on your own, you must listen to the enlightened ones.’

“They’re saying we’re not at that point yet where you need to flee. They’re telling you you’re not excused from observing Shariah law and we are telling you now you are obligated to keep it. You will flee America before you compromise with Shariah law. ”

The fatwa exhorts Muslims to “reach out to the other ethnic and religious group as well as political movements on the left and right. This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate.”

The fatwa authors then re-emphasizing that Muslims must double down and support civil rights organizations, which signals that the Muslim community plans to step up its filing of lawsuits against governments and businesses that do not continue the Obama-era policies of affording special rights and privileges to Muslims and mosques that practice Shariah.

Without naming them, the call for donations is clearly directed at lining the coffers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR, which is an offshoot of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, identified as a co-conspirator in funding Hamas terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation trial of 2007.

The fatwa states:

“From among the most important obligations during this stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and relief, and those dedicated to dawah, religious instruction and providing religious rulings.

“It is most unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray for them or give them a kind word. But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.”

‘Prepare for any possibility’

Haney said this is perhaps the most revealing segment of the fatwa.

“They’re telling you the whole structure of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States right there, and when you see it it’s as clear as day,” he said. “And they’re saying it is your obligation to support them.”

They see oncoming time of trial or Islamophobia as a test but that doesn’t alleviate the consequences for those people who are causing the difficulties for Muslims.

“That last line, where it says, ‘But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations’ is very revealing,” Haney said. “That is directed at those who go around trying to get CAIR out of our police departments, out of the FBI and out of our military. This could include Congress itself if they designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. This is the worst kind of fitnah, and what is the fate of those people? Jihad.”

The last admonition in the fatwa is perhaps the most chilling.

“No one knows the unseen except Allah. It is possible that an individual hates something while Allah has placed a lot of good for him in it. We must prepare for any possibility while hoping for the best outcomes.”

This comes directly from the Quran.

“The thing you hate you may have to do,” Haney says. “Devout Muslims know when they hear that phrase what it means. So it’s written in shorthand for those who know what it means.”

Flurry of lawsuits, activism on the way

So Haney, the career DHS officer who developed a database that could predict jihad attacks only to see it deleted from the DHS system by the Obama administration, expects to see an uptick not only in terrorist activity under the Trump administration. He believes America Muslims are also going to become more Shariah compliant.

“And that will spill over into the courts,” he said. “We will see more lawsuits filed, more allegations of hate crimes, hijab ripping, mosque defiling, and all those other things they consistently harp on are going to go up, because they see them as catalysts that reinforce this fatwa. They are going to be hyper-sensitive as a community to any perceived offense, because they are going into this new administration with the expectation that Trump is going to be oppressive, that they’re going to suffer, in other words an increase in Islamophobia, which is all fitnah is.

“So you’re going to hear the drumbeat of islamophobia louder and louder and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because if Trump actually does designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization, then AMJA is going to be one too, because they are a front for the Brotherhood that provides the guidance.”

“It will edge them closer to violence because they’re told they must comply with the principles of Shariah and fitnah, and when you’re presented with the fitnah you must fight against it,” he said.

Haney believes the AMJA fatwa should be studied by the Trump administration as he believes it telegraphs the Muslim leaders’ plan to “set the stage” for a new level of activism and violence.

The AMJA is not just an American organization. It’s a part of the global Islamic hierarchy.

“They come to these fatwa decisions after consulting with their brethren around the world. This is not an independent organization,” he said. “It’s a global consortium that speaks in a unified voice, and they wrote this fatwa specifically about their expectation of fitnah with the election, but did it in consultation with the global community of Islamic scholars.”

“It is a declaration,” he added. “They are telling the community how to respond to the new administration, and what they should do. This is a paramilitary declaration, a clarion call to the minutemen, ‘the British are coming, the British are coming’ and they are expecting an open confrontation and telling them in advance that those trying to shut these organizations [like CAIR] down are the worst.”

Also see:

Islamic terror cells shift from Mideast to U.S.-Mexican border

SIS militants  like these in Syria are filing into Mexico. (Credit Image: © Medyan Dairieh/ZUMA Wire/ZUMAPRESS.com)

ISIS militants like these in Syria are filing into Mexico. (Credit Image: © Medyan Dairieh/ZUMA Wire/ZUMAPRESS.com)

‘They are only waiting for the order’ to attack American cities

WND, by Leo Hohmann, January 5, 2017:

A new report by a government watchdog agency says jihadists are partnering with Mexican drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexican border, preparing to carry out precision attacks in American cities.

Judicial Watch cites confidential U.S. and Mexican law enforcement sources for the disturbing report, which builds on earlier JW reports shining light on the jihadists’ exploitation of the porous border policies of President Barack Obama.

As part of the plan, Islamists have arrived recently at the Monterrey International Airport situated in Apodaca, a city in the Mexican state of Nuevo León, about 130 miles south of the Texas border, JW reports.

“An internal Mexican law enforcement report obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that Islamic terrorists have ‘people along the border, principally in Tijuana, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.’”

U.S. intelligence sources have also warned that the defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria will lead to many of those jihadists escaping and relocating into Western Europe and the United States.

But JW reported as early as April 2015 that ISIS had established a training camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in an area known as “Anapra” just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.

Just ‘waiting for the order’

According to the JW report, cartel informants have told law enforcement that “they are only waiting for the order and the times to carry out a simultaneous attack in the different ports of entry or cities of the United States of America.”

Drug cartels have a working “agreement” with Islamic terrorists, according to a high-ranking Mexican police administrator, who told JW that men from the Middle East arrive regularly into the country to train jihadists.

Judicial Watch sources include veteran law enforcement officials in the U.S. and Mexico as well as longtime undercover informants who have worked for intelligence agencies in both countries. They can’t be identified out of fear for their safety.

One seasoned Mexican law enforcement official told Judicial Watch that a key cartel informant verified picking up various Middle Eastern men from “evil groups” at the Monterrey Airport in the last few days alone. JW described the informant as “extremely credible” having also worked for several U.S. government agencies.

U.S. about to reap what it has sown

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist who now heads up the private consulting business Understanding the Threat, said the U.S. is about to reap the bitter fruit it has been sowing under the last several administrations – the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas — all of whom invited the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House as an inside policy player.

As a result, all references to Islam deemed offensive to Muslims has been scrubbed from FBI training manuals and Muslim Brotherhood entities like CAIR have been providing advice on how to deal with terrorism.

Now, terror cells are here and ready to strike, as documented by Judicial Watch.

“This is a symptom of the much bigger ongoing problem – the catastrophic failure of U.S. officials to identify the threat and deal with it,” Guandolo told WND.

Not only have they not identified the threat, Obama and his predecessors have invited the threat into the government.

“Because we will not associate ‘terrorism’ with Islam as a part of our national security directives and overall strategy, Islamic organizations, mosques, enclaves, and communities continue to serve as support networks, training sites and safe havens for jihadis across the United States,” Guandolo said.

He said Muslim leaders control the false narrative that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and they put themselves in the driver’s seat to be the gateway for all information getting to government leaders having to do with Islam.

Law enforcement neutered under Obama

“Islamic leaders get the federal government — the White House and DOJ especially — to bear down on local/state governments and law enforcement to let the FBI handle all counter-terrorism investigations, then strip the FBI of all factual understanding of the real threat and tie their hands so they cannot be aggressive in any case,” Guandolo said.

Philip Haney, a retired Homeland Security officer who co-authored the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing,” said the global Islamic movement led by the extremist Muslim Brotherhood is anticipating that they will encounter a far less friendly regime in Washington and they are filing some of their most militant assets into place.

“They’re laying the groundwork on the response to the new administration. And what is that response going to be? Attacks,” Haney told WND. “Like we’re seeing around the world, generated from the same sort of activity we’re seeing here. This is a turning point in terms of the Muslim community in North America because they are now being upgraded in their understanding and their expectation of what’s expected of them as devout, observant Muslims.”

Guandolo said the U.S. Department of Justice has been the most ardent supporter of the Islamic movement in America. It has aggressively gone on the offensive, suing any jurisdiction that takes any proactive measures to pursue the Islamic threat at the local level. This has weakened law enforcement’s ability to do its job. The DOJ has pushed Muslim Brotherhood organizations into local jurisdictions to do training for state and local law enforcement agencies, sponsored by U.S. attorneys’ offices.

Exploiting gaps on the way to ‘zero hour’

In this environment, Guandolo said terrorists use “Grand Canyon-size gaps in our security apparatus” to develop routes, methods and locations to move people, money and equipment in preparation for what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “zero hour.”

Evidence of this strategy was entered into the court record during the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas, in 2007-08.

“These routes, methods, and locations will be used by many nefarious entities be they cartels, terrorists, or gangs. In the end, though, they will lead to devastating results in American towns,” Guandolo said.

“It is nothing less than concerted and incremental efforts by heads of the key agencies of the United States — DHS, FBI, CIA, the White House counter-terrorism adviser — and the president himself to make America tragically vulnerable to our enemies,” he adds. “This is treason and sedition, and we will pay for allowing it for so long.”

Former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said Obama’s national security team has either known or should have known about the existence of Islamic terror cells on U.S. soil and along the border, “yet willingly allowed them to use the U.S. as a safe haven.”

“To think President Obama would fail to destroy every vestige of a U.S.-based Islamic terror cell is both jaw dropping and unthinkable, especially in light of the numerous U.S.-based Islamic terror attacks that have already occurred in the U.S. on his watch,” Bachmann told WND.

“Unfortunately, Obama’s failures are now President Trump’s responsibilities,” she added. “Mr. Trump will have to extinguish this evil from American soil — there is no other choice because Islamic supremacism has one goal — to conquer our land. We have to destroy this evil before they can destroy our liberty.”

Identifying the Threat

maxresdefault-1-868x488AIM, by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons

On 13 December 2016, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer received the prestigious Freedom Flame Award presented annually by the Center For Security Policy (CSP) for his unswerving commitment to freedom and democracy. The CSP is headed by Frank Gaffney, who has been a staunch voice in promoting freedom and democracy for the Western world, but also for Israel which finds itself in a sea of hostility.

Gaffney and the dedicated team of professionals at CSP, in their fight to protect our Constitution, have always put principle foremost in their efforts. This fact was recognized by Ambassador Dermer in his acceptance remarks. Separately, Ambassador Dermer was criticized by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for accepting the award because the SPLC considers Gaffney and the CSP to be anti-Muslim.

What SPLC principally objects to is the CSP’s exposure of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) penetration in all of our government agencies including the White House. This should be of great concern to all Americans since the MB creed is to destroy America from within (Civilization Jihad) by our own miserable hands and replace our Constitution with the seventh century draconian Islamic “Shariah Law.” This point is not debatable, since facts supporting this claim were introduced as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial in 2008 in Dallas, Texas. Two principal MB front groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were designated (among others) as un-indicated co-conspirators in that trial. The Obama White House frequently uses these two MB front groups to deflect any linkage of Islam to terrorist acts.

Ambassador Dermer then went on to address how, in his view, the main terrorist threat we face today, what he called is “militant Islam.” This was more than surprising as it implies that there is some “non-militant” or “moderate” version of Islam. While it is true that all Muslims do not adhere to the scriptures in the Quran, there is only one Islam; one doctrine; one Islamic law (Shariah); and one scripture–the Quran!

Muslims do not consider Islam a religion but more “a complete way of life.” Furthermore, according to that doctrine, the law and scriptures in the Quran, as affirmed by all senior scholars of Islam since the 10th century, jihad (warfare against non-Muslims per Islamic law) is obligatory for all Muslims. This is true for all time until the world is dominated by Allah (Q 8:39).

Many Western leaders have failed to comprehend the supremacist hostility of Islamic doctrine and are delusional to the point that they believe that there is some version of Islam that can co-exist with Western values. They are quick to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists. True, Muslims are individuals and some will be more devout or faithful or obedient than other Muslims. But that doesn’t matter because it has no bearing whatsoever on the core doctrine of Islam which includes the obligation to support jihad. Therefore, even though individual Muslims may be fine upstanding human beings, friendly, and embracing our culture, that has no bearing on the core principles of Islam.

All four major schools of Sunni Islam and the principal Shiite one are in agreement about all major elements of Shariah, including death for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality and sometimes slander. They also all agree on the commitment to jihad, Jew-hatred and Islamic supremacism. Jihad on the part of both Sunnis and Shiites has continued non-stop since Muhammad led the migration (hijra) to Medina in 622 A.D. Therefore, what we are witnessing today in Europe and here in the U.S. is nothing more than the continuation of the jihad launched by Muhammad following the hijra. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1838, “Jihad, holy war, is an obligation for all believers….The state of war is the natural state with regard to the infidel….These doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran….The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.” Amen! Jihad is not something unique to the 20th or 21st century. It has only been suppressed when confronted resolutely by both political and military force.

While President al-Sisi of Egypt, speaking before all the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar University, called for a reformation of Islam on 1 January 2015, unfortunately, his call has no standing with the leading Sunni clerics. He is viewed by them as a political/military leader, not a scholar or jurist of Islam. In fact, it may be said that Islam already has been through three major “Reformations”: these were led by the 1st Caliph Abu Bakr in the Ridda—or Apostasy—wars; Ibn Wahhab in the 1700’s; and now the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose name tells you whom it is he emulates. These reformations have been more in the sense of “purification and returning to Mohammad’s true intent” than making Islam compatible with Western values.

Until it is understood by Western leaders that Islam is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination, masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in defeating this threat. The current migrations to America and Europe must not only be stopped but reversed. Islam cannot coexist with Western values and must be confronted resolutely, both politically and militarily.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. Lyons is a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

Propaganda THEN and NOW

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, January 4, 2017:

On January 5, 1919 Germany’s National Socialist Party (NAZI) formed as the German Farmers’ Party. When the Nazi party took over power in Germany in 1933, Adolf Hitler created the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment under the rule of Joseph Goebbels.

The Nazi’s ability to turn public opinion through its control of the media, film, education, and the like gave it momentum inside Germany to do much of its work to prepare for war and brutally slaughter the “unwanteds” inside that nation.

How does a nation get to the point it is willing to allow millions to be killed in the ways the Nazis did?

It begins with propaganda.  The Nazis and Communists were masters of propaganda.  And so are the leaders of today’s Islamic Movement.

In the war of narratives, the Islamic Movement seeks to present the image that the “moderate” muslims are a much better option than the violent jihadis of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, et al, thus driving American leaders into the arms of “suit-wearing jihadis” with whom they can and do work.

The problem is that both sides are hostile enemies of the United States.

The enemy’s success in the propaganda/information campaign can easily be identified by the fact that 15 years after 9/11/01 America’s leaders still think there are different definitions of “jihad” in Islamic Law (sharia) – one of the many results of a long propaganda campaign by our enemy.  This particular one pounds the drum stating the “Islam means ‘peace’.”

It is a matter of fact that ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America), MAS (Muslim American Society), MSA (Muslim Students Association), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), and many other Islamic organizations are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States with the mission of waging “civilization jihad” to destroy western civilization and replace our government with an Islamic government.

It is a matter of fact that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is a Hamas organization, meaning it is a terrorist organization, and it is a fact that CAIR’s leader, Nihad Awad, is the driving force behind the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here.  Awad created the USCMO (U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations) comprised of many of the prominent Muslim Brotherhood organizations with him, Nihad Awad, at the head (functionally if not practically).

And these are the organizations behind the major propaganda operations in America today.

The following is a mere sampling of propaganda/information operations currently underway inside the United States:

coexist2

Campaign:  “COEXIST” bumper sticker.

Details:  Produced, in part, by International ANSWER, a hard-left organization whose “Steering Committee” was created 3 days after 9/11 and includes the National Muslim Students Association.

Purpose:  Moral relativism.  To show Islam is no different from Judaism or Christianity and simply wants to “coexist” (not assimilate) with the rest of society.

muslim-day

Campaign:  Muslim Day at State Capitals

Details:  Sponsored by Hamas (dba CAIR).  This is a day when muslims flood state capitals to, in their words, “meet state legislators, discuss issues of concern and help bring about positive social change.”

Purpose:  A show of force and intimidation at state capitals to give the impression muslims can win or lose elections for state legislators, and therefore, state legislators should submit to their demands.


Campaign:  Paid trips to Saudi Arabia for Members of Congress.

Details:  Saudi Arabia and their representatives take Member of Congress overseas to Saudi Arabia on 10 day trips to show legislators how “progressive” the Kingdom is towards business and other parts of its society.

Purpose:  To show Members of Congress a facade of the true Saudi Arabia so they have a favorable impression of the nation and will be softer on their actions when legislative matters involving the Kingdom arise.  It pits those who speak factual truth about Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism, sharia, and anti-American efforts against the Congressmen’s newfound personal experience in the Kingdom.

The same campaign exists at the state level for trips to Turkey sponsored by Turkish Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as the Turquoise Foundation, Holy Dove Foundation, and others.

myjihad

Campaign:  “My Jihad”

Details:  This series of videos, billboards, signs, and advertisements produced by Hamas (dba CAIR) shows muslims sharing about their various forms of jihad – doing their homework, helping others, and other such things.

Purpose:  To give the impression that jihad is defined as anything but “warfare against non-Muslims” to establish the power of Islam despite the fact all Islamic law defines it as such.


Campaign:  After “terrorist attacks” Americans should be most concerned with “backlash” against muslims

Details:  Following attacks against U.S. citizens by muslim jihadis, leaders from the Islamic community speak on television telling America they fear for their lives because of the constant backlash against them from non-Muslims despite the fact FBI information reveals this phenomenon does not exist.  U.S. Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, who wore a hijab during the Olympics, publicly stated, “I don’t feel safe in America.”

Purpose:  To get our law enforcement, national leadership, and citizens to focus on protecting the Muslim community instead of the seeing that the problem is IN the Muslim community.

 

screen-shot-2017-01-05-at-2-04-56-am

 

Campaign:  Interfaith Outreach/Family of Abraham

abra

Details:  Primarily led by ISNA and ICNA, the Interfaith Outreach movement targets churches and synagogues of all denominations to come together under the belief that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share one God and three Abrahamic faiths.  They adjust their message for Catholics, protestants, and other denominations to get the message to strike home more effectively.

Purpose:  To subvert religious institutions which are the backbone of American society. It should be noted that by the very fact Christian organizations engage in interfaith outreach with the Muslim Brotherhood, they have to surrender their core doctrinal beliefs to meet muslims at a place which often puts them in positions of heresy.  This furthers the MB’s broader strategy of destroying the non-muslim citizens’ faith in their religious leaders.


Campaign:  Muslim Jewish Advisory Council

Details:  Formed by the AJC (American Jewish Committee) and ISNA, this organization purports to be designed to fight Islamophobia and anti-semitism.  It should be noted that in the US v HLF, the U.S. government identified ISNA as the “nucleus” of the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization which calls for the destruction of Israel.

Purpose:  To further subvert the Jewish community, and its leadership around the narrative that both Jews and Muslims are being persecuted.  The muslim intent is for Jewish leaders to protect the Muslim community from the kind of persecution similar what happened to Jews in Germany during World War II.  It appears to be working as many Jewish leaders and organizations in America today openly support and defend Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leaders and organizations – the very people who seek their destruction.

shariah_billboard

Campaigns:  Sharia / Islam: Got Questions? Billboards.

Details:  Billboards around the United States have been used to promote Sharia and Islam and give citizens a means to ask questions.  These campaigns, as many of the billboards openly state, are sponsored by ICNA.

Purpose:  To normalize Islam and Sharia in our society in preparation for Islam to rule our society under Sharia.


Campaign:  Control Hollywood’s Depiction of Muslims in Film and Television

Details:  Hamas (dba CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affair’s Council (MPAC) in Los Angeles work diligently to ensure muslims are only portrayed in a positive light in both TV shows and film.  They have strong-armed producers, even before films were in production, based on the scripts.  One example: “Sum of All Fears” – storyline was originally muslim terrorists but, because of pressure from CAIR, the antagonists were portrayed as Nazis in the film.

Purpose:  To ensure Americans only see Islam in a positive light and to keep the factual teachings of Islam – “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them…” (Koran 9:5) – from ever coming to light.


Campaign:  Amazon commercial with Priest and Imam

Details:  Amazon released a commercial just prior to Thanksgiving Day 2016 depicting an older priest and imam hugging each other and sharing time together as close friends.  They both use amazon.com to purchase gifts each other (knee pads) to make it easier when they pray.  The commercial ends with the two praying in their respective places of worship using their knee pads.

Purpose:  This commercial was made in partnership with Amazon, ICNA, and the MCB (Muslim Council of Britain).  Since the MCB is one of the top two largest MB organizations in Britain, and ICNA is part of the MB Movement in North America, we know there is a nefarious purpose for this commercial.  The Muslim Brotherhood does not do willy nilly.  This commercial is meant to affect long-term attitudes in the West with regards to relations with the muslim community.  It portrays the Islamic culture as being relatively the same as Western culture and easy to get along with, completely ignoring the diametrically opposed ways of life between the two.


Campaign:  Islamophobin Gum

Details:  Hamas (dba CAIR) created a gum and a campaign to back it up which is humorously supposed to cure Islamophobia.

Purpose:  To ostracize anyone who speaks truth about Islam and to make it easier for people to accept the growing influence of Islam in our society.

These are but a few examples of the propaganda being poured out onto American society today.

To be clear, easily identified enemies of the United States are behind these propaganda campaigns, and many others. With a large percentage of U.S. media supporting the jihadis in the United States, there is no major counter-messaging to this nonsense.

Propaganda is necessarily made up of lies.  Truth is the only answer.

Only citizens armed with the truth about what Islam is can defend our society from the growing cancer of Islam here, and reach out in wisdom and love to free muslims from a system which necessarily enslaves them.

For more truth, join UTT at http://www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com.

U.S. Islamist Group: Fake Friendship with Non-Believers

Sheikh Waleed Basyouni is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA)-Fatwa and Research Committee and the Director of Texas Dawah Convention. He is pictured here giving a speech titled "Reclaiming Islam from the Extremists."

Sheikh Waleed Basyouni is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA)-Fatwa and Research Committee and the Director of Texas Dawah Convention. He is pictured here giving a speech titled “Reclaiming Islam from the Extremists.”

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, January 2, 2017:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, an influential group that issues fatwas (Islamic religious declarations), teaches Muslims that they “are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly but never inwardly.”

The 2009 fatwa , which was originally brought to our attention by John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, cites Islamic scripture in its directive that Muslims must not befriend a non-believer over a Muslim except as a form of deception in response to a possible danger.

See the fatwa below:

amja-fatwa-taqiya-inside

AMJA has a history of extremist fatwas and sermons, including teaching that Hamas is not a terrorist group and ruling out offensive jihad against the U.S. only as a matter of pragmatism. You can read more about their background here.

Because AMJA doesn’t get in front of the cameras or maintain a high profile, it is often overlooked as part of the Islamist network in the U.S., but its influence should be taken seriously. In 2014, it trained 200 imams at its conference in Texas. Last year’s imams’ conference was in Chicago, as will 2017’s.

Its leadership council also spearheads Islamic online universities in the U.S. Its fatwa committee includes clerics with positions in Washington, D.C., Michigan, Minnesota and Texas.

AMJA’s list of “our experts” and list of members includes Islamist clerics from across the country, including top leaders from the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, Al-Maghrib Institute, the North American Imams Federation, the Muslim Association of Virginia and various mosques. The lists also include many international clerics, even though AMJA presents itself as an American organization.

The group’s influence can be seen behind efforts undertaken by the more publicity-hungry Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that the Justice Department identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front that deceptively casts itself as a “moderate” civil rights group.

When I was booked to give educational counter-terrorism training to law enforcement in California, the San Diego chapter of CAIR responded aggressively, going so far as to compare my training of law enforcement officials to having the leader of the KKK teach police about black people. The CAIR official leading the charge had only months earlier traveled all the way to Chicago to attend AMJA’s imams’conference.

AMJA can serve as a window into the Islamist strategy. The extremism of AMJA is so clear that it cannot effectively operate in the limelight, so it stays away. Instead, the so-called “moderates” that serve as experts go in front of the cameras to wage their jihad against Islamism’s enemies.

When they speak, the official titles they have with their primary “moderate” organizations are used. But they are part of AMJA’s network even though few know it and the affiliation won’t show up in a byline in an article or interview. All it takes is using a different title and the AMJA member is never held accountable for the group’s radical fatwas.

However, these people must be held accountable. No genuine Muslim reformer will join AMJA. If a cleric involved with AMJA is positioning himself as an unobjectionable moderate to unbelievers, he is following his group’s radical fatwa.

House Homeland Security Chair Backs Brotherhood Ban

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Turkey (Photo: © ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Turkey (Photo: © ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, January 3, 2017:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and two other congressmen have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. A total of 90 members of Congress have cosponsored or voted for the bill’s advancement, including two Democrats.

The other two new cosponsors are Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Glenn Grothman (R-WI).

The act passed the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year but was stalled when Republican leadership in the House did not schedule a vote. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), did not even schedule hearings. It was originally introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Click here to ask your representatives to support the legislation.

The legislation states that Congress’ assessment is that the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. It gives the secretary of state 60 days to provide a detailed response as to whether the Brotherhood fits the criteria or not.

The legislation outlines the evidence linking the Brotherhood and Hamas to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) reiterated his comment to passing the legislation on November 15 and linked to a blog post based on the Clarion Project’s article.

Renewed momentum for the legislation would likely result in the Trump Administration’s State Department designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Trump has chosen several supporters of designating the Brotherhood for his Cabinet, including Rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director; Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general; General Michael Flynn as national security adviser and Steve Bannon as chief political strategist. Incoming Defense Secretary General James Mattis is also likely to be supportive.

Trump also chose Monica Crowley as the national security council’s director of strategic communications and Katharine Gorka as part of the “landing team” overseeing the transitions at the Department of Homeland Security. Both support designating the Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

We recently reported how a Muslim activist, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, wrote an op-ed asking President-elect Trump to designate the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. Four organizations representing persecuted Christians are also pushing for the bill. A prominent Kurdish Muslim activist is also supporting the bill.

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act must be careful not to squander an important opportunity.

While it is true that the new secretary of state may very well designate the Brotherhood, thus rendering the legislation irrelevant, that is not the best first step, as welcomed as it would be.

By having a vote on the legislation first, the American public gets a rare “red line” moment to find out where their representatives stand and compel them to become educated on the issue. All members of Congress sound tough when it comes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda, but only a minority speak with proficiency about the broader Islamist networks and ideology.

A quick move by the secretary of state would end this period of education for elected officials and for the American public. It would embolden wobbly politicians to say they privately disagreed with the designation when the Islamists raise the temperature. The American people deserve to know their representatives stood at this moment in time when their hands were forced.

Below is a list of those who have cosponsored the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act (HR3892 and S2230) or voted in favor of its advancement. Please review the list and click here to ask your representatives to take a stand if they are not on the list.

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

James Inhofe (R-OK)

David Perdue (R-GA)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

 

Mike Bishop (R-MI) Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL) Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA) Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX) Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA) Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH) David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA) Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA) John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS) Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX) Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL) John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX) Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI) Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX) Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH) Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN) Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA) Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Gene Green (D-TX) Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA) Doug Lamborn (R-C)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) Austin Scott (R-GA)
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Robert J. Dold (R-IL) Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Tom Marino (R-PA) Tim Walberg (R-MI)
John Moolenaar (R-MI) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Mo Brooks (R-AL) Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY) John Fleming (R-LA)
Lou Barletta (R-PA) Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Brad R. Wenstrup (R-OH)

Glenn Grothman (R-WI)

Also see:

The Trump Administration Should Treat Islamists Like The Mafia

9541686914_d48e1acc23_o-1024x680The analogue is so close that, reading public statements from the early 1970s and replacing ‘Italian’ with ‘Muslim,’ you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The Federalist, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, January 2, 2017:

Thousands attend their rallies, claiming widespread discrimination. They wrap themselves in displays of “interfaith” cooperation. National, state, and local officials pay them heed. Words that “offend” them are removed from movies, newscasts, and even official government reports. All the while, the men who lead this organization have appeared extensively on FBI wiretaps and are known to federal law enforcement to be involved in a national criminal conspiracy.

You could be forgiven for thinking this describes the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders—a group the FBI, federal prosecutors and a federal judge have all affirmed supported the designated terrorist group, Hamas.

But no. The year is 1971, and the pressure group is the Italian American Civil Rights League (IACRL). Its founder, Joe Colombo, is known to federal law enforcement as the head of New York’s Colombo crime family, one of the infamous “Five Families” of the Cosa Nostra. Its most high-profile spokesman is his son, Anthony, who, for more than 30 years would deny the Mafia existed and rail against dark government conspiracies targeting Italian-Americans.

You Fight Crime, You Fight Italians?

It may seem like a punch line now but, in the 1970s, the effort by gangsters to don the mantle of activists and wrap themselves the flag of “civil rights” was taken semi-seriously. Many prominent Italian-American elites (prominenti in Italian) endorsed the call, throwing their influence behind the grievance-mongering. As scholar Joseph Sciorra of the Italian American Review describes,

A blurring occurred in which the mobbed-up League was conflated in the popular imagination with civic-minded spokespeople, thus diminishing the latter’s seemingly altruistic efforts (Kenna 2007, 193). But as historian Philip V. Cannistraro notes, “the prominenti’s constant preoccupation with the Mafia issue” (2005, 83), dating to the early 1930s when newspaper owner Generoso Pope launched an anti-defamation campaign against cinematic depictions of mafiosi, has historically been a self-serving agenda. ‘The dual focus of prominentismo has always been to promote the separate, self-aggrandizing interest of their own particular elite rather than the community as a whole, and to stress what Italian Americans are not’ (Cannistraro 2005, 84). It is no surprise, then, as Fred Gardaphé observes, that ‘more unified acts by Italian Americans have been launched against fictional portrayal of the mafia than ever were mounted against real mafiosi in the United States’ (2015, 365).

The obvious parallel is to the tens of thousands of Muslim-Americans CAIR enlists to bolster crowds condemning “Islamophobia” and any discussion of Islamic terrorism, but offer at best anemic support for pro forma denunciations of terrorism. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis has noted, the analogue between the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Italian American Civil Rights League is so close that, reading the latter’s public statements from the early 1970s and replacing “Italian” with “Muslim,” you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The way Sciorra described “the mobbed-up League” and its efforts could be an apt descriptor for CAIR, a group founded and run by ex-Islamic Association for Palestine staffers that has had more than one of its employees convicted of terror-related criminal activity. As Sciorra explained, while the crowd at the league’s rallies wore pins discussing their Italian pride, the leadership had more strategic concerns. They focused on attacking federal law enforcement and purposefully conflating all investigation of Mafia criminal activities with discrimination against the large Italian-American community.

The only way to end this perceived “discrimination,” the league insisted, was for the government and media to change its ways; not only must it stop using the word “Mafia,” it must deny that any such criminal conspiracy existed. And they did. The Department of Justice adhered to federal regulations, which prohibited use of the word. “There is nothing to be gained by using these terms,” U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell wrote, “except to give gratuitous offense” to “many good Americans of Italian-American descent.” The New York State Police had a similar rule. The word “Mafia” was deleted from the script of “The Godfather” at the behest of Colombo’s league.

Once, the Media Reported These Connections

Not everyone fell for it, including among the Italian-American community. New York state Sen. John Marchi warned that Italian-Americans had “been had” by their endorsement of Colombo’s Italian American Civil Rights League, only to be denounced as a “self-loathing Italian.” One wonders if Marchi didn’t feel then much the way Zhudi Jasser of American Islamic Forum for Democracy must feel now as he warns the American people about the machinations of Islamist groups, only to be denounced as an “Islamophobe” by known terror conspirators.

In the early 1970s, the media was a lot more skeptical of these obvious propaganda efforts, as well. At the end of a syndicated 1971 article about the League’s alliance with the Jewish Defense League, the Jewish Telegraph Agency slips in the following inconvenient information for context, complete with parentheses:

(Joseph Colombo, president of the League, faces a Federal hearing on April 21st on charges of conducting a gambling business. He has also just been convicted in the Manhattan State Court on a perjury charge and was recently arrested for allegedly receiving stolen goods from a robbery of the Long Island Jewelry Exchange in Mineola.)

The JTA obviously thought it was important to describe for its readers the provenance of the league’s complaint, as well as its unsavory record. Of course, one would wait in vain today for a mainstream media outlet to describe CAIR’s troublesome history with the same forthrightness.

In fact, despite U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis ruling that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR [and other Islamist groups] with Hamas,” none of the nearly 700 articles the New York Times has run about the group has mentioned it. Even more egregiously, the Times covered CAIR’s 2007 efforts to break free of its designation as an unindicted coconspirator in the largest terror finance trial in American history, yet neglected to cover the 2009 rejection of the Islamist group’s appeal.

What It Takes to Fight International Leagues of Terror

The parallels between the League’s censorship efforts in the ‘70s and CAIR’s efforts today aren’t lost on Rudy Giuliani, and for good reason. In 1983, when he was U.S. attorney, Giuliani launched his successful prosecutions against the New York crime families. One of his first acts was to violate the prior decade’s DOJ regulations and say the forbidden word “Mafia.” In a piece for the Wall Street Journal last year, Giuliani made an apt comparison between the battle for accurate vocabulary in both the fight with the mob and with Islamic terrorists.

I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.

As Giuliani argued, the similarities go beyond mere forbidden words and get at the heart of what it takes to prevail against both the Cosa Nostra and Islamic jihadists. In a recent piece for the Claremont Review of Books, we argued for a new law enforcement approach to dealing with Islamist movements, of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the most consequential, that draws explicitly on efforts to defeat the Mafia:

Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Since Giuliani crippled the New York mob in the 1980s, Colombo’s League and its campaign to ban the word “Mafia” seems more like a quaint throwback to the 1970s than a threat to the integrity of organized crime investigations. Perhaps the Trump administration will be able to accomplish the same for groups like CAIR, when the inappropriate deference, and White House meetings, become a thing of the past.

Of course, some of the league’s bitter holdouts will always remain. Anthony Colombo continues to write on his mob boss father, insisting the FBI had him killed to halt his civic accomplishments. Even more colorfully, Father Louis Gigante—brother to famed Genovese Mafia Boss Vincent “the Chin” Gigante and a well-known Bronx community organizer—holds up mobsters as exemplars for civic minded Americans, in just the way Islamist groups sing the praises of convicted terror financiers.

For most Americans of all ethnic groups, though, government efforts to act against the Mafia are considered appropriate rather than discriminatory. No serious person insists that admitting Mafiosi were largely Italian-Americans is the same as saying all Italian-Americans are mobsters. The same can and must be done for Islamic terrorism.

David Reaboi is a national security consultant and a Claremont fellow. Kyle Shideler is director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

Does Trump Grasp the Reality of ‘Radical Islam’?

radical-islamNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, December 31, 2016:

It was the key national-security debate of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won the election, in no small part, because he appeared to be on the right side of it. Appeared is used advisedly: Trump was at least in the general vicinity of the bull’s-eye; his opponent wouldn’t even acknowledge the target existed — except in the most grudging of ways, and only because Trump had forced the issue.

The question boiled down to this: Are you willing to name the enemy?

After a quarter-century of willful blindness, it was at least a start. We should note, moreover, that it’s a start we owe to the president-elect. Washington, meaning both parties, had erected such barriers to a rational public discussion of our enemies that breaking through took Trump’s outsized persona, in all its abrasive turns and its excesses. Comparative anonymities (looking down at my shoes, now) could try terrorism cases and fill shelves with books and pamphlets and columns on the ideology behind the jihad from now until the end of time. But no matter how many terrorist attacks Americans endured, the public examination of the enemy was not going to happen unless a credible candidate for the world’s most important job dramatically shifted the parameters of acceptable discourse.

Trump forced the issue into the light of day. And once he did — voilà! — what was yesterday’s “Islamophobia” became today’s conventional wisdom. In reality, it was never either of these things. The former is an enemy-crafted smear (a wildly successful one) to scare off examination of the enemy; the latter is frequently wrong.

What we Cassandras have really been trying to highlight is a simple fact, as patent as it was unremarkable from the time of Sun Tsu until the 1993 World Trade Center bombing: To defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy — who he is, what motivates him, what he is trying to achieve. Being willing to name the enemy is a start. But it is just a start — the beginning, not the end, of understanding.

In his major campaign speech on the subject, Trump asserted that the enemy is “radical Islamic terrorism.” Terrorism, surely, is the business end of the spear, but “radical Islamic terrorism” is an incomplete portrait. Dangerously incomplete? That depends on whether the term (a) is Trump’s shorthand for a threat he realizes is significantly broader than terrorism, or (b) reflects his actual — and thus insufficient — grasp of the challenge.

The speech provided reasons for hope. For one thing, Trump compared “radical Islamic terrorism” to the 20th-century challenges of fascism, Nazism, and Communism. These were ideological enemies. The capacity to project force was by no means the totality of the threat each represented — which is why it is so foolish to be dismissive of today’s enemy just because jihadist networks cannot compare militarily to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, toward the end of his speech, Trump used “radical Islamic terrorism” interchangeably with “radical Islam.” Ending the spread of radical Islam, he said, must be our objective. He even referred to it as an “ideology” — though he called it an “ideology of death,” which misses the point; it is an ideology of conquest.

Trump intimated some understanding of this, too. He vowed to “speak out against the oppression of women, gays, and people of different faith [i.e., non-Muslims].” He promised, in addition, to work with “all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East.” The objects of radical Islamic oppression are targeted because of ideological tenets that call for dominion by sharia, Islam’s ancient totalitarian law. It is those tenets that reformers are trying to reform.

In sum, Trump showed signs of awareness that there are more than bombs, hijacked planes, weaponized trucks, and jihadist gunmen to confront. Still, his focus was terrorists — specifically ISIS, which he claimed was created by Obama-Clinton policy. While he clearly knows there is more to the threat than ISIS, he explicitly added only al-Qaeda and “Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah.”

To the contrary, ISIS is a breakaway faction of al-Qaeda that existed before Barack Obama came to power. Hamas, though certainly supported by Shiite Iran, is a Sunni terrorist organization spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood. More crucially: All of the groups Trump listed, and the regimes that sponsor them, were created by the ideology. While I’ll go with “radical Islam,” the ideology is more accurately described as “sharia supremacism” — alas, in the parts of the world Trump was talking about, “radical Islam” is not so radical. It is the ideology that creates jihadist groups and regimes, not American policy, no matter how clueless and counterproductive our policy has been at times.

If ISIS and al-Qaeda disappeared tomorrow, other jihadist networks would take their places. It will be that way until sharia supremacism is discredited and marginalized.

That is a tall order, not to be underestimated. The audience in which the ideology must be discredited is not Western; it does not share our value system — our sense of what is credible and meritorious. Plus, the sharia that our enemies strive to implement (i.e., “jihad in Allah’s way”) is undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture. It will not be easy — it may not be possible — to discredit a literalist construction of Islam that has been backed by revered scholars for 14 centuries.

That is why some detractors of Islam argue with considerable force that we should stop mincing words: If the problem is rooted in Islamic doctrine, they contend, then the problem is Islam, not “radical Islam.” Yet this overlooks significant facts. There is fierce intramural Islamic debate about doctrinal interpretation. Our own Judeo-Christian experience tells us that doctrine and religious practice can evolve. Belief systems, moreover, are ultimately about more than doctrine. Culture counts for a great deal. Yes, sharia supremacism is pretty much the same wherever you go (and becomes more aggressive and threatening as its adherents increase in number); but the understanding and practice of Islam varies from Riyadh to Cairo to Kabul to Ankara to Jakarta to Tirana to London.

There is, furthermore, an on-the-ground reality of much greater moment than theological infighting: A large percentage of the world’s approximately 1.6 billion Muslims reject sharia supremacism. Many of them provide us with essential help in fighting the enemy. To condemn Islam, rather than those who seek to impose Islam’s ruling system on us, can only alienate our allies. They are allies we need in an ideological conflict.

The sensible strategy, therefore, calls for supporting the Islamic reformers President-elect Trump says he wants to befriend. That would be an epic improvement over outreach to Islamists, whom our government has inanely courted and empowered for a quarter-century. To the extent we can (and that may be limited), we should support the reinterpretation of what Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi courageously acknowledged as “the corpus of texts and ideas that we [Muslims] have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible” even though they are “antagonizing the entire world.”

Sisi, it is worth noting, is a devout Muslim who knows a lot more about Islam than Barack Obama and John Kerry do. In any event, it’s better to confront with open eyes the scripturally rooted ideological foundation of radical Islam. As we’ve seen over the last three presidential administrations (or the last six, if you want to go back to Carter and Khomeini’s revolution), pretending that the ideology does not exist, or that it represents a “false Islam,” is fantasy. As a national-security strategy, fantasy is a prescription for failure.

It has been the Obama prescription, right up to the end.

While candidate Trump was demanding that the enemy be named, and me-too Hillary was thus goaded into the occasional mention of “jihadists,” Obama tried to defend his refusal to invoke radical Islam. The defense was classic Obama. Part One was flat wrong: “There’s no religious rationale,” he maintained, that would justify” the “barbarism” in which terrorists engage — something that could only be right if we ignore scripture and adopt Obama’s eccentric notion of “religious rationale.” Part Two drew on Obama’s bottomless supply of straw men: “Using the phrase ‘radical Islam,’” he lectured, will not make the terrorist threat “go away” — as if anyone had claimed it would.

The point, of course, is not that there is talismanic power in uttering an enemy’s identity. It is to convey, to the enemy and to an anxious American public, that our leader comprehends who the enemy is, what the enemy’s objectives are, and what drives the enemy to achieve them.

Obviously, Obama is too smart not to know this. After eight infuriating years, I am beyond trying to fathom whether his intentional gibberish masks some misguided but well-meaning strategy, some dogma to which he is hopelessly beholden, or something more sinister. The imperative now is to address the mess he is leaving behind, not unwind how and why he came to make it.

This week, Obama betrayed our Israeli allies by orchestrating (and cravenly abstaining from) a U.N. Security Council resolution. As I’ve explained, the ostensible purpose of the resolution is to condemn the construction of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria that Israel has controlled since 1967; the real purpose is to declare that those territories are sovereign Palestinian land, and thus that Israel is “occupying” it in violation of international law (“international law” is the gussied-up term for the hyper-political, intensely anti-Israeli Security Council’s say-so).

What does this have to do with our enemy’s ideology? Everything.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation. Hamas, the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood branch that has been lavishly supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other Muslim governments, is more explicit about this than its rival for Palestinian leadership, Fatah. But both are clear on the matter. They take the doctrinal position that any territory that comes under Islamic control for any duration of time is Islam’s forever. (That’s why Islamists still refer to Spain as al-Andalus and vow to retake it, notwithstanding that they lost it half a millennium ago.)

Further, radical Islam regards the presence of a sovereign Jewish state in Islamic territory as an intolerable affront. Again, the reason is doctrinal. Do not take my word for it; have a look at the 1988 Hamas Charter (“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”). Article 7, in particular, includes this statement by the prophet Muhammad:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” . . . (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Understand: Al-Bukhari and Muslim are authoritative collections of hadith. These memorializations of the prophet’s sayings and deeds have scriptural status in Islam. Hamas is not lying — this story of an end-of-times annihilation of Jews is related, repeatedly, in Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., here.) And please spare me the twaddle about how there are competing interpretations that discount or “contextualize” these hadith. It doesn’t matter which, if any, interpretation represents the “true Islam” (if there is one). What matters for purposes of our security is that millions of Muslims, including our enemies, believe these hadith mean what they say — unalterable, for all time.

Even after all the mass-murder attacks we have endured over the last few decades, and for all their claptrap about respecting Islam as “one of the world’s great religions,” transnational progressives cannot bring themselves to accept that something as passé as religious doctrine could dictate 21st-century conflicts. So, they tell themselves, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is simply about territorial boundaries and refugee rights. It could be settled if Israel, which they reckon would never have been established but for a regrettable bout of post-Holocaust remorse, would just make a few concessions regarding land it was never ceded in the first place (conveniently overlooking that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are disputed territories, and were not “Palestinian” when Israel took them in the 1967 war of Arab aggression).

Transnational progressives see Israel as intransigent, notwithstanding its many attempts to trade land for peace. They rationalize Palestinian terrorism as the product of that intransigence, not of ideology. Thus their smug calculation that branding Israel as an “occupier” of “Palestinian land” in gross “violation of international law” is the nudge Israel needs to settle. This will effectively grant the Palestinians their coveted sovereign state. Thus accommodated, Palestinians will surely moderate and co-exist with Israel — if not in peace, then in the same uneasy state in which Parisians coexist with their banlieues and Berliners with their refugees.

It is not just fantasy but willfully blind idiocy. No one who took a few minutes to understand the ideology of radical Islam would contemplate for a moment a resolution such as the one Obama just choreographed.

Under Islamic law, the Palestinians regard all of the territory — not just East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria but all of Israel — as Muslim territory. Furthermore, they deem the presence of a Jewish-ruled state on that territory as anathema. A Security Council resolution that declares Israeli control of the disputed territory not merely an “obstacle to peace” but illegitimate tells the Islamists that their jihad has succeeded, that non-Muslim powers accede to their sharia-based demands. It can only encourage them to continue their jihad toward their ultimate regional goal of eradicating the Jewish state. After all, Mahmoud Abbas has stated his racist terms: Not a single Israeli will be permitted to reside in the Palestinian state. As Islamists see it (and why shouldn’t they?), Obama’s reaction was not to condemn Abbas; it was to appease Abbas. As Islamists see it, Allah is rewarding their fidelity to Islamic doctrine; of course they will persevere in it.

We are not merely in a shooting war with jihadists. We are in an ideological war with sharia supremacists. Mass murder is not their sole tactic; they attack at the negotiating table, in the councils of government, in the media, on the campus, in the courtroom — at every political and cultural pressure point. To defeat jihadists, it is necessary to discredit the ideology that catalyzes them. You don’t discredit an ideology by ignoring its existence, denying its power, and accommodating it at every turn.

President Obama never got this. Will President Trump?

In his campaign, Trump made a welcome start by naming the enemy. Now it is time to know the enemy — such that it is clear to the enemy that we understand his objectives and his motivation, and that we will deny him because our own principles require it.

The new president should begin by renouncing Obama’s Palestinian power-play: Revoke any state recognition Obama gives the Palestinians; defund them; clarify the disputed (not occupied) status of the territories; move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem; reaffirm the principle that the conflict may only be settled by direct negotiations between the parties; and make clear that the United States will consider the Palestinians pariahs until they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, stop indoctrinating their children in doctrinal Jew-hatred, and convincingly abandon terrorism.

That would tell radical Islam that America rejects its objectives as well as its tactics, that we will fight its ideology as well as its terrorism. This is not just about restoring our reputation as a dependable ally. Our security depends on it.

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

Christmas Market Massacre Proves Ignoring Muslim Warnings Will Get You Killed

berlin-truck-attackConservative Headquarters, by  George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 12/21/16

Hidden in the media coverage of the carnage at Berlin’s Weihnachtsmarkt (Christmas Market) was a hint or two that German intelligence had some previous indication that Christmas markets and other Christian holiday celebrations were potential targets for Muslim terrorists.

In actuality the warnings, both tactical and strategic, were not mere “indications”; they were clear for all who wished to heed them.

On November 22, 2016, the U.S. State Department issued a stark warning for tourists to Europe, advising them of “credible information” of an attack on Christmas markets this holiday season.

The UK Express reported the warning in an article headlined, “Europe’s Christmas markets at risk of ISIS terror attack, US warns tourists.” “Credible information indicates the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Da’esh), al-Qa’ida, and their affiliates continue to plan terrorist attacks in Europe, with a focus on the upcoming holiday season and associated events,” said the release.

“US citizens should exercise vigilance when attending large holiday events, visiting tourist sites, using public transportation, and frequenting places of worship, restaurants, hotels, etc. … Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds, when possible,” the warning concluded.

Even earlier this fall, on September 14, 2016, under the headline, “Germany preparing for Nice-style attack as report says ISIS could strike at ANY TIME,” the UK Express quoted a secret report from Germany’s intelligence services predicts that Islamic terrorists can strike at any time in an “unconventional” manner like the truck massacre in Nice.

These tactical warnings were largely ignored by the public and were apparently of little practical utility to the German authorities who it appears did not harden the approaches to the Berlin Christmas Market. Nor did they have the personnel on hand to apprehend the hijacker who killed the Polish truck driver and then plowed the truck loaded with steel straight through the tents and stalls of the market killing at least 12 visitors celebrating a Christian tradition dating back to the Late Middle Ages.

However, what’s even worse, is that of less utility to the German authorities were the clear strategic warnings given by the Muslim invaders twelve years ago in an interview with leading German magazine der Spiegel.

In 2005, in article titled, “What al‐Qaida Really Wants,” Yassin Musharbash interviewed Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein about his remarkable reporting on al‐Qaida’s inner circle and his book “al‐Zarqawi ‐ al‐Qaida’s Second Generation.”

Hussein told Musharbash, “I interviewed a whole range of al‐Qaida (AQ) members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” What he then describes are seven phases the terror network hoped would establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

I will focus on just the final phases of the plan, but you can read the entire article and review the seven phases of the Muslim conquest of the West through this link.

The Fifth Phase, between 2013 and 2016, was to be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, could be declared – and it was. The plan was that by this time, Western influence in the Islamic world would be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al‐Qaida hoped that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

As 2016 closes it is debatable how much of the Fifth Phase was accomplished. The Caliphate was declared and clearly American influence in the Islamic world has been much-weakened, but Israel remains strong.

However, it is certainly arguable that, thanks to Barack Obama, a new world order is emerging with Iran as the nuclear armed Middle Eastern hegemon, Russian influence ascendant and, in the face of an expansive and aggressive China, the United States in retreat from the Western Pacific.

Now here is the key point regarding the Berlin Christmas Market terrorist attack and the building tempo of Muslim terror; the Sixth Phase Hussein reported is that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.”

As soon as the caliphate has been declared Hussein reported the “Islamic army” it will create will instigate the conclusive “fight between the believers and the non‐believers” which was predicted by Osama bin Laden and is central to Muslim millennialism.

What does Phase Six look like?

Priests are murdered in their Churches, Muslims demand an end to Germany’s Oktoberfest, Christmas Markets and Christian symbols are attacked. Priests remove Nativity scenes to avoid offending Muslims, restaurants remove traditional pork dishes, Christians are ordered to “pray in silence” so as not to offend Muslim migrants and now in Germany, Christians are being forced to hide their Bibles due to death threats from migrant Muslims.

Knowing that Phase Six of the AQ plan for its war against the West was one of “total confrontation” why would Western leaders, such as Angela Merkel, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, invite millions of Muslim invaders into their country?

But they have.

And so, thanks in large measure to Angela Merkle, a Muslim army has successfully crossed the Mediterranean, European culture and nation-states are in full retreat, and Phase Six of the Muslim conquest of the West is well and successfully under way.

According to the AQ timeline in der Spiegel we are now in the first year of the period of “total confrontation,” and so far, the Islamist army is winning. It is time Western leaders, such as Angela Merkel, take the Muslim leadership at its word.

Post Script: And if you think it isn’t happening in America consider the increasing tempo of Muslim terrorist attacks, including bombings, mass murder and random stabbings and the cultural war being waged that has seen even the mention of Christmas banned from the public square through the demands of Muslim Brotherhood fronts and terrorist affiliated organizations.