Is CNN Guilty of Material Support of Terrorism?

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March 12, 2017:

Could a reporter and/or media organization which intentionally provides a terrorist or terrorist organization air time to promote the terrorist’s agenda be charged as in violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code, Section 2339A, Material Support to Terrorists?

Mainstream media attacking those who speak truth about the threat of Islam in the United States is not new, nor is the media’s support for the terrorist group Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  However, when the media runs lengthy propaganda pieces for Hamas, regurgitating their talking points, while at the same time attacking officials who are sworn to defend U.S. citizens, do these actions constitute providing our enemies with material support in their war against the United States?

Last week CNN ran stories about Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett related to the “Muslim Day” at the Oklahoma State House.  Why, you might ask, was there a “Muslim Day” at the Oklahoma State House?  Because Hamas (dba CAIR) hosted one and no one stopped them.

Hamas leader in Oklahoma Adam Soltani

In the CNN story, CNN correspondent Sara Ganim supports and defends Oklahoma’s Hamas leader Adam Soltani who slanders and defames state legislator John Bennett, and Ganim also defended Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  See the 3 minute video HERE.

 

At no point did Ms. Ganim identify CAIR as a “member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee” which is Hamas in the United States, as the U.S. Department of Justice has per the evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), Dallas 2008).  Nor did Ms. Ganim or CNN reveal that numerous CAIR leaders have been convicted of terrorism charges and incarcerated or deported.

Neither Ms. Ganim nor CNN revealed Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood whose stated objective is to wage “civilization jihad” to overthrow our government through all means necessary including violence until sharia becomes the law of the land.

When CNN quoted Representative John Bennett’s questions he posed to Muslims at his office, it is evident neither Ms. Ganim nor CNN did any research – the point of Mr. Bennett’s exercise – to determine the truth of the matters regarding Islamic doctrine – sharia.  Ms. Ganim and CNN dutifully gave Hamas, a designated terrorist organization and its leader in Oklahoma, Adam Soltani, air time on national television, thus providing propaganda for terrorists while slandering an American hero and elected member of the Oklahoma state house.

United States Marine and Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett

It should be noted CNN also did not mention Representative John Bennett is a Marine and combat veteran who serves his nation honorably.

Mr. Bennett speaks about this incident in a radio interview which can be heard HERE.

The Oklahoma media, for the most part, jumps on the bandwagon on these matters.

Last week, when UTT traveled to Louisiana to train law enforcement officers and first responders, numerous media outlets, including the Associated Press, defended Hamas (dba CAIR) and tried to diminish the work of UTT with ad hominem attacks without ever discussing the facts of the matter.

Several of the media outlets were forced to retract their articles and amend them because they were slanderous and defamatory towards UTT and it’s founder John Guandolo.  However, the media continues to identify Hamas (dba CAIR) as a “Muslim advocacy group” or a “Muslim civil rights organization.”

In fact, CAIR is neither.  CAIR is a terrorist organization because it is a Hamas organization.  Are we to believe that 15 years after 9/11 all the reporters, producers, editors, and others with CNN, the Associated Press, and many other mainstream media organizations are simple so stupid they cannot review evidence and facts that clearly identifies CAIR as a Hamas entity?

Are these media organizations providing material support to Hamas (CAIR) because they ideologically agree with them?

In either case, there appears to be direct support for terrorists by these media organizations and their reporters, and UTT is hopeful the Department of Justice will respond accordingly.

John Guandolo outlines his disagreement with Trump advisors on CT policy – plus my take

CJR: There is a fierce debate going on among counter-jihad activists right now over what the Trump administration’s official counterterrorism policy towards Islamic jihad should be. One positive development is the likely end of the disastrous Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) policy that de-linked Islam from terrorism and led to both domestic and foreign policy which placed Muslims “feelings” above the safety of our own people. Now the debate is focused on whether ISIS is Islamic. I have no doubt that both Lt General H. R. McMaster and Dr. Sebastian Gorka know that it is. I believe that they are using disinformation strategy to de-legitimize the enemy and gain Muslim allies. However, I believe that now is the time to make clear that Islamic doctrine is the enemy threat doctrine and Muslims who are not following that doctrine to the letter are technically apostates. Muslim reformers must acknowledge this. The Muslims we wish to ally with understand this very well and will not be “driven to radicalize” by an official U. S. policy that states the truth.

I would not impune the character and motives of Lt General H. R. McMaster or Dr. Sebastian Gorka as John Guandolo does in the following article but I do agree with his position that there is only one Islamic doctrine. I would just point out that Muslim belief and practice of that doctrine varies. I see no problem allying with Muslim reformers as long as we are all clear on what Islamic doctrine actually says. There needs to be a complete overhaul of CT training as well as public education on the matter so that we can begin to “orient on the enemy”.

I will continue to post opposing views on this important debate and encourage respectful comments. Perhaps Dr. Gorka should invite John Guandolo to the White House for a friendly chat over coffee like he did with that self-important, weasel attack dog Michael S. Smith II. That would probably be a much more productive meeting!

***

mcmaster-and-gorka

“Unfit for Duty” by John Guandolo at Understanding the Threat, Feb. 26, 2017:

The New York Times, Guardian, and CNN all report Lt General McMaster told members of the National Security Council Thursday he felt “radical Islamic terrorism” was an unhelpful way to describe terrorism because becoming a terrorist is actually “un-Islamic” in the first place.

In a talk he gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in May 2016, LtGen McMaster said, “There is a cycle going on where groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, you know, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence, they depend on ignorance and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents.”

This is incoherent and factually wrong.  LtGen McMaster wrote a book entitled “Dereliction of Duty.”  He may want to look in the mirror to see if he is doing the same thing in this war he accused President Johnson of doing in Vietnam.

100% of all Islamic doctrine, from elementary, junior high, and high school Islamic text books as well as the highest authorities in Islamic jurisprudence, to include Al Azhar University in Egypt, all clearly and doctrinally state Islam is a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule, and 100% of sharia only defines “jihad” as warfare against non-Muslims.

“The duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic state.”

What Islam is All About  (most widely used junior high text book in U.S. Islamic schools)

The violence Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Boston bombers, the attackers in Paris, the Fort Lauderdale shooter, and all the jihadis we have faced over the past 20 years quote authoritative Islamic doctrine in support of what they do.  Al Qaeda and ISIS have never misquoted sharia in furtherance of their actions.

In the last 15 years it has been made clear – the more muslims study Islam and sharia, the more likely they are to support and participate in jihad.

So the questions remains…what the hell is Lieutenant General McMaster talking about because he is not talking truthfully about a real and present danger to these United States?  He is doing exactly what our enemy wants him to do – creating an imaginary target for us to chase while our real enemy prepares to defeat us.

Nearly 16 years after 9/11, the Global Islamic Movement has taken down nations, expanded its power, and defeated the United States in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because leaders like McMaster decided they were too busy to stop and learn the enemy threat doctrine – Sharia – and instead have been given a counterfactual understanding of our enemy by Islamic advisors who are all batting for the other team.

The President’s Counterterrorism advisor, Sebastian Gorka, is “over the moon” LtGen McMaster is the new National Security Advisor.  However, Gorka’s lack of honesty about the Islamic threat raises much more serious questions.

Some have been lulled into believing he is on the right track because he uttered the word “jihad” but defeating this enemy takes more than pretending to know what you are talking about.

Speaking at CPAC this past weekend, Gorka stated:  “Zuhdi (Jasser) knows it better than anybody because he understands that this isn’t about poverty or lack of education. It’s about people who are fighting for the soul of Islam – not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam; as King Abdullah, as General Sisi has said, for which version is going to win.”

Utter nonsense.  There is one version of Islam and one Sharia.  To say otherwise is to be factually wrong, but also dangerous when national strategies are being built off that utter nonsense.

When one’s duties include national security responsibilities, one has a professional duty to know the enemy or do due diligence to know the enemy.  To fail to do so makes one professionally negligent in one’s duties.  When people die (Ft Lauderdale, Boston, Orlando, Ft Hood…) because a person is unprofessional in his/her duties it is called “criminal negligence” and doctors and lawyers go to jail for such behavior.

Several years ago at a town hall presentation hosted by Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL, Sebastian Gorka stated “99.9% of muslims do not support terrorism (jihad)” despite a mountain of evidence and polling data proving this comment untrue, and the fact the entire purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is dominated by Islamic rule (sharia).

Dr. Gorka also writes in his book, Defeating Jihad, we are not at war with Islam (p.129) but our enemy is “the ideology of takfiri jihad” (p.123).

No muslim jihadi who fought on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else, nor any of the jihadis who have died in Europe in the United States attacking us nor the jihadis we have arrested have said they are “takfiri jihadis.”  They have said they are “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the cause of Allah” to “establish a caliphate under sharia.”

This is what Islamic doctrine commands them to do.

erdogan-moderate-islam-capture

On page 144 of his book, Gorka ends with the call for the United States to spend billions of dollars supporting “Muslim reformers” in their “ideological war to delegitimize the message of holy war against the infidel and bolster modern interpretations of Islam.”  This demonstrates Sebastian Gorka is either completely free of any clue of Islamic doctrine or is intentionally lying about what Islam actually teaches.
Since these ideas and strategies to use “moderate Muslims” to ensure the “other version” of Islam wins are based in fantasy not reality, these policies will necessarily fail – and have failed the United States for 15 years.
Is that Dr. Gorka’s intention?  Does he not know that strategies to win a war must be based in the reality of who the enemy is?  Why would Sebastian Gorka put forth such and idea when he knows what he is saying is untrue?
Is it possible Dr. Gorka has remained strategically incoherent for 15 years during this global war?  Is he working on behalf of some outside entity to intentionally mislead the President of the United States, or is he is simply putting his paycheck ahead of the American people and his duty.
The United States will lose this war against the Global Islamic Movement if we do not clearly define the enemy and target the enemy.  We cannot hit a target we do not identify and cannot defeat an enemy we do not target.
Our warfighting doctrine calls for an analysis of our enemy based on how the enemy defines itself.  We begin our analysis there.  Something we have not done since 9/11/01.  If we did, our entire national security apparatus, including our military, would have been studying and teaching authoritative sharia and more of our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen would be alive today because of it.
Keeping LtGen McMaster and Sebastian Gorka in their current positions will ensure America remains strategically incoherent and will guarantee our defeat in this war against the Global Islamic Movement.
As always, this war will be won or lost at the local level because our federal government is still failing us.

Extremist Muslims’ One-Way Street

Gatestone Institute, by Burak Bekdil, February 24, 2017:

  • Extremist Muslims’ understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are “good” and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims — often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims — often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.
  • Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.
  • Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
  • Given the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a ban on travel to the U.S.?
  • Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the “infidels” who support Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same “infidels” in their own lands.

President Donald Trump’s executive order of January 27, 2017, temporarily limiting entry from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days, until vetting procedures can be put in place — has caused international controversy, sparking protests both in the Western and Islamic worlds, including in increasingly Islamist Turkey.

This article does not intend to discuss whether Trump’s ban is a racist, illegal order, or a perfectly justified action in light of threatened American interests. The ban, right or wrong, has once again unveiled the hypocrisy of extremist Muslims on civil liberties and on what is and what is NOT racist. Extremist Muslims’ understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are “good” and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims — often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims — often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.

Muslims have been in a rage across the world. Iran’s swift and sharp answer came in a Tweet from Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who said that the ban was “a great gift to extremists.” A government statement in Tehran said that the U.S. travel restrictions were an insult to the Muslim world, and threatened U.S. citizens with “reciprocal measures.” Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.

Sudan, host and supporter of various extremist Muslim terror groups including al-Qaeda, said the ban was “very unfortunate.” In Iraq, a coalition of paramilitary groups called on the government to ban U.S. nationals from entering the country and to expel those currently on Iraqi soil.

In Turkey where the extremist Islamic government is unusually soft on Trump’s ban — in order not to antagonize the new president — a senior government official called the order “a discriminative decision.” Deputy Prime Minister and government spokesman Numan Kurtulmus said:

“Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that rising Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings have a great weight on this decision. Taking such a decision in a country such as America, where different ethnic and religious groups are able to co-exist, is very offensive.”

The ruling party’s deputy chairman, Yasin Aktay, called the ban “racist,” and said: “This is totally against human rights, a big violation of human rights.” Aktay also said that he had started to “worry about the future of the U.S.”

Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Gormez, praised the Americans who rushed to the airports to protest the ban. “[This] is very important. It gives us hope,” he said — presumably meaning that non-Muslim protestors will continue to advocate for Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands.

Turkish government bigwigs and the top Islamic authority seem not to have heard of their own country’s dismal human rights record when it comes to non-Muslim minorities. Most recently, Turkey’s Association of Protestant Churches noted in a report that hate speech against the country’s Christians increased in both the traditional media and social media. It said that hate speech against Protestants persisted throughout 2016, in addition to physical attacks on Protestant individuals and their churches.

Nevertheless, the Islamist’s one-way sympathy for human rights (for Muslims) and his one-way affection for discrimination (against non-Muslims) is not just Turkish, but global. What is the treatment of non-Muslim (or sometimes even non-extremist Muslim) visitors to some of the Muslim cities and sites in the countries that decry Trump’s “racist,” and “discriminative” ban that “violates human rights?”

In a 2016 visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Muslim custodians of the site did not allow entry to this author, despite the Turkish passport submitted to them, saying “you do not look Muslim enough.” And Muslims now complain of “discrimination?” Incidentally, Al Aqsa Mosque is, theoretically at least, open to visits from non-Muslims, except on Fridays.

Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In 2013, the Saudi Minister of Justice, Mohamed el-Eissi, insisted that “the cradle of the Muslim sanctities will not allow the establishment of any other places of worship.”

The Saudi ban on other religious houses of worship comes from a Salafi tradition that prohibits the existence of two religions in the Arabian Peninsula. In the Saudi kingdom, the law requires that all citizens must be Muslims; the government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion; and the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited.

In Iran, where even non-Muslim female visitors must wear the Islamic headscarf, the government continues to imprison, harass, intimidate and discriminate against people based on religious beliefs. A 2014 U.S. State Department annual report noted that non-Muslims faced “substantial societal discrimination, aided by official support.” At the release of the report, then Secretary of State John Kerry said: “Sadly, the pages of this report that are being released today are filled with accounts of minorities being denied rights in countries like Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, many others”.

In Iran, marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are not recognized unless the husband produces proof that he has converted to Islam. The mullahs’ government does not ensure the right of citizens to change or renounce their religious faith. Apostasy, specifically conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death. In 2013, 79 people from religious minorities were sentenced to a total of 3,620 months in prison, 200 months of probation, 75 lashes and 41 billion rials in fines [approximately $1.3 million].

That being the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a ban on travel to the U.S.? Why, for instance, does Turkey never criticizes the extreme shortcomings of freedoms in the Muslim world but calls the U.S. ban “racist?”

Why does the Iranian government think that Trump’s ban is a “gift to the [Muslim] extremists?” In claiming that travel bans would supposedly fuel extremism, how come Iran does not think that its own persecution of religious minorities is a “gift” to non-Muslims?

Such questions will probably remain unanswered in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the “infidels” who support Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same “infidels” in their own lands.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey’s leading journalists, was just fired from Turkey’s leading newspaper after 29 years, for writing what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

American Security and Islamic Reform

muslims

The government must vet aliens for sharia-supremacist ideology.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — February 11, 2017

‘Do you think Islam needs reform?”

Wouldn’t it be interesting, wouldn’t it get us to the crux of the immigration debate, if our best news anchors — I’m looking at you, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier — would put that question to every major politician in Washington?

Instead, the press is asking not just the wrong question but one that utterly misses the point, namely: “How many terrorist attacks have been committed by immigrants from this handful of Muslim-majority countries?” It is the same wrong question posed by the imperious federal judge in Seattle who suspended President Trump’s temporary travel ban on aliens from those countries — seven of them. It is the same wrong question that animated the incorrigible Ninth Circuit appeals court in upholding this suspension — and intimating along the way that Trump, and by implication all who fear for the future of our country, are anti-Muslim bigots crusading against religious liberty (the Ninth Circuit being notoriously selective when it comes to protecting religious traditions).

Does the Trump administration realize it’s the wrong question? I wonder. Instead of attacking the question’s premise, the administration undertakes to answer it. It seems not to grasp that the security argument is not advanced, much less won, by compiling a list of terrorist plots.

Let’s try this again.

Islam does need reform. This is critical to our national security for two reasons that bear directly on the question of which aliens should, and which should not, be allowed into our country.

First, reform is essential because the broader Islamic religion includes a significant subset of Muslims who adhere to an anti-American totalitarian political ideology that demands implementation of sharia — Islamic law. This ideology and the repressive legal code on which it rests are not religion. We are not talking about the undeniably theological tenets of Islam (e.g., the oneness of Allah, the acceptance of Mohamed as the final prophet, and the Koran as Allah’s revelation). We are talking about a framework for the political organization of the state, and about the implementation of a legal corpus that is blatantly discriminatory, hostile to liberty, and — in its prescriptions of crime and punishment — cruel.

Islam must reform so that this totalitarian political ideology, sharia supremacism (or, if you prefer, “radical Islam”), is expressly severable from Islam’s truly religious tenets. To fashion an immigration policy that serves our vital national security interests without violating our commitment to religious liberty, we must be able to exclude sharia supremacists while admitting Muslims who reject sharia supremacism and would be loyal to the Constitution.

Second, sharia supremacists are acting on a “voluntary apartheid” strategy of gradual conquest. You needn’t take my word for it. Influential sharia supremacists encourage Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa to integrate into Western societies without assimilating Western culture. The renowned Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who vows that “Islam will conquer Europe, conquer America,” urges Muslim migrants to demand the right to live in accordance with sharia. Turkey’s sharia-supremacist president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, admonishes that pressuring Muslims to assimilate is “a crime against humanity.” The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim governments that purports to speak as a quasi-caliphate, promulgated its “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” in 1990 — precisely because what the United Nations in 1948 presumptuously called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is neither “universal” nor suitable to a sharia culture.

Voluntary apartheid does not require insinuating terrorists into migrant populations. It requires insinuating assimilation-resistant migrant populations into Western countries. Those populations form sharia-supremacist enclaves, which (a) demand the autonomy to conduct their affairs under Islamic law as a challenge to the sovereign authority of the host country, and (b) become safe havens for incitement, radicalization, paramilitary training, fundraising, and jihadist conspiracy — the prerequisites for terrorism.

The problem is not that our “See No Islam” policies may be letting some small percentage of trained terrorists into the country (although that is certainly a problem). The main problem is that we are creating the conditions under which anti-American enclaves can take root, the Constitution can be undermined, and today’s young Muslim teenager becomes tomorrow’s radicalized jihadist.

RELATED: Weeding Out Terrorist Immigrants Isn’t Enough

We cannot grapple with these challenges if we are intimidated into silence by such questions as whether a “Muslim ban” is being proposed; whether heightened scrutiny would be tantamount to a “religion test”; how many refugees or aliens from this or that Muslim-majority country have been charged with terrorism crimes; whether Muslims would be disproportionately affected by immigration exclusions; and whether a ban on a few Muslim-majority countries can be justified if most Muslim-majority countries are exempted.

Such questions are designed to make vetting Muslims seem inconceivable. They are meant to exhaust you into conceding: “If we have to fret so mightily about the potential impact of immigration laws against Muslims, how could we possibly contemplate examining Muslims directly to sort out sharia supremacists from pro-American Muslims?” You are to pretend that there is no obvious subset of Muslims who are hostile to our country. You are to assume that screening for hostile Muslims would be illegal because to ask about Islam would offend religious liberty — but because you know there are hostile Muslims, you silently hope the authorities have figured out some sneaky, roundabout way to screen for them without appearing to screen for them.

Enough of that. We need to move beyond the “are we targeting Muslims” nonsense and get to the critical question: How do we embrace our Islamic friends while excluding our sharia-supremacist enemies?

Here’s a suggestion: Bring our Muslim friends, loud and proud, into the process.

The only people who may have more interest than we do in Islamic reform are Islamic reformers: courageous Muslims who embrace American constitutional principles of liberty and equality. And at great risk to themselves: Under the supremacist view of sharia, those who depart from Islamic-law principles set in stone a millennium ago are apostates, subject to the penalty of death. You’re not supposed to question that, though, because it’s, you know, “religion.”

How about we stop consulting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other sharia supremacists who tell us Islam is just fine as is, even as its aggressions mount? How about we bring the reformers very publicly into the vetting process, to help the administration tell the good guys from the bad guys? To help the administration show that it is not Muslims but anti-American totalitarians that we seek to exclude.

It is the reform Muslims who tell us that Islam can separate sharia from spiritual life and that pro-Western Muslims do exactly that. It is the sharia supremacists who are outraged by the very suggestion that reform is possible, let alone necessary. If we continue taking our cues from the latter, it means that their noxious political ideology is part and parcel of Islam, and therefore that screening to keep that ideology out of our country is a violation of First Amendment religious liberty.

In other words, if you’re unwilling to say that Islam needs reform, then we can’t vet . . . and we are doomed. On the other hand, if Islam does need reform, isn’t it imperative that we identify the Muslims who resist reform — the sharia supremacists who seek not to join but to radically change our free, constitutional society?

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

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.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Beltway Snipers Were Jihadis

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, October 20, 2016:

Today when a Muslim attacks non-Muslim in America, our leaders, Muslim leaders, and the media tell us these are the actions of “mentally ill” people.  Strangely, this nonsense has been going on a long time.

For this edition of Throwback Thursday, UTT looks at a forgotten jihadi attack on America.

The Beltway Snipers

Lee Boyd Malvo (left) and John Allen Muhammad (right)

Lee Boyd Malvo (left) and John Allen Muhammad (right)

John Allen Muhammad was a U.S. Army veteran and a convert to Islam.  Along with Lee Malvo – a 17 year old – the two terrorized the Washington, D.C. metro area by killing ten people in the fall of 2002.

John Allen Muhammad was executed in Virginia for these crimes. Lee Malvo was sentenced to life in prison.

Prior to this, the Muhammad and Malvo killed seven people and wounded seven others in a multi-state robbery and murder spree.

Four days before the shootings in the Washington Metropolitan area began, Ayman al Zawahiri, the second in command of Al Qaeda, issued a warning that Al Qaeda “will continue targeting the lifelines of the American economy.”  The “Beltway Snipers” shot their victims at gas stations, a Home Depot, a Shopper’s Food Warehouse, a Michael’s craft store, an Auto Mall, and a Post Office.

Former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Office in Arkansas Ivian Smith, who worked in the Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Divisions, stated:  “The cumulative effect of the shootings has been an economic slowdown in the local area.”

John Allen Mohammad was supposedly a “homeless” guy, but he always had money to travel overseas on trips and vacations.  Yet, investigators never uncovered a source of funding.

Needless to say, Hamas’s U.S. Leader Nihad Awad (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations – CAIR) weighed in on the shootings:  “There is no indication that this case is related to Islam or Muslims. We therefore ask journalists and media commentators to avoid speculation based on stereotyping or prejudice.  The American Muslim community should not be held accountable for the alleged criminal actions of what appear to be troubled and deranged individuals.”

After his arrest, Lee Malvo drew pictures in prison.  Many of these were entered into evidence by his attorney in an attempt to show how Malvo was influenced by John Mohammad.  These drawings clearly showed support for Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the kinds of things that would lead an investigator to conclude these murders were acts of jihad.

lee-malvo-drawings

Maybe it was jihad after all.

After continued Muslim terror attacks, NYC launches “I am Muslim” media blitz

By Creeping Sharia, September 27, 2016:

Including free classes on Islam. Taxation for Islamization. Submission. Taxpayers are funding the takeover of their own city where thousands of people were killed by Muslim terrorists and where Muslims continue to terrorize and attempt to kill non-Muslims.

iammuslim-nyc1

Above is a quick rendition of NYC’s Islamic dawah campaign. We encourage reader’s to make their own versions and hijack the #IamMuslimNYC hashtag on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere.

We can, and will, make more and could make many more if the NYPD released names and photo’s of all the Muslims it arrests. But they don’t always do so, particularly in faked Muslim hate crimes.

Full story below on the full blown Islamic dawah no doubt orchestrated by the terror-linked Muslim Brotherhood organizations that have infiltrated all levels of New York City politics and law enforcement.


Source: New York City Human Rights Commission i-am-muslim

New York City is one of the most diverse and welcoming cities in the world. With more than 8.4 million residents, people of every faith, race, and ethnicity live and work side by side. Millions of people adhering to some religion or faith call New York City home, including thousands of Muslims with diverse backgrounds. They, like New Yorkers of every faith, contribute to the unique and rich cultural diversity for which New York City is universally known. They deserve to live and work free from discrimination and harassment.

Ongoing Events and Initiatives

Launching a digital ad campaign today led by the Commission on Human Rights to promote respect and understanding of Muslim communities and underscore anti-discrimination protections under the NYC Human Rights Law. The ads will appear on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter with the hashtag #IamMuslimNYC. The ads will direct traffic to NYC.gov/IamMuslimNYC, which will list fresources, events, and calls-to-actions in an effort to support and serve Muslim New Yorkers.

Hosting Community Safety and Fair Treatment Forums with the NYPD, the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit, NYC Commission on Human Rights, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Department of Education to discuss public safety concerns on the streets and in our schools, anti-discrimination protections under the law, and information on accessing city services.

• Developing a cultural sensitivity workshop with community leaders and the Islamic Center at NYU called “Understanding Islam” to help City employees and public and private employers across the city better understand the Islamic faith and to dispel common myths. The NYC Commission on Human Rights will launch a pilot workshop in October 2016.

• Increasing public outreach and awareness efforts on religious protections under the NYC Human Rights Law, including issuing a new multilingual fact sheet explaining protections against religious discrimination with a focus on Muslim communities and a new multilingual brochure on religious protections under NYC Human Rights Law with practical examples to identify discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations.

• Hosted a “Building Inclusive and Progressive Cities” forum with Mayor de Blasio and the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, along with Muslim leaders and community members, to discuss how New York City and other cities can better address Islamophobia and prevent hate crimes and other acts of discrimination.

• Convened Muslim, immigrant, and refugee groups to unite communities facing hate and violence and discuss shared actions the City and communities can take to combat xenophobic rhetoric, including a joint multi-sector action plan to join together and push back.

• Launching a citywide media campaign in late spring 2017 to educate New Yorkers on combatting xenophobia and embracing religious diversity, and create toolkits for government agencies and non-profits to improve cultural competency with faith-based communities.

Commitment of the de Blasio Administration with Muslim and all Faith-Based Communities

• Recognized Eid al Fitr and Eid al Adha as public school holidays for the first time in the 2015-16 school year.

• Hiring a senior advisor specifically focused on working with City agencies to ensure programs and services reach Muslim communities.

• Improving language access across the city. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs develops policy and monitors and coordinates with 75 City agencies to ensure effective translation, interpretation, and “plain language” practices amongst City agencies. At the NYC Commission on Human Rights, 26 languages, including Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu, and Gujarati are now spoken among law enforcement staff.

• Meeting regularly with Muslim community leaders and making mosque visits to discuss public safety concerns, social services, small business services, mental health, access to universal pre-K, and other issues facing communities.

• Furthering the inclusion of immigrant communities though IDNYC, a government-issued identification card that over 900,000 unique cardholders and connects New Yorkers to libraries, museums, hospitals, and many City services.

• Convening roundtables and workshops with Muslim leaders and advocates to discuss religious protections under the NYC Human Rights Law and how to report acts of discrimination.

• Celebrating Muslim traditions and increasing cultural literacy through public events, such as Eid celebrations in every borough and iftars throughout the city, including the largest public iftar in City history, “Iftar in the City,” attended by hundreds of New Yorkers.

Future Actions [i.e., PROMOTING ISLAM aka Dawah]

Spring 2017
NYC Commission on Human Rights launching citywide public information and integrated multiplatform marketing campaign on combating xenophobia and embracing religious diversity in New York City.

Summer/Fall 2017
NYC Commission on Human Rights, in collaboration with other agencies, launching toolkit for government agencies and non-profits to improve cultural competency with faith-based communities.

Join the conversation with hashtag #IamMuslimNYC and follow @NYCCHR on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Resources

• Download the Fact SheetNYC Human Rights Law Protections for Muslims (and Those Perceived as Such): 10 Things You Should Know” (soon to be available in 9 languages).
• Coming Soon: Download the Brochure “Religious Discrimination Protections under the NYC Human Rights Law” (will be available in 9 languages).
• Download the #IAmMuslimNYC social media ads:

Facebook:  1  2  3  4  5    Twitter:  1  2  3  4  5    Instagram:  1  2  3  4  5

• Learn more about upcoming free workshops on “Understanding Islam,” targeted at City employees and public and private providers citywide (pilot launching in October).


There are human rights laws specifically for the protection of Muslims? Is New York now governed by sharia law? The so-called Human Rights Commission sounds more like a sharia court. More analysis to follow.

New Yorker’s should be outraged that the city is not only aggressively promoting Islam and protecting those who will continue to attack them, but using their tax dollars to do so.

Clearly, 9/11 was a great victory for Muslims and they will continue to takeover New York City and will be forced to submit to Islam.

Pakistani liberal to American panel “You are going to get me killed”

comic3Conference Examines Islamic Blasphemy Law Dangers

Religious Freedom Coalition, by Andrew Harrod, Phd., June 3, 2016:

“You are going to get me killed…I have got my flight back home,” stated Pakistani religious freedom advocate Arafat Mazhar to an audience questioner at an April 20 Georgetown University conference recently made available online.  His jarring response emphasized that the conference’s examination of Islamic blasphemy norms in Pakistan and the world beyond was no mere academic matter but involves global, often lethal, threats to freedom of speech and religion.

Mazhar’s statement occurred during the conference’s afternoon panel in an exchange with an audience member from Afghanistan studying in America.  Mazhar emphasized that his organization Engage Pakistan currently only supports reforming the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws with theological arguments such that these laws would not have a divine status.  Any abolition of these laws, a proposition that has had deadly consequences for Pakistan’s Punjab provincial governor Salman Taseer and Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, would be a much longer term goal.

Just as illuminating and disturbing was Mazhar’s Afghan interlocutor who cited a 2015 Afghan incident in which a mob brutally killed a woman accused of burning a Quran.  “Had there been a good anti-blasphemy law” with codified standards, he suggested, “she would not have been killed that viciously.”  On the basis of such conjectured more humane executions he accordingly asked, “Is it a good idea to get rid of the anti-blasphemy law or is it good to have a good law?”

Mazhar responded that empirical evidence contradicted such arguments previously made in favor of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.  From Pakistan’s 1947 independence to the 1986 completion of these laws, Islamic blasphemy accusations caused only four extrajudicial killings, but after 1986 these killings increased by 2,500 percent.  His fellow panelist, University of Notre Dame professor Daniel Philpott, noted that Pew studies had found that blasphemy laws had a perverse “pedagogical effect” in inciting hostility towards the protected faith’s opponents real or imagined.

Ambassador Alberto Fernandez, a retired American career diplomat, concurred on the panel that blasphemy laws are “like handing a loaded gun” to people.  He cited a 2005 Sudan case where the government had dropped charges of insulting religion against a newspaper editor, but outraged mobs still demanded retribution.  Months later his beheaded corpse turned up after a kidnapping.

Former Pakistani parliamentarian and human rights advocate Farahnaz Ispahani likewise stated during the earlier lunch panel that blasphemy laws in her country “enabled a vigilante culture.”  Her fellow panelist, Mazhar’s Engage Pakistan colleague Ayesha Iftikhar, stated that there “you can become a hero just because you went after someone for blasphemy.”  Ispahani described how blasphemy laws abetted the “purification of Pakistan” such that only three percent of Pakistan’s population now belongs to non-Sunni Muslim religious minorities, down from 23 percent in 1947.

Ispahani noted that blasphemy’s culture of incitement extended to popular Pakistani television programs watched by millions nationwide.  Here Muslim clerics had called for the killing of Ahmadiyya, a small Muslim sect deemed heretical by all other Muslim denominations.  Her fellow panelist, Imam Mohamed Magid, and Asma Uddin, an American Muslim religious freedom advocate and lawyer who had appeared on the morning panel, had both referenced public order justifications for Islamic blasphemy laws.  Yet such considerations apparently only operated in one direction, Ispahani observed, protecting the sensibilities of Muslims for fear of their possible violent reactions while allowing these very same Muslims uninhibited hate.

Appearing with Uddin, Hudson Institute religious freedom expert Nina Shea analyzed Islamic blasphemy law threats to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  “These blasphemy laws imprison Muslims in a suffocating chamber of blind dogmatism and conformity and extremists are given the last word” while Muslim dissidents and reformers face dangers including death.  “The West’s response has been less than inspiring, the West has tended to indulge these laws” by encompassing their content within hate speech laws, as five convictions in France of actress Brigette Bardot indicate.   In the United States, “Al Capone-like underlying issues” brought a year-long prison sentence to the filmmaker who violated his parole terms while producing Innocence of Muslims, an internet film that enraged Muslims worldwide.

Shea noted especially the previously obscure Florida pastor Terry Jones, who ultimately made good on his 2010 announcement to burn ceremoniously a Quran, thereby provoking Senator Lindsey Graham to propose speech restrictions.  “The United States did not handle that particularly well.  There was a parade of generals and government officials that went public and denounced him, begged him to stop,” Shea stated.  “This is extremely dangerous, because it raises expectations that the state, that is the American government, will regulate expression on behalf of religion, and in particular one religion.”

The controversial Magid, past president of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), tried to present a benign understanding of his faith.  Like afternoon panelist Salam Al-Marayati, head of the equally MB-linked Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Magid cited the oft-invokedQuran 2:256 (“no compulsion…in the religion”) and the Medina Charter.  Recently celebrated in theMarrakesh Declaration, an attempt to justify religious freedom on the basis of Islamic sources, this charter of Islam’s prophet Muhammad supposedly “created a pluralistic society” according to Magid.

Magid emphasized Islamic orthodoxy because the “word reform itself triggers negative thoughts in Muslims.”  The best approach for winning Muslim hearts and minds is therefore to “take it back to the Prophet.  Not reforming, reinforcing the original framework,” he stated, as the “message of Islam is spread through compassion.”  He argued that Muhammad did not use force when opponents hurled insults and trash at him or Muslims apostatized.

Read more

The Left’s Unholy Alliance with Islam

fergusonpalestine3-1

Politically Short, by Nick Short, March 27, 2016:

The Islamic State terrorist organization known as ISIS first outlined their strategy to attack the West in a 99-page manifesto issued in January of 2015 under the title of “Black Flags from Rome.” ISIS states that their strategy in the West is to do “hit and run tactics and then go into hiding in order to waste millions and billions of dollars on police while shutting down major cities.”

The manifesto further notes that, “once the media attention dies down, the Islamic State will tell another ‘Sleeper Cell’ to carry out another attack again.” Their reason being that “this will put the police on high alert again, forcing them to shut the entire city down again, causing the [economic] loss of billions, so the people of Europe will realize that there is a constant war in their country, they will not feel safe.”

On Tuesday, March 22, ISIS followed through on this strategy as they carried out a deadly assault in the heart of the European Union’s administrative capital in Brussels, Belgium, making this the third such terrorist attack on European soil in just over a year. The Brussels assault involved simultaneous, coordinated attacks on key infrastructure sites hitting at least two major public sites. The first, occurred shortly after rush hour at 8 a.m. as two suicide bombers detonated their explosives at the departure hall of Brussels’ Zaventem airport, the country’s international airline hub, killing at least 11 people and injuring another 80 or so more. One hour later, another suicide bomber detonated his suicide belt in the Maelbeek Metro station in central Brussels, killing another 20 people and injuring over 100. The Maelbeek station was targeted deliberately as it services the modern headquarters for the 28-nation E.U.

In response to the attack, Belgium’s government raised its terrorism-threat risk to the maximum level, appealed to people to stay home, and shut down the airport and Metro system while canceling the high-speed Eurostar and Thalys trains linking the city to London, Paris and Amsterdam. ISIS succeeded, once again, in carrying out their strategy outlined in their initial manifesto as the people of Europe are coming to the harsh realization that their country is in a state of constant war.

As John Schindler of the Observer notes, “the game changer [for Europe] was last November’s horrific attacks in Paris, the bloodiest events on French soil since the Second World War.” The November 13, 2015, attack in Paris that killed 130 people and injured 368, was carried out in virtually the same manner of the Brussels attacks, albeit on a smaller scale, but with the same modus operandi featuring simultaneous attacks on soft targets in various locations by multiple shooters and suicide bombers. The Paris attacks “turned out to have a significant Belgian footprint, with several of the attackers linked to Molenbeek, a notorious Brussels suburb that’s half-Muslim and known to authorities as a hotbed of radicalism. For the police, Molenbeek has been a no-go area of sorts for years, leaving jihadists free rein to raise funds, collect arms, and plot mayhem elsewhere,” writes Schindler. In short, Europe is now reaping what they have sown as Europe itself has imported a major threat into its countries based upon the utopian liberal policies of multiculturalism, open borders, and an unwillingness to address the underlying religious cause of jihad.

It is due to the unholy alliance between the modern day leaders of the left and Islam itself that is to blame for the war like conditions in which Europe is currently living under. This utopian agenda of the left is being exploited by jihadist sympathizing European Muslims as they have begun to ally with Left-wing activists in order to pave the way for what ISIS has calls the “conquest of Rome.” This was specifically mentioned in the ISIS manifesto alluded to earlier as the terrorist organization explained the following:

A growing population of left-winged activists (people who are against; human/animal abuses,
Zionism, and Austerity measures etc) look upto the Muslims as a force who are strong enough to
fight against the injustices of the world. Many of these people
(who are sometimes part of Anonymous and Anarchy movements) will ally with the Muslims to fight
against the neo-Nazis’ and rich politicians. They will give intelligence, share weapons and do
undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome.

So how will this happen? ISIS writes:

If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism). It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made…they will start to work together in small cells of groups to fight and sabotage against the ‘financial elite’

This not only applies to Europe, but the United States as well as we have seen a growing alliance between America’s own radical left and those within the Muslim community who espouse the ideology of jihad. For instance, in 2011, we saw the formation of an alliance between anti-Israel and Muslim-American advocacy groups in the United States who capitalized on the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS) to promote this agenda. Recalling the Occupy movement, it started in New York’s Zuccotti Park on September 17, 2011, and spread to more than 100 cities. According to the movements website OccupyWallSt.org, the movement was “inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia aiming to expose how the richest 1 percent of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.”

It didn’t take long till Muslim Brotherhood front organizations such as the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) joined the fray in supporting the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In a press release issued on November 2, 2011, ICNA invoked classic leftist warfare rhetoric stating that, “Real progress and development of a country depends on prosperity of society as a whole, not just that of a selected portion of society. Yet the income gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow, and uneconomic recovery across the country has been uneven and unstable at best.” Continuing this leftist sentiment, the press release goes on to conclude that, “ICNA sympathizes with the message of Occupy Wall Street protesters and supports their cause. These protesters are raising legitimate concerns regarding income disparity, unemployment and the state of our economy that cannot be ignored. As American Muslims we stand in solidarity with them across the country.”

In his book The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy, Erick Stakelbeck explains the underlying motivations behind this alliance writing that the “Occupiers hate America, loathe the free market, want to weaken the United States, overthrow capitalism, and divide the spoils among themselves. Islamists hate capitalism as much as any socialist Occupier does, because they seek to install a global Islamic financial system based on sharia precepts. Additionally, the Islamists and the radical Left both regard the United States—the standard bearer and chief protector of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization—as the Great Satan that must be destroyed.”

This is the ultimate culture war, Islamists take advantage of the lefts moral relativism, its default disapproval for non-Western, non-Judeo-Christian forces, and its tendency to pathologize any opposition to its causes as bigotry and ‘phobia’, notes Stakelbeck. While the Occupy Wall Street Movement has flamed out, the unholy alliance continues to metastasize like a cancer throughout our nation.

The latest alliance being the growing nexus between Islamist groups like CAIR, ICNA, and many others with the radical leftist “Black Lives Matter” movement which casts itself as a spontaneous uprising born of inner city frustration while its agitation has provoked police killings, violence, lawlessness and unrest in minority communities throughout the U.S. Simply put, Black Lives Matter is the exact organization that a terrorist group like ISIS could only have dreamed of and as Kyle Shideler of TownHall documents, jihadist front organizations like the Muslim American Society (MAS) and ICNA have already crept their way in.

Detailing a conference between MAS and ICNA in 2015, Shideler highlights that at the event, MAS leader Khalilah Sabra openly discussed the importance of Muslim support for Black Lives Matter, and urged “revolution.” Comparing the situation in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Arab Spring revolutions, she asked, “We are the community that staged a revolution across the world; if we can do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?”

Reporting on this merging “revolutionary” alliance goes back as far as the first outbreak of disorder in Ferguson, Missouri writes Shideler, noting that “few may recall the attendance at Michael Brown’s funeral of CAIR executive director Nihad Awad.” Awad was identified in federal court as a member of the Palestine Committee, a covert group of Muslim Brothers dedicated to supporting Hamas in the United States. CAIR joined other Muslim Brotherhood organizations in Ferguson, and from then on the alliance between Black Lives Matter has only become emboldened. Look no further than the massive civil disobedience movement set to begin next month under the banner of Democracy Spring to confirm that the Muslim Brotherhood has embedded itself nicely within Black Lives Matter and other leftist groups.

To conclude, radical Islam and the radical left in Europe is the same as radical Islam and the radical left here in America. The left, no matter where it is, uses Islam as means to achieve their radically different ends, which ultimately boils down to power and control. In Europe you’re currently seeing what those ends look like while here in America, the means are only beginning to take shape. The lesson to be learned from Europe is that the unholy alliance between the left and Islam inevitably leads to the latter taking over the former. Europe is at war with not only an enemy it cannot contain in Islam, but with itself as well.

America too will soon follow suit if we continue down Europe’s utopian path of multiculturalism, open borders, and political correctness. We are living on borrowed time.

Video: Why I Left Islam and Now Help Others Who Are Doing the Same

why-i-left-islam-and-now-help-others-who-are-doing-the-same-1455725081Vice News, By Imtiaz Shams, February 17, 2016:

The first thing you need to know about ex-Muslims is that the best term in Arabic to describe us is basically a swear word: murtadd, meaning someone who “turns their back” on Islam. The word has a dirty, spit-on-the-ground feeling to it, with a rolling “R” and a sharp drop at the end. This is where you need to start if you want to even begin unpacking the ubiquitous, systematic discrimination we face that can pervade all aspects of our lives.

One key form of discrimination is the erasure or downplaying of our experiences through stereotypes, the most common of which is, “You probably weren’t a real Muslim.” I spent half my life growing up in Saudi Arabia, travelling to Makkah every year for Umrah, a holy pilgrimage. My first book was a gorgeous red and gold-trimmed copy of the Riyad us-Saliheen, a compilation of hadiths (transmitted sayings and actions) of the Prophet Muhammad and his Sahaaba (companions). I’ve been praying, fasting and memorizing the Quran since as long as I can remember and would devour books proving Islam’s truth through scientific miracles and its moral code.

My family moved to the UK just before 9/11, and many Muslims will understand what I mean when I say the atmosphere changed after that day. At school boys gave me the nickname “terrorist” and to this day I still own a shirt where some of them drew explosives and bombs on my last day of high school. That discrimination didn’t affect what was then a deep and abiding love for Islam — it just strengthened it.

So what happened? If everything was geared towards me spending my life as a practicing Muslim, why would I leave? One of the key tenets of orthodox Islam is its perfect nature and the infallibility of the Quran, two claims I unwaveringly held on to for two decades. But as I grew older and my critical thinking developed, the accepted truths about the morality of the Prophet’s actions and the miracles described in the Quran got harder to swallow.

Watch the VICE News documentary: Rescuing Ex-Muslims: Leaving Islam:

I stopped believing mountains were “stakes” or “pegs,” protecting the Earth from earthquakes. Ironically, mountains are actually most common where earthquakes are most plentiful: in tectonic zones.

I no longer believed that Islam had come down to slowly phase out the loathsome institution of slavery. Instead I began to feel that the institutionalization of slavery in Islamic scripture under the auspices of “prisoners of war” allowed for millions of Africans and other non-Arabs to be taken as slaves by the various Caliphates, in some places exceeding even the horrific Transatlantic slave trade.

I had thought that Islam had given women equal rights to men, and this may or may not have been true if we were talking about 1,400 years ago. However, taken literally the same scripture can be used to reduce the inheritance and legal rights of women, enforce certain ritualistic clothing and practices on women but make them either a choice or non-existent for men, ban women from marrying non-Muslims but extend that right to men… the list went on and on in my mind.

Yet through all this I could not internally accept I had left Islam because I didn’t know I could leave. The very idea that one could be a practicing Muslim but then leave Islam was completely and utterly alien to me. I was finally forced to accept I no longer believed in Islam at the beginning of 2012, but I had no identity to go to and nobody who understood what I was going to speak to. My friend Aliyah described this stage as being like an “alien in your own skin,” and I felt like a complete outcast.

Another feeling that hovered over my leaving Islam was fear. Islam had presented itself as a complete and objective blueprint for my life, in charge of dictating my role in this world and my relationship to death and an afterlife. This left me believing that without the religion, even if I lived life making a difference in this world I would no longer be abd Allah, a slave of Allah, and thus my life would be aimless. It told me that that apocalyptic Yawm al-Qiyamah(day of judgement) would come when I would be judged as an apostate, one of the worst of sins, and put into Jahannum (hell). The language around hell in Islamic scripture can be terrifying — is it any wonder many new ex-Muslims have to cope with the anxiety it creates?

This period of fear and isolation did not last very long as I quickly found others out there when I stumbled on a Reddit group called /r/exmuslim. Suddenly I had access to thousands of active ex-Muslims, their stories, advice and experiences of discrimination. Almost all of these Redditors were anonymous because of the inherent physical and social risks to leaving Islam, so I began to reach out. I came up with a vetting protocol, carefully checking people out one at a time and hosting private ex-Muslim socials of sometimes up to 60 people. Sharing your story for the first time with another ex-Muslim is exhilarating, and there were so many of us to share with! Sure we still felt like aliens, but there were a lot of us aliens and we felt more comfortable in our own skin.

Around this time, I had a chance meeting with two gay lawyers who gave me some advice: what really changed for LGBTQ people in Britain was not just that they organized into communities but that they began to come out publicly. This resonated strongly with me so I joined forces with Aliyah Saleem, a feminist ex-Muslim activist, and we started what grew to become “Faith to Faithless,” an organization that creates online and offline platforms to promote apostate voices.

The very first Faith to Faithless event was a year ago at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). Although we had members of the QMUL Islamic society and some da’wah(preaching) groups leafleting our event, it was a massive success. Some of the ex-Muslims we met there have since spoken at other events. Although we received support from the wider public (including Muslims), we also received plenty of hate mail and abuse. I’ve had people spit on the ground and call me a murtadd, while insults to female Faith to Faithless speakers are always framed in disgustingly sexist terms. Even worse is that we’ve often been let down by the very people who should be helping us, including some feminist and leftist activists who have used racialized terms like “native informant” to describe us, undermining our agency as a minority within a minority.

As you would imagine, many ex-Muslims contact Faith to Faithless for advice or urgent help and have faced abuse in different forms. Some, although accepted as members of their family, are constantly told that they are going to “burn in hell” and should repent. Others are forced out into the streets with no financial support whatsoever. Some are physically abused, such as one ex-Muslim girl who was kicked in the stomach by her brother and then locked into her room by her parents.

It’s important to note that not all Muslims have treated ex-Muslims in this way. Some of the most important voices to me were my Muslim friends who privately messaged me giving me their support and love. We need to be able to stand together to fight both anti-Muslim and ex-Muslim discrimination, which can often go hand-in-hand. If you’re a young ex-Muslim who has left their faith and feels alone or isolated, get in touch. You are definitely not alone.

Follow Imtiaz Shams on Twitter: @imtishams

What Is The Purpose of Islamic Centers/Mosques in America?

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and was home to the Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev brothers

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and was home to the Boston Marathon Bomber Tsarnaev brothers

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 20, 2016:

Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.”  This could not be further from the truth.

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man.  Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time.  Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did.  Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow.  And Mohammad built mosques.

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations.  Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader.  The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.

Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam.  It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition.  It was a place where jihadis lived and trained.  It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched.  So, thats what a mosque is.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader.  This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.

Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad):  The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers.(emphasis added)

“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.” (emphasis added)

In 2002, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan quoted a famous muslim refrain:  “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” further highlighting the understanding among Muslims of what a mosque it.  (“Turkey’s Charismatic Pro-Islamic Leader.” BBC News. 4 November 2002)

The Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the MB’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

The Islamic Center of Irving is owned by the MB’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)

One of the leading Islamic jurists in the world who also led the first prayers in Egypt after the successful MB revolution there in 2011 – Yusuf al Qaradawi – published a fatwa (legal ruling) on the question “Is it permissible to use a mosque for political purposes?”  In it he stated, in part:

“It must be the role of the mosque to guide the public policy of a nation, raise awareness of critical issues, and reveal its enemies. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad for the sake of Allah, resisting the enemies of the religion who are invading occupiers. That blessed Intifada in the land of the prophets, Palestine, started from none other than the mosques. Its first call came from the minarets and it was first known as the mosque revolution. The mosque’s role in the Afghan jihad, and in every Islamic jihad cannot be denied.”

There is a reason American soldiers and Marines find weapons, ammunition, and jihadis in mosques overseas, and why the French are finding weapons in mosques in France – this is what mosques are.

It is worth noting when the FBI killed Imam Luqman Abdullah in a shootout in Detroit in 2009, the complaint in the case quoted an FBI source stating he/she, “…saw and participated in extensive firearms and martial arts training inside the Masjid al Haqq (mosque).”

Finally, the Islamic Law of Sacred Space makes clear that when Muslims build mosques they are claiming ground for Islam.  Specifically, a radius of up to three (3) miles from the mosque belongs to Islam.  This explains why the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding from Saudi Arabia and others, are building huge mosques in the middle of nowhere in America.  They are claiming ground for Islam.  Now all they have to do is occupy that ground.

In America today there are over 2100 Islamic Centers/Mosques in all 50 states.  Land ownership by the Muslim Brotherhood’s bank – the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) – and the jihadis leading these organizations, indicates over 80% of these centers are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi network in America.  Independent investigation also reveals over 80% of American mosques teach sharia adherence and violence to attendees, which is a logical outcome of them being MB jihadi mosques.

According to our enemy, the mosque/Islamic Center is the place from which the jihadis here will launch the jihad when “Zero Hour” arrives.

We can sit by and wait for that day, or we can begin dismantling this jihadi network in our Homeland.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America

us-fallschurch-va-dar-al-hijrah-islamic-center-jpg_095911Politically Short, by Nick Short, Jan. 14, 2016:

While much has been written on the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part the majority of Americans continue to remain unaware of this nefarious organization as it operates freely in America under a litany of various front organizations posing as charities and civil rights groups. Although terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS), and Hamas have clear tactical differences, they both share the exact same ideology and goals. In fact, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS would not exist today if it wasn’t for the Muslim Brotherhood which birthed these groups through the teachings of ideologues like Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutd. It is no understatement to say that the Muslim Brotherhood has inspired the entire modern Islamic terrorist enterprise.

Yet, too much attention has been given to groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS as they seek to bring about their ultimate goal of establishing Sharia law via the “Caliphate” through violence. The spotlight has been virtually ignored on the Muslim Brotherhood though as they seek the same goal of Sharia but through a gradual, termite-like approach that burrows deeply into a host society by eating away it’s institutions slowly from within. These are the two tactical differences that Americans need to become aware of as the former has virtually controlled the narrative while the latter is whitewashed away as not irrelevant. The Muslim Brotherhood in America has acquired positions of influence behind the scenes in the government, academia, and even the media with little to no resistance. For the Brotherhood, it all begins with the establishment of various innocuous sounding Islamic organizations created at the grassroots level which eventually serve the purposes of evolving into breeding grounds for radicalization.

More than thirty years ago the Muslim Brotherhood laid out a twelve point strategy to put up a false front of peace while acting covertly to subvert the Western world in a document that came to be known as “The Project“. The document was recovered by Swiss authorities as they raided the lakeside villa of the Brotherhoods’ then foreign minister Youseff Nada shortly after the September 11th attacks on the United States. The document was written in 1982 and it outlines a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood to “establish an Islamic government on earth.”

Patrick Poole, a counter-terrorism consultant and National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media, notes that “what makes The Project so different from the standard ‘Death of America! Death to Israel!’ and ‘Establish the global caliphate!’ Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the ‘cultural invasion’ of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood master plan.”

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, and various other terrorist organizations, the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. Poole highlights a few of the following tactics and techniques that are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”.

Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals.

Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers.

Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements.

Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”.

Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support.

Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world.

While these are just a few of the key bullet points outlined in the document, one only needs to look towards a 2005 report conducted by the Dutch on the Muslim Brotherhood clandestine infiltration in the Netherlands to get an idea of how the strategy operates within western society. The report, titled From Dawa to Jihad: The various threats from radical Islam to the democratic legal order explains that their exists in the Netherlands “radical branches of the Muslim Brotherhood which employs covert dawa (propagation of radical Islamic ideology and appeal to convert people to become Muslim) strategies that seek to gradually undermine it (the State) by infiltrating, and eventually taking over the civil service, the judicature, schools, local administrators, etc.”

Aiming at a clandestine infiltration of political and social institutions, the 2005 report goes on to state that their are also conceivable, for example, “attempts to infiltrate community-based organisations with the aim of monopolising them (thus obstructing the proper functioning of ‘civil society’). But in the long run, more serious forms of such covert subversion are also conceivable, for example attempts by radical Islamic organisations to infiltrate local administration, the judicature et cetera, whilst concealing their actual objectives and loyalties.”

“While the instigators themselves do not wish to openly present themselves as jihadists or even be associated with armed jihadists, they wish to promote violence in a covert way,” concludes the report. As we can see the influence of “The Project” not only matches exactly what is happening in the Netherlands, but also aligns identically to the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America. This memo, meant for Brotherhood operatives working within the United States, explains the strategy behind the establishment of an Islamic Center in every city.

The memo notes, “The center we seek is the one which constitutes the ‘axis’ of our Movement, the ‘perimeter’ of the circle of our work, our ‘balance center’, the ‘base’ for our rise and our ‘Dar al-Arqam’ to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the ‘niche” of our prayers. This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small Islamic society’ which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations.”

For an example on how this works in America, Erick Stakelbeck in his book The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy illustrates how the Brotherhood goes about establishing their Centers in the following illustration:

An Islamist organization—usually linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and flush with cash from Saudi Arabia and/or the Gulf states—spends big bucks to buy up several acres of property in a town where hardly any Muslims reside. Plans are announced to build an ‘Islamic Cultural Center’ where all faiths are welcome and diversity will be celebrated in a new, multiculti mini-utopia. But blindsided local residents, after doing some research, quickly learn of the nefarious connections of the mosque’s leadership and see a potential hub for terrorist plotting in their midst—one with financial backing from overseas radicals to boot.

Yet, when these same neighbors demand to know where the money is coming from to pay for the planned mega-mosque, smooth-talking Muslim spokesmen involved with the project just smile and calmly reassure all comers that the funds have been “locally raised.” The local city council, petrified of being called racist, ultimately approves the so-called Islamic center against the will of the people. On cue, the mainstream media and Islamic groups then team up to condemn critics of the mosque as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.” Neighbors are left feeling demonized, abandoned, angry, and alone. And the mosque is built—even though its leadership has been exposed as having ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, a hatred for Israel, and a fondness for sharia law.

Examples such as this can be seen virtually everywhere throughout the United States and represent a direct threat to Americans as the mosque nexus to terrorism can be found in the majority of cases in which the arrest or the attack of a “homegrown jihadist” hits the news. The reason for this is because these mosques are operating in the exact way described by both “The Project” and the 1991 memorandum.

In what should have been a major wake up call to law enforcement and those working within national security, a 2011 study originally published by the  Middle East Quarterly and examined in depth by Perspectives on Terrorism ,the correlation between sharia adherence and violent dogma in U.S. mosques is found to be shockingly high. In a random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S., the Shariah Adherence Mosque Survey found that 80% provide their worshipers with jihad-style literature promoting the use of violence against non-believers and that the imams in those mosques expressly promote that literature.

The study explains that the texts were selected for scoring based on the fact that they either called for violent jihad against non-Muslims or because the texts called for hatred of “the other.” For example, Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-NaqibThe Fiqh-us-Sunnahand Tafsir Ibn Kathirand authors including Maulana Maududi and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayed Qutb  were selected because their texts make explicit demands for jihad against non-Muslims. As the study states, “texts authored by Maududi and Qutb and similar materials, such as pamphlets and texts published and disseminated by the Muslim Brotherhood, were selected in part because these materials strongly advocate the use of violence as a means to establish an Islamic state.” Remember, 80% of mosques surveyed carried such material, directly indicating that the Brotherhood is more than influential and flourishing within these mosques.

The study found that when a mosque imam or its worshipers were “sharia-adherent,” as measured by certain behaviors in conformity with Islamic law, the mosque was more likely to provide this violent literature and the imam was more likely to promote it. Moreover, the study also found that of the 80% of mosques that contained severe materials:

100% were led by an imam who recommended that worshipers study violent materials;

100% promoted violent jihad;

98% promoted the financial support of terror;

98% promoted the establishment of the Caliphate in the United States;

100% praised terror against the West;

and 76% invited guest speakers known to have promoted violent jihad.

171-1120-1-pb

The survey’s results help to provide insight into the role that Sharia-adherent behaviors play in defining group identities, creating an us-versus-them outlook, and projecting violence against the West and non-Muslims, which is mirrored by the Sharia literature found in the mosques prone to violent literature. Ultimately, the survey concludes by suggesting that “Islam, at least as it is generally practiced in mosques across the United States, continues to manifest a resistance to a sufficiently tolerant religio-legal framework that would allow its followers to make a sincere affirmation of Western citizenship. This survey provides empirical support for the view that mosques across the U.S., as institutional and social settings for mosque-going Muslims, provide a milieu resistant to, the legal, theological, or political arguments that make political, civic, and social cooperation within a secular constitutional political order ideal.”

By providing the ideological breeding grounds for terrorists, mosques and various Islamic centers within the U.S. serve as a critical starting point in which the radicalization, justification, and resources for committing jihad is prevalent. So where are these mosques and Islamic centers located and can it be shown that they are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and have produced jihadists?

To answer both questions all we need to do is look at a few examples of various instances in which either a jihadist has been arrested, carried out an attack, or joined a terrorist organization and note which mosque or center they attended as well if its linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The first mosque examined is the notorious Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). The ISB is owned and operated by the Muslim American Society (MAS) which federal prosecutors described in a 2008 case as being an “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” So far at least 8 former attendees to the mosque have become jihadists including the following; The boston marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; Abdurahman Alamoudi, the mosque’s founder and first president, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying Alamoudi raised money for al Qaeda in the U.S.; Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist-turned-al Qaeda agent, who in 2010 was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack; Finally, there’s Ahmad Abousamra, who was eventually killed in 2015 but not before becoming one of the top media propagandists for the terrorist group known today as the Islamic State or ISIS.

[Also see: ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF BOSTON HOSTS PREACHERS WHO ADVOCATE SEX SLAVERY]

Next, we have the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP) whose own website declares that it is “entrusted with the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The importance of this cannot be understated as NAIT’s status as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity was confirmed by federal prosecutors during the 2009 prosecution of another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity named the Holy Land Foundation. The Justice Department designated NAIT as an unindicted co-conspiratorin that case. So far at least 4 former attendees to the Islamic Center in Phoenix are known jihadists. The most notorious are Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi who were killed last year while attempting to execute people holding a draw Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Yet, as Patrick Poole of PJ Media notes, “two other previous ICCP mosque attendees — Hassan Abu-Jihaad and Derrick Shareef are currently in federal prison on terrorism-related charges.”

Most recently, and unfortunately tragically, is the Islamic Society of Corona/Norco (ISCN) which was attended by the San Bernardino jihadist Syed Farook and his friend as well as financier and arms supplier Enrique Marquez. According the federal complaint filed against Marquez he was charged with conspiring with Farook in 2011 and 2012 to commit crimes of terrorism, as well as unlawfully purchasing two assault rifles used in the San Bernardino massacre and defrauding immigration authorities by entering into a sham marriage conducted at the ISCN. The federal complaint also states that in 2012 Marquez and Farook were planning on carrying out an attack on a busy California freeway as well as a local community college but scrapped their plan as Marquez stated that he “distanced himself from Farook and ceased plotting with him after 2012 for a variety of reasons, including the arrest of Ralph Deleon and others on material support [for terrorism] charges in November 2012.” This statement by Marquez indicates that he knew whoRalph Deleon was, this is important to note because Deleon along with three others were charged on November 16, 2012, for conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists. All four men in that case were from the Riverside/San Bernardino area and according to the federal complaint, one of the informants for the FBI was told by Deleon that there were “a couple of brothers from the mosque who wanted to [travel abroad] for jihad.” While the FBI doesn’t identify which mosque, one can guess which one Deleon & his “brothers” were attending.

Finally, we have the example of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center (DAH) located in Falls Church, Virginia. “Dar al-Hijrah, which fittingly means Land of Migration, is where the Brotherhood has settled in America,” writes former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in his book The Grand JihadMcCarthy elaborates on Dar al-Hijrah explaining that, “in the shadow of the White House and Capitol Hill, it is the optimal location as the $6 million complex was established in 1991, the same year the Brotherhood playbook was written…The Dar al-Hijrah complex was purchased in the 1980s by the North American Islamic Trust. The Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi embassy in Washington chipped in for the construction and the trustee was the Muslim Brotherhood operative Jamal Barzinji.” Supporting McCarthy’s claim, according to a 2002Customs and Border Protection document, DAH is stated as “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” while a December 2007 document says it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”

Some of Dar al-Hijrah’s most infamous congregants have included Omar Abu Ali, who is now serving life in prison for joining al-Qaeda while also having plotted mass murder attacks against the United States and conspiring to murder former President George W. Bush. Then we have Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, who are now better known for crashing Flight 77 into the Pentagon, just a short distance away from the Land of Migration. Adding to the list is probably the most infamous and, thanks to a drone strike in 2011, now deceased former Imam by the name ofAnwar al-Awlaki. Before going on to become the leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, al-Awlaki was the spiritual leader of Dar al-Hijrah and in 2001 the mosque just so happened to feature a worshiper by the name of Nidal Hassan. Hassan, now known as the Ft. Hood jihadist, went on a killing spree in a 2009 attack as he opened fire on his fellow soldiers killing 13 and wounding 30 at the Texas military base.

From Boston to California and Phoenix to Virginia, these four examples alone epitomize the threat posed to America by the ideological machinery of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, in the face of such evidence none of these mosques or Islamic Centers have been investigated let alone shut down for their ties to terrorism. Instead we are told by various Brotherhood front organizations such as theCouncil on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that these mosques and centers in no way, shape, or form serve as the ideological springboard for the promotion of violence. This, of course, serves the purposes of obfuscating the truth as the facts have repeatedly shown that the first step on the road to jihadist terrorism is the instruction in Islamist ideology.

The Islamist threat is very real and is the result of decades of networking, infrastructure building, and intellectual as well as ideological preparation. It is advancing at an unprecedented speed as it actively and openly creates a fifth column of activists, jihadists, and apologists who work tirelessly to undermine the very foundations of America with the establishment of new mosques and Islamic centers. It cannot be stressed enough that the very ideology that the Muslim Brotherhood supports is at the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today and without acknowledging the ideology America itself stands no chance in even beginning to fight.

So the next time a jihadist attack happens on American soil and representatives from organizations like CAIR immediately crawl out of their holes in an attempt to act as apologists for the jihadist, remember that they themselves are directly responsible for supporting the ideology that promotes jihad.

As the Brotherhood creed goes, “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Nick Short, a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a Bachelors in Criminal Justice. Politically Short offers a millennials perspective over today’s news outside the beltway of Washington D.C. Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ You can also email him at Nds56@nau.edu

What is Sharia?

shariah dem

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 7, 2016:

Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.

Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.

All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”

According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”

There are two sources of sharia:  the Koran and the Sunnah.

Islam is the system of life under sharia.  Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”

The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)

According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel.  The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order.  They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest.  However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.

The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order.  This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it.  This is called “abrogation.”  Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.

“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)

So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51).  Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.

Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.

“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)

Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir.  The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir.  For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows:  “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)

Tafsir

The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis.  There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.

The Sunnah

The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.

His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”  Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews

The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam.  Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam.  This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.

The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad.  Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

Any questions?

Muslim Immigration is Exactly What ISIS Wants

isis_esu6io

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 25, 2015:

To understand ISIS, you have to understand the difference between terrorists and Islamic terrorists.

Ordinary terrorists have two goals; to compel the enemy to meet their political demands and to rally their supporters to consolidate their class, race or national identity group behind them.

Islamic terrorists are not interested in the “political demands” part. They will occasionally accept concessions and even offer Hudnas, temporary truces, but no permanent separate peace can be achieved with them. It’s why Israel’s peace process with terrorists has gone on failing for decades. It’s why the attempt by Gaddafi to achieve peace with the LIFG ended in a civil war and his death. It’s why Obama’s attempts to negotiate with the “moderate Taliban” failed miserably.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are not “negative” protest movements formed in response to our foreign policy. That’s a foolish self-centered idea held by foolish self-centered Westerners. Al Qaeda and ISIS are “positive” movements that seek to achieve larger religious goals entirely apart from us. Islamic terrorists are not responding to us. They are responding to the Koran and to over a thousand years of history.

Osama bin Laden did not carry out 9/11 to inflict harm on Americans. That was a secondary goal. His primary goal was to rally Muslims to build a Caliphate by encouraging them to attack America.

The ritualistic “Why do they hate us” browbeating favored by the chattering classes is nonsense. Al Qaeda hated us because we were not Muslims. But it was only using us as the hated “other” to consolidate a collective Muslim identity. We are to Islamists what the Jews were to Hitler; a useful scapegoat whose otherness can be used to manufacture a contrasting pure Aryan or Islamic identity.

No dialogue is possible with an ideology whose virtue is premised on seeing you as utterly evil.

You can negotiate with terrorists, though you shouldn’t. But Islamic terrorists rarely even bother to negotiate. Their core focus is on rallying local Muslims and the Ummah behind them. They don’t recognize national borders so any hope for a permanent peace behind recognized borders is wishful thinking. Islam is a transnational movement. Islamic terrorism is a race between terror groups around the world to carve out their own Islamic states and then use them as a springboard to a Caliphate.

ISIS is the end stage of Islamic terrorism. Its leader is a Caliph with all Muslims obliged to submit to him. The Islamic State is not just in Syria and Iraq. It is everywhere that a Muslim outpost swears allegiance to the Caliph. On its own maps the Islamic State encompasses parts of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Russia. The more local Islamic terror groups pledge allegiance to ISIS, the bigger it becomes.

ISIS doesn’t plan to defeat America through acts of terrorism. The plan for defeating America, like every other country, Muslim or non-Muslim, is to build a domestic Muslim terror movement that will be able to hold territory and swear allegiance to the Islamic State.

The idea of an American Emirate may seem silly but consider Molenbeek, the neighborhood in Brussels known as the Jihadi capital of Europe, deemed a no-go zone by local authorities, right in the capital of the European Union.  You can take a taxi from NATO HQ to a Muslim micro-state linked to most of the major recent Islamic terror attacks in Europe including the latest ISIS attack in Paris.

Molenbeek provides ISIS recruits for its war and a gateway for ISIS attacks in Europe. The media is filled with articles about what ISIS wants, but there is no question that Molenbeek is what ISIS wants.

And it’s only Muslim immigration to Europe that makes an ISIS base like Molenbeek possible.

ISIS has short term and long term needs. In the short term, ISIS needs as many recruits as possible. And it is in the West where traditional Muslim ties of kinship and community are so frayed that the transnationalism of heading out to fight for a Caliphate in someone else’s country is most deeply appealing. ISIS aggressively seeks to recruit Muslims in the West because they have the skills, money and naiveté to be useful to the Islamic State. But in the long term, ISIS needs more Muslim immigration to the West to create a steady supply of recruits, collaborators and eventually Western emirates.

If ISIS is serious about making a bid for Italy, it needs a large Muslim population on the ground. It doesn’t even matter if this population comes from refugees fleeing ISIS. The children of these refugees will still be Sunni Muslims in a foreign land where Algerian, Somali, Syrian and Pakistani Muslims discover that they have more in common than they do with the natives. It is this accidental Western multiculturalism that erases tribal Muslim rivalries and makes the ambition of a single Muslim Caliphate appear plausible.

ISIS does not plan to defeat America with terror plots. But those plots will eventually accumulate into an organized domestic terror organization. An Islamic State in America based around a majority Muslim town or neighborhood with its own leader pledging allegiance to the Caliph of the Islamic State.

An American Molenbeek; and there are already plenty of candidates for that horrifying honor.

Any Muslim plans for expanding into the West depend on Muslim immigration. Whether it’s ISIS or its Muslim Brotherhood ancestor, or any of the other Islamist organizations and networks, they all require manpower. Some of that manpower will be provided by high Muslim birth rates, but it won’t be nearly enough, not for a country the size of America, without a large annual flow of Muslim migrants.

We are told that halting Muslim immigration would only encourage Muslim terrorism. But our open door to Muslim immigration certainly hasn’t stopped terrorism. Instead it has increased it by providing reinforcements to the terrorists. If we can’t stop Muslim terrorism with the population we have now, how are we going to manage it if the Islamic population continues doubling and even tripling?

Even if we defeat ISIS tomorrow, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups descended from the Muslim Brotherhood will continue pursuing the same goals. And they will rely on the Muslim population in the United States to provide them with money, supplies, cover and an infrastructure for terrorism.

ISIS can’t defeat us with terror attacks. The only hope for an enduring Islamic victory over America is through the rise of domestic groups that pledge allegiance to the Caliphate. ISIS can’t invade America. It has to be invited in. That’s what our immigration policy does.

Trump isn’t a threat to national security. Muslim immigration is.

Islamic terrorists can’t defeat us no matter how many planes they fly into buildings. But they can and will defeat us if they continue landing planes at JFK and disembarking thousands and tens of thousands of settlers who will serve as a base population for their war against America.

Muslim immigration is the Islamic State’s only hope for victory over America.

TREASON: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to Meet with MB/Hamas Monday

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson

UTT, by John Guandolo, Dec. 6, 2015:

How much treasonous and traitorous behavior must Americans endure from our leaders?

Monday evening December 7th – Pearl Harbor Day – the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Jeh Johnson – will hold a press conference at the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas ADAMS Center in Sterling, VA.

AC event

The ADAMS Center was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders including Ahmed Totonji who still resides in Northern Virginia and was the Chairman of the Board for the ADAMS Center.  Totonji also founded major Muslim Brotherhood organizations including the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), the SAFA Trust (raided by the FBI), and others.

Moreover, the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center – Imam Mohamed Magid – is the outgoing President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), identified by the Department of Justice and FBI as the “nucleus” for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in America and a funding support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

ISNA remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).

ADAMS also states on their website that 1/8 of all the Zakat they collect goes to JIHAD…terrorism.

And this is the place the Secretary of Homeland Security has decided to go to talk about the “civil rights” of Muslims.

At what point do we collectively realize leaders like this cannot claim ignorance of the enemy at this level. Therefore, a rational person would surmise Secretary Johnson is aware ISNA and ADAMS are enemy entities, yet he is going to provide support to them none-the-less.

In these times, Americans have a number of enemies.  In this case, there is the identifiable jihadi threat from organizations like ISNA, NAIT, MPAC, CAIR and so many others.  The enemy also includes senior government officials like Secretary Johnson who is aiding and abetting a Hamas support entity whose doctrine states it is waging “civilization jihad” against us to “destroy America from within” in order to establish and Islamic state under Sharia (Islamic Law).

Seems like that Mr. Johnson’s continued efforts to protect and support enemies of the United States meets the legal criteria of Treason, much like his colleague in the Attorney General’s office.

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason:  Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treasonand shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Also see: