UTT Throwback Thursday: Warnings of US Government Penetration Coming to Fruition

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 3, 2017:

In 2009, Congresswoman Sue Myrick (Charlotte, NC) held a press conference with other members of Congress detailing the counterintelligence dangers of Islamic jihadi penetration in our government.  In the press conference Myrick highlighted the information contained in the book Muslim Mafia, much of which resulted from the efforts of UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz, who went undercover inside the U.S. Hamas group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

Gaubatz pulled over 12,000 documents out of CAIR’s headquarters and recorded over 300 hours of covert audio/video, revealing CAIR is involved in fraud, sedition, terrorism, and counterintelligence activities against the United States.

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz with US MB/Hamas Leader Nihad Awad

[To get your copy of Muslim Mafia click HERE]

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB)  World Underground Movement Plan reveals a significant part of their plan is to “Establish a shadow government (secret) within the government.”  Prior to seizing power in the United States, the purpose of the shadow government is to influence decision-making and gather intelligence.  Numerous declassified FBI documents dating back to the early 1980’s detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive activities in the United States.

One such document dated 1988 confirms the MB’s intentions to infiltrate the government in order to overthrow it:

“Source advised that the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well-organized in the United States…They have also claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…in Phase I of the Islamic revolution…their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States government and also American Universities.  Source noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool and a part of the Islamic revolution.”

Current events reveal the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement is following its plan and has several recent successes.

The IT scandal perpetrated against members of Congress by muslim Imran Awan (and family) – recently arrested while trying to flee the country – is much more than a “bank fraud” case.  It is a counterintelligence operation with notable success, including almost $300,000 being wired to Pakistan and access to numerous cyber accounts of Members of Congress.

mran Awan (right) with former President Bill Clinton

The Department of Defense reported this week that its MAVNI (Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest) program to accelerate U.S. citizenship for foreign-born individuals has military leaders concerned about “foreign infiltration.”

More significantly, it was reported by The Atlantic on August 2nd that the National Security Advisor to the President, Herbert McMaster, fired Richard Higgins a few weeks ago.

This particular firing is significant because Richard Higgins ran the Pentagon’s Combatting Terrorism and Technical Support Office before joining the President’s National Security team.  From UTT’s perspective, Higgins was the most knowledgeable and strategically savvy man inside the national security apparatus with regards to the Islamic Movement and its marriage to the hard-left Marxist Movement.

Higgins’ firing is another victory for our enemies, and they know it.

Listen to Mr. Higgins measured and detailed explanation of the ideological threat from July 2016 HERE.

Readers should know that after the election of President Trump, UTT worked with a couple allies and brought to light that one of the two men vetting national security positions for the administration was a self-professed Christian conservative who was sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and was excluding all individuals who had an understanding of the Islamic threat from getting hired.

Herbert McMaster has made it clear he does not understand the threat from the Islamic Movement.  One of his many comments about Islamic jihadis includes:  “Groups like ISIL who use this irreligious ideology…this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence, they depend on ignorance.”

The enemy definitely depends on ignorance for its successes.

Mr. McMaster’s counter-factual understanding of Islam and jihad are the intentional outcome of the Islamic Movement’s hostile information campaign which ensures our leaders and security professionals never get a reality/fact-based understanding of the Islamic threat because our leaders rely on our enemies – Muslim Brotherhood advisors – to tell us how to fight this war.

Our enemy controls the narrative.

This is also why federal/state/local law enforcement are shocked by the information they receive in UTT’s training programs.  FBI JTTF agents/officers and local police are unaware of the MB’s extensive jihadi network in he U.S. and how active the network is in communities all across America, and how much the MB has penetrated our society, especially the federal government.

UTT has to go to battle with the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, local/national media, and others nearly every time we conduct training.

This is how the Red-Green Axis (Marxists working together with jihadis) works to control the message. Terrorist groups like CAIR work with local media, the ACLU, the SPLC and others to shut down all discussion of threats related to Islam.

The warnings given to America by Congresswoman Sue Myrick eight years ago were in line with our enemy’s stated plan and supported by evidence collected by Chris Gaubatz inside the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas front group CAIR.

Now we see it all coming to fruition.

This begs the question:  Why is Herbert McMaster, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, purging the National Security team of people who understand the threats (Richard Higgins and others) and ensuring others who also have a deep strategic understanding of the threats – like Stephen Coughlin – are not brought onboard?

This battle to get and keep professionals who understand the threat inside our national security apparatus is the Gettysburg of this war.

This “New Battle of Gettysburg” is a battle for a reality-based assessment of real threats from which a strategy for victory can be built versus establishment statists who refuse to identify and destroy America’s enemies.  It is a battle inside the White House and the national security sector of our government which will cripple America’s ability to fight and win this war going forward if it is lost.

We must win this battle, and it must begin with firing of Mr. McMaster.

Herbert McMaster, the National Security Advisor to President Trump

If Americans allow men like Herbert McMaster to continue to push a counter-factual narrative of the threat we face and keep those who understand the threat out of our national security apparatus, America will not have a functional national security apparatus inside the federal government for decades to come.

UTT continues to clearly articulate this war – because it is an insurgency – will be won or lost at the local level.  However, victory will come more swiftly if the federal government is also focused on identifying and defeating the enemy.

Also see:

Lessons from Europe’s Immigrant Wave: Douglas Murray Cautions America

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
July 24, 2017

Douglas Murray has long voiced his concern about the growing influence of Muslim culture on the West. The associate editor of Britain’s Spectator, a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a think tank on radical Islam, he has built an international reputation for his opposition to the demographic changes of the West and the threats to its traditions. In his latest book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam(Bloomsbury, 2017), he attacks all of these subjects as they relate to the current crisis of migration from the Middle East.

It is a controversial book, particularly for Americans and Jews, but one which also makes important arguments against the multiculturalist ideal. That ideal, which once led much of domestic policy across Europe and the United States, has proven not only a failure, but a threat to the values and national security of Western civilization.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism recently spoke with Murray about his book and the concerns that drove him to write it.

Abigail R. Esman: As an American, a Jew, and an immigrant myself to the Netherlands, there are aspects of your arguments against immigration and asylum that are troublesome to me. I come from a country where we are all immigrants, or our parents or grandparents were likely immigrants. You talk for instance of families where “neither parent speaks English as a first language,” yet my husband is Australian and I am American and neither of us speaks Dutch as a first language. So naturally, I come at these arguments with some concern. Are you saying, basically, close the borders?

Douglas K . Murray: It’s only for me to diagnose what’s happening – to see the truth about what is going on. Policy makers will make their own decisions. I have obviously broad views on it, which is that I think you can’t continue at the rate we have now, and I think you have to be choosy about the people you bring in. But you are right, and there are two groups of people who have had trouble with some of the basic things in this book: one is people of Jewish background, and others who come from nations of immigrants, like America. But Britain isn’t a nation of immigrants – we have been a static society with all the benefits and ills that this brings. And I think it is dishonest to say it is the same thing. I realize people who are predominantly Jewish have a particular sensitivity to it, but I think that that’s a particular issue. And why do we say one migration is just like the other It’s like saying because two vehicles went down the same road they are the same vehicle.

ARE: How is it different?

DKM: In the UK, when Jewish migration happened more than a century ago, the main thing was integration, integration into the society, wanting desperately to be part of British society. Why do synagogues in the UK have a portrait of the Queen? And after services, they often sing the British national anthem. It’s very moving. It’s an effort to demonstrate this is what we are and this is what we want to be. You’d be hard pressed to find a mosque with a picture of the queen who sing the anthem.

ARE: That element of integration is crucial, I agree. In America, in fact, immigrants in the past and often even today are eager to give their children Anglicized names: “Michael,” not “Moishe,” “Henry,” not “Heinrich.” Yet you do not see the name changes in Muslims these days. Why do you think that is?

DKM: Because there is less of a feeling to integrate. They want to stay with the country they’ve left but not deal with its economics. Some people find it flattering – that people want to move to your country – they say well, it shows what a wonderful place we are. No, it shows that your economics work better.

ARE: You also write about Muslim enclaves in Europe where “the women all wear some form of head covering and life goes on much as it would if the people were in Turkey or Morocco.” How is that different than, say, Chinatowns, or Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in America and say, Belgium, where women wear wigs and men have peyas, or sidelocks?

DKM: The example of Chinatown-like places is a good comparison. These are places that are mini-Chinas, they are enjoyed and liked by people because they are a different place. Well, if people want to have a mini-Bangladesh, that’s one vision of a society. It’s not the vision we were sold in Europe. It was not meant to be the case that portions of our cities were meant to become totally different places. In the 1950s the British and other European authorities said we have to bring people into our countries and we will get a benefit in labor. But if they had said that the downside is that large portions of the area would be unrecognizable to their inhabitants, there would have been an outcry.

And the issue of them being different from Hasidic communities – you’re right, they are similar. You can go to Stamford Hill in North London and see most of the men in hats and so on and that’s because that’s an enclave that wants to keep to itself. That raises questions: one, people don’t mind that, for several reasons – one is the recognition that Orthodox men don’t cause troubles. We don’t have cases of Orthodox men going out and cutting off people’s heads. If four Jewish men from Stamford Hill had blown up buses some years back there would be concern about these enclaves.

And also those enclaves are not growing. If it was the case that these enclaves were becoming areas where all the city was hat-wearing Orthodox Jews, then people would say wait, what is that? You can applaud that or abhor it, but it’s important to mention.it.

ARE: In the Netherlands, which has some of the toughest immigration policies in the world, people from certain countries are required to take “citizenship” courses before they can even enter Dutch borders. They have to learn the language, they have to learn about Dutch values, and that no, you can’t throw stones at Jews and gay people and that gay marriage is legal and women wear short dresses. Would you recommend other countries take on the Dutch policy of citizenship courses?

DKM: I make this point in the book. You say we could have done more and better, but the fundamental thing is that none of it was ever expected in the first place. No one ever thought that we would be in the situation we are now in. We didn’t expect them to stay. That’s a very big misunderstanding. Why wouldyou ask people to become Dutch citizens if you expect them to go home in five years? Why if you only expect them to stay in Britain for only 10 years? But then we realized they would stay and then we said, “we have to let them practice their own culture.” But for us to have acted as you suggest we would have had to know [at the time].

So yes, I think it’s a bare minimum for Europe to have the Dutch policy, even at this very late stage. I’m of the inclination that this is too little too late, but I wish everyone luck with it.

ARE: What about Yazidi women, Syrian Christians?

DKM: Again, it comes down to the Jewish question – because people think that every refugee is like a Jew from Nazi Germany. But if you were to think of a group that was facing an attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth then yes, you’d have the Yazidis. But there are people on all sides of the Syrian civil war, which are a minority of people coming to Europe – these are people fleeing sectarian conflict, but none of them are fleeing an effort to wipe them out as a people. So the lazy view, and it is quite often pushed by Jewish groups which I think is a mistake – is to suggest that it is similar to Nazi Germany. And I wish more care were taken in this.

ARE: Is this in your mind a way of stopping radical Islam? Because so many of the radicalized Muslims are actually converts. How would it help?

DKM: We know that people who convert to anything tend to be fundamentalist. But the important thing is, if you were pliable to be converted, available to be converted, then it raises the question of what kind of Islam do we have in these countries? If it were people finding Sufism, rather than hardcore Salafism, maybe it would be different. I have a friend who is a Muslim who was on a trip some years ago who told me the story of introducing a Muslim woman to one of the senior clerics at Al-Azhar and she wouldn’t shake his hand. He asked her why not. She said, “Because I’m Muslim.” So he asked her how long she’d been a Muslim, and she said “Six years.” He said, “I’ve been a Muslim for eight decades.” And then he turned and said to his friend in Arabic, “What kind of Muslims are you making in Britain?”

ARE: One thing the American Muslim community seems to have over its European brethren is its successful integration into society. Yet at the same time, some of the worst of the radicals are in fact American-born. We have people like Linda Sarsour, who wears the mantle of feminism, but who is really a Trojan horse for the Islamists. She has said things like “Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community. It is not to assimilate and lease any other people in authority.” What are the dangers of that kind of message?

DKM: I once spent an evening with Linda Sarsour. She is a very unpleasant, very radical girl. Filled with hate. I was the one having to defend America to Americans in an American audience against an American opponent. What she told that night was all lies, which you would tell either because you are dumb, which she isn’t, or because you want to spread propaganda, which she does.

I just think she is of a type. There are various sides to the issue that are important. There’s an “us” question and a “them” question. The “them” question is, what do people like that believe, what are they doing and how vile are they? But in a way, the “us” question is bigger. Why do we let them do this? What is wrong with America at this time in its history that an obvious demagogue like her can end up leading a feminist march [the 2017 Women’s March]? That’s an illness of America. She’s just a symptom of that.

ARE: And similarly, the Rushdie affair was effective in quashing further expression and criticism related to Islam. And Charlie Hebdo took that to an extreme. We haven’t had anything that severe, but there were the South Park threats and the attempted attack on the Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland. You blame European politicians and media for failing to recognize that those who were shouting “fire” were in fact the arsonists. This seems to be a global challenge – that any criticism or critique of Islam gets shouted down as inherently bigoted. In the U.S., the Southern Poverty Law Center places Maajid Nawaz on a list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for criticizing some tenets of the faith and advocating modernization and reform. In Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. At the same time, though, there was certainly support for Charlie Hebdo, though you seem to deny it in your book, after the shootings. What’s the proper response to that form of a heckler’s veto?

DKM: I agree with the point. The only ways to reject the assassin’s veto is for civil society to be stronger on the question, for governments to ensure that people deemed to have ‘blasphemed’ are protected (as in the case of Rushdie) and that those who incite violence against them (such as Cat Stevens during the Rushdie affair) are the ones who find themselves on the receiving end of prosecutions. That and – obviously – ensuring that blasphemy laws aren’t allowed in through the back door via new ‘hate speech’ laws and the like.

ARE: In the chapter on multiculturalism, you describe interest groups which “were thrown up that claimed to represent and speak for all manner of identity groups.” These self-appointed voices then become the go-to groups for government. To keep the money flowing, they make the problems facing their community appear worse than they really are.” Is that a universal behavior for interest groups? We certainly see that in the U.S. with CAIR and ISNA.

DKM: Every group is vulnerable to that. With every human rights achievement, there are always some people left on the barricades. And the ones who linger on the barricades linger on without any home to go to. And you get these people who are stranded after it’s over and they have to hustle as if everything was as bad as it once was. Sometimes they are telling the truth; sometimes they wave a warning flag, but for the moment it seems particularly in America every group is claiming that this is basically 1938. It’s a tendency of every commune or group that wants awareness raised.

But it’s true, it’s especially prevalent of Muslim groups because if you keep claiming that you are the victim, then you never have to sort out your own house. And the groups that come to Europe and America, they never have to get their house in order if they spend all their time claiming they are victims of genocide and persecution and so on. And this is a familiar story.

ARE: So what would be your lesson, then, for America, especially in a book which clearly is about Europe?

DKM: Well, it is about Europe, certainly, but it’s connected to the debate America is now beginning to have. The first is to be careful with immigration. We’ve all had the same misunderstanding, the same thought that our societies are vast, immovable, unchanging things to which you could keep bringing people of every imaginable stripe and the results will always be the same. And I think that is just not the case, depending on the people who are in them. So we must take care with what kind of immigration we encourage, and at what pace, and that is something America should be thinking of, as everyone else should.

But America will have a harder time with this, because everyone in America has this vulnerability we don’t have in Europe, which is that we are all migrants. And you have the sense of ‘who am I to keep anyone out?’

ARE: I don’t think that’s the American view. I think it’s more that we all became part of this fabric, and we expect that the new immigrants will, too. But not all of them do.

DM: The whole thing actually seems to be unraveling, more than in Europe. In Europe, we don’t like to think in terms of racial terms. But all anyone in America talks about is race.

ARE: I don’t think so….

DKM: Maybe; but your vision of original sin in America seems to have become all so overwhelming. Your leading cultural figures, like Ta-Nehisi Coates, have this image of America born in terrible sin. The Atlantic’s front cover recently was all about slavery. You would get the impression that slavery only ended about 12 months ago. You are going over and over this in America – this endless sense of original sin. You are discussing reparations for slavery in 2017. You’d be hard-pressed to find publications in the UK calling for reparations to our past. Find me a mainstream publication that runs such a thing in Europe, even of WWII reparations.

So it’s symptomatic of something badly wrong at the structure of the public discussion.

ARE: Which suggests that we should do what?

DKM: What you have to listen out for is very straightforward: are the people raising such issues raising them because they want America to improve, or because they want America to end? I think this is a very central issue. Are you speaking as a critic, or as an enemy of the society in question? If you think the society can do no good, then you are speaking as an enemy. If you think there are things that have been done, that are wrong, that should be righted, campaign for them, speak out for them. Sometimes if you’re lucky you can get a posthumous rectification. But it sounds to me like a lot of this talk is from people who hate America. They don’t want to improve it. They want to end it.

So the lesson is – be careful about immigration. Be choosy. And another is a pretty straightforward one which is to work on the people who are there not to fall into the victim narratives of their special interest groups. And to focus on the “we.” I’ve always felt more optimistic for America in this regard, for the same reason I feel more optimistic than others do about France: because I think there is a very specific identity there, which it is possible to become a part of. I think it’s something other Western European countries, have not accomplished in the same way. So basically to strengthen their own identity.

ARE: Do you consider yourself a pessimist?

DKM: I think in Europe the facts are very pessimism-causing. I think it would be a strange person who would look at 12,000 people landing in Lampedusa, all young men, all without jobs, all without futures, and think, ‘That’s going to go really well. These are going to be just like the Jews of Vienna. These are going to be the receptacles of our culture.’ I don’t see it happening.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands. Follow her at @radicalstates

UTT Throwback Thursday: Muslims Threaten Death for Free Speech

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, May 4, 207:

On January 7, 2015, two muslim brothers – Said and Cherif Kouachi – killed 12 and wounded many others in Paris in an attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo because they insulted Islam’s prophet.

Around the world non-Muslims are being threatened with death and killed for “insulting” Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

Why?

Because Mohammad himself commanded, condoned, and called for it.  He is the “perfect example” in Islam for muslims to follow.  His sayings and actions are recorded in the hadith.  The most authoritative hadith scholar recognized in Islam is Bukhari.

“Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, “Yes.”  [Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 369]

And Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was killed.

Non-Muslims who speak truth about Islam are accused of being “Islamophobes” meaning they are violating the Islamic law of “Slander” in sharia, which is to say anything about Islam or muslims a muslim would “dislike.”

Slander is a capital crime under sharia.

To “insult” a muslim is to be threatened with death for exercising the God-given right of free speech.

Charlie Hebdo jihadi Cherif Kouachi gave an interview with NBC before he was subsequently killed by French security forces.  In the interview he said:

“We are not killers. We are defenders of the prophet, we don’t kill women. We kill no one. We defend the prophet. If someone offends the prophet then there is no problem, we can kill him.”

They are simply following core teaches of Islam and its prophet.

In the Minneapolis, Minnesota the muslim population there also believes anyone who insults Mohammad should be killed.  See this video by Ami Horowitz in which he simply walks the streets of the muslim majority Cedar Riverside neighborhood asking simple questions.  Muslims, including a “nice” muslim lady, tell him those who insult the prophet should be killed (3:32 mark on video).

Its all about sharia.

Yet, local and state leaders in Minneapolis/St Paul continue to ignore the growing cancer of Islam in their community which holds these ideas and supports the sharia which calls for barbaric punishments and actions antithetical to our Constitutional republic – like killing people who “insult” Islam or its prophet.

Instead local and state officials in Minneapolis conduct outreach to muslims and condemn anyone who “insults” Islam.  This is the enforcement of the Islamic Law of Slander without stepping foot into a courtroom.

Each time UTT schedules its 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” for law enforcement around the nation, it is met with growing resistance from suit-wearing jihadis – like the terrorist group Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and most local and national media outlets join the jihadis (“terrorists”) in calling for our program to be shut down because it “offends” muslims.

This despite the fact UTT continues to offer to remove any information in the program that can be factually disputed.

These same threats are levied against anyone holding events around the nation speaking truthfully about the Islamic threat such as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Dr. Bill Warner, and others.

These are overt threats and the ACLU, SPLC, and media are complicit in aiding and abetting terrorists in threatening citizens.

If the Department of Justice will not act to protect U.S. citizens from this obvious threat, the citizens will eventually stop waiting and take care of themselves.

***

Kudos to Arizona police!!!

New Middle East Forum Manual Spotlights Islamist Apologists

useful-infidelsIPT News
December 28, 2016

American Islamists often depend on prominent non-Muslims to disseminate their propaganda. In a new report, the Middle East Forum’s (MEF) Islamist Watch profiles 15 prominent examples of people who help promote pro-Islamist views.

Those included continue to propagate the notion that Islamism – a radical political ideology devoted to spreading Islam worldwide – does not play any role in violence perpetrated by Muslim terrorists. Examples of “useful infidels,” as MEF calls them, include President Obama’s CIA director John Brennan, academic John Esposito, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The MEF report seems to be a direct response to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)’s absurd attempt to denigrate people who focus on Islamist violence and Islamist political activity as bigots. That report was called, “A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.”

MEF dubbed its response, “A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Useful Infidels.”

The SPLC report included MEF founder Daniel Pipes and Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson. It also included Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz – a former member of the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir – and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an advocate for women’s rights and against female genital mutilation.

An example of Nawaz’s alleged anti-Muslim extremism? He republished a cartoon of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and said he was not offended by such images.

Many of the people profiled in the MEF report try to deny any connection between Islamist terrorist groups and the faith in whose name they fight. This requires overlooking the Quranic justification and Islamic imagery that terrorists offer for their violence.

Many of the non-Muslim figures listed in MEF’s report cooperate with prominent Islamist groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has roots in a U.S-based Hamas-support network created by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

Journalists should understand that relying on Islamists like those in CAIR risks “assisting with the ‘normalizing’ or ‘mainstreaming’ of Islamist supremacist ideology, a belief system just as dangerous and opposed to American ideals as white nationalism,” the MEF report said. It also cautions against getting too caught up in impressive-looking resumes, noting that “academia includes some of the most egregious useful infidels.”

It encourages people to seek out “moderate Muslims and reformers [who] are counting on the media to not blindly accept the Islamist narrative but to question Islamists’ self-appointed role as the voice of an imaginary unified Muslim community.”

For example, Georgetown University’s John Esposito has advocated for Islamism as “the best pathway for the Muslim world to enter modernity,” the report said, also noting his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian.

CIA Director John Brennan is criticized for helping facilitate the removal of any references to Islamism in FBI training materials. To accomplish the purge, Brennan actively collaborated with known U.S. Muslim Brotherhood fronts including ISNA and MPAC, among others. Many of Brennan’s related speeches often sought to divorce Islam from terrorism.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2009, Brennan rejected the term “jihadists:” Jihad is “a legitimate term … meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal…”

While the term ‘jihad’ may have multiple meanings, terrorists call themselves jihadists while waging violent campaigns in an effort to establish Islamist rule worldwide. Pretending that Islam has nothing to do with jihadist violence promotes a culture of political correctness that inhibits law enforcement from tackling the threat from radical Islamism.

Secretary of State John Kerry also plays into this narrative, trying to disassociate any role for radical ideology in fueling Islamist violence. At a press conference earlier this year, Kerry said: “Daesh [ISIS] is in fact nothing more than a mixture of killers, of kidnappers, of criminals, of thugs, of adventurers, of smugglers and thieves… And they are also above all apostates, people who have hijacked a great religion and lie about its real meaning and lie about its purpose and deceive people in order to fight for their purposes.”

Pretending that Islam or Islamism has no role in fueling most global terrorism today obscures the ideological confrontations required to counter the appeal of Islamist terrorist groups. This confrontation should be led by more moderate Muslims who unfortunately are sidelined by too many politicians and journalists in favor of radical Islamist organizations.

Having prominent U.S. politicians and other non-Muslim officials publicly engaging in Islamic theological debates regarding who is a true Muslim and who is an “apostate” is counterproductive and resembles a strategy that terrorist groups utilize to label infidels. Moderate Muslims correctly feel that radical Islamists and terrorist organizations are exploiting their religion to achieve their supremacist objectives. Yet moderate voices are continuously silenced by the likes of the people featured in the MEF report.

Click here to read the full MEF report.

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary

ac5d638fd185415d8f08013cae9db38f-2Clinton donations expose political agenda behind calls for Trump to reconsider “racist” Cabinet picks

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, December 2, 2016:

A coalition of self-described “civil rights groups” tarring GOP President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers as “white supremacists” unleashing “hate crimes” against Muslims and other minorities is made up of Democrat activists who endorsed or donated heavily to Hillary Clinton, federal records show.

The group — comprised of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Muslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference, National Council of La Raza and the American Federation of Teachers — says it formed to protect minorities from the “hate-filled” and “bigoted rhetoric” of Trump and his supporters. But it has a decidedly partisan political agenda that includes trying to derail key Trump appointments to his Cabinet.

Earlier this week, the group held a press conference in Washington calling on Trump to “disavow” supposedly “anti-Muslim” policy proposals and “reconsider” Cabinet appointees “who have sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue this days.”

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

Added Abdelall: “He needs to disavow the dangerous proposals and ideas that single out and demonize Muslims and other communities.”

The George Soros-controlled group bankrolling Muslim Advocates, the Open Society Foundation, gave $9,463 to Clinton and $0 to Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House visitors logs show San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates met with Obama officials at least 11 times, including several times in 2011 to lobby the administration to purge FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism training materials it deemed “ ffensive” to Muslims. Muslim Advocates played a central role in the agencies removing in 2012 more than 870 pages of material from some 390 presentations — including PowerPoints and papers describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide jihadist movement bent on, according to its own bylaws, “establishing an Islamic state.” Security experts say the purge weakened terrorism investigations and left the US vulnerable to the rash of deadly homegrown jihadists attacks seen in the country starting with 2013’s Boston Marathon bombings.

Top Muslim Advocates officials have spoken at Islamic conferences held by known Muslim Brotherhood front groups and defended a major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood charity convicted of financing terrorism.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen called Trump’s naming of Bannon as his top White House strategist “a very unfortunate sign.” He contended that Bannon “is the alter ego” of American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

“Mr. Trump has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy,” Cohen claimed, adding that “he needs to apologize to the Muslim community.”

Cohen, who says he was the target of discrimination “growing up as a Jewish kid,” has hired security guards to protect his offices and home in Montgomery, Ala. In the past, he has said that he so feared “white supremacists” that he “had to leave his home and stay in a hotel as a precautionary measure.”

A search of Federal Election Commission records shows that Southern Poverty Law Center directors have given more than $13,450 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also backed by the ultra-liberal billionaire Soros, and has supported radical leftists, including unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers, whom the group once called “a highly respected figure.”

The National Press Club event also featured Janet Marguia of the National Council of La Raza, an illegal immigrant advocacy group, who claimed Trump was “threatening” Hispanic children.

La Raza, which means “the race,” refuses to condemn an openly racist affiliate known as MECHa, which claims the Southwest was stolen and should be returned to Mexico and whose slogan is “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

In the 2016 election cycle, La Raza gave $6,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $0 to Trump’s campaign.

American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten also took the podium to denounce Trump and his appointments.

“The nomination of Jeff Sessions, the appointment of Steve Bannon and the appointment of Mike Flynn all sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue these days,” she said.

American Federation of Teachers formally endorse Clinton and donated $38,885 to her campaign while contributing nothing to Trump.

“We endorsed Hillary today for the same reasons we endorsed (her) in the Democratic primary. She is a tested leaders who shares our values,” Weingarten said</> earlier this year. “Today, our members made it clear we stand with her.”

During the campaign, AFT made more than 1 million phone calls and knocked on more than 500,000 doors to get out the vote for Clinton.

Leadership Conference President Wade Henderson also laced into Trump and his nominations, claiming they were “racist.”

“We are concerned about the impact of Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, Gen. Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon just a heartbeat away from the presidency,” he said during the press conference.

Henderson charged that Bannon “has supported and embraced organizations that take direct views that are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and racist.” He also alleged that Sessions is “someone whose record will suggest that he will have great difficulty in enforcing civil rights laws, including hate crimes laws on the books.”

In the 2016 election cycle, records show The Leadership Conference donated $8230 to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, while contributing $0 to Trump. All told, the conference gave $81,800 to Democrat candidates for federal office in 2016 vs. $0 for Republicans.

In addition, FEC individual donation records reveal that The Leadership Council’s top lobbyists — including executive vice president Nancy Zirkin and senior counsel Emily Chatterjee — have personally given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Orlando Attack Is Nothing Compared to What Is Coming

cair3

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 12, 2016:

A jihadi named Omar Mateen armed with a rifle, a handgun and possibly explosives – who has been identified as an “ISIS soldier” – killed 50 or more Americans on Sunday morning at a night club in Orlando, Florida.  The largest single loss of life in such an incident in American history.

Thank God for the courageous men of the SWAT team or the loss of life would surely have been even more severe.

The response from law enforcement, the media, both political parties, and Americans in general, reveals America is still critically clueless.

America saw the same boilerplate responses we have come to expect from an incompetent federal government, media, and leaders at all levels of our society.

The jihadi’s father claims his son’s attack had nothing to do with Islam despite the fact Islam’s prophet Mohammad himself said, “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”

The President of the United States blames the weapons instead of the Muslim using them.

Hamas doing business as CAIR is still walking free in America blathering on about their shock at this incident despite the fact they themselves are terrorists.

Facebook removed Pamela Geller’s “Stop Islamization” page on the day of the Orlando shooting because it offends Muslims.

Christian leaders call for calm so as not to confuse Islam with the terrorists instead of teaching their flock the jihadis around the globe are doing what the Koran teaches and following the example of their prophet.

Many Americans will, for a brief moment, be shocked.  Then they will change their Facebook profile to show solidarity with the victims and the people in Orlando.  By Wednesday, they will go back to worrying about what’s happening with the Kardashians or who is doing what on The Voice.

However, the disconnect from reality by so many reveals America’s grave vulnerability to the much greater threat that is just over the horizon.

As has been articulated by UTT for the last several years, the Global Islamic Movement is on the march and they are still not even focused on the West.  We continue to be witnesses to Individual Jihadis working on their own (answering the broad call to jihad) or with support of Islamic groups like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas or others.

The turn towards the West has now begun.  As this turn towards the West gains momentum over the next six to fourteen months, the violence in Europe and North America will be markedly increased, and will involve dozens or hundreds of jihadis in multiple operations in multiple American cities.

jihad coming

The attacks will come, as have all of the attacks since and including 9/11, with the assistance and direct support of the major North American Islamic organizations including the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, Hamas (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Muslim Students Associations (MSA), Islamic Circle of North America, and so many others.

These are the same jihadi organizations which are publicly lauded and supported by the President, his national security staff, the Attorney General of the United States and the previous Attorney General, the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, and so many others in the federal government.

The way is paved for the jihadi organizations by socialist and marxist collaborators who work daily to push law enforcement back on their heels, embolden our enemies while publicly shaming Patriots, insinuating their anti-American ideology at every level of society, and working diligently to destroy liberty and enslave this nation with socialism or some other perverted form of governmental rule.

These enemy collaborators include:  the hundreds of Soros-funded organizations, including the Center for American Progress, EMILY’s List, Gamaliel Foundation, Immigration Advocates Network, J Street, Media Matters, National Council of La Raza, People for the American Way, Project Vote, and the Tides Foundation; the Southern Poverty Law Center; Black Lives Matter; Code Pink; and so many others.

splc2

This socialist/marxist network works to:  limit free speech; erode Americans’ right to keep and bear arms; erode the respect of law enforcement and the rule of law; prevent a defense of our borders; diminish our national security apparatus including our military; and – most importantly – insinuate socialists/marxists deep into our bureaucracy so as to destroy our Constitutional Republic from within.

These socialist/marxist groups openly support the Islamic Movement against our nation.

Everything we are witnessing now is a preparation of the battlefield by our enemy and their collaborators.

When the larger attacks come, they will likely be precipitated by one or more severe events such as an attack on the power grid or a financial/cyber attack bringing down our communications or financial markets. Simultaneously, imagine multiple riots similar to the events in Baltimore, Maryland, where uncontrolled thugs burn, loot, shoot, and destroy American towns.  Now overlay onto that a dozen jihadis, such as what we witnessed in Orlando on Sunday.  Add to that a few attacks on Elementary schools by a half-dozen jihadis, suicide bombers on public transportation, and teams of a dozen jihadis in a handful of American cities.

Is your local police department ready for that?

These are real possibilities, and this will happen if we continue on the course we are on.

The solution must come from the local and state level.  Local citizens putting positive pressure on local elected officials to allow local police to aggressively identify and dismantle the jihadi organizations (CAIR, MAS, MSA, ICNA, MPAC, Islamic Centers, Islamic Societies, etc) in their areas.  If strong Sheriff’s get to work on this, they can work directly with the citizens if local elected officials are too passive to take action.

Bold pastors are needed in this fight, as they were during the time before the American Revolution, to speak truth and give guidance to their flocks on the coming battle.

The time is now.  Once the major attacks begin, the time for “brain-storming a solution” will be over.

Also see:

Southern Poverty Law Center – Manufacturing Hate for Fun and Profit

SPLCLOGO_SPOT_stacked-copy-640x480

Breitbart, by James Simpson, Feb.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, always seeming to hover in the shadows whenever honest citizens and organizations try to stand up for this country, is at it again. In addition to the usual suspects – which includes pretty much anyone who disagrees with the American radical Left – SPLC has been increasingly attacking people and groups who express concern about Islamic terrorism –adding them to SPLC’s infamous “Hate Watch” list.

This now includes the Washington, DC think tank, Center for Security Policy. Widely respected in defense circles, the Center has been warning us for years about the subversive tactics being employed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its proxies to destroy our nation from within. Its veteran analysts from the defense and intelligence community seek to warn the country of the existential threat we now face from Muslim terrorists.

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 5.53.33 PM

People all over the world have witnessed the terrorists’ handiwork, and America is now undeniably in the cross hairs. Any organization purporting to defend civil rights would not blame, much less attack, Americans for being alarmed, and would be hard pressed to explain its criticism of the Center for Security Policy.

In fact it is difficult to imagine anyone in their right minds not being alarmed. The chart below uses a list compiled by the Heritage Foundation and traces terror plots in the U.S. since 9/11/01. It is easy to see that the trend has been increasing exponentially and in 2015 went off the charts. What will happen in 2016? Already 3 terror plots have been thwarted and the FBI has over 900 pending ISIS cases in all 50 states. With the attacks in France and America, and the violent Middle East migrant invasion of Europe, how could people not be concerned?

Screen Shot 2016-02-11 at 5.56.31 PM

The only true haters are the Islamists and SPLC. Americans do not need to justify their concerns over Islamic terror and its political corollary, the body of Islamic law known as shariah. Indeed, shariah is anathema to every freedom we hold dear and threatens to rob us of it before our very eyes.

If there were no reason to be concerned about Islam, it should be a simple matter for American Muslim leaders to reassure America. But instead, they denounce Americans as Islamophobic and the SPLC turns it into a nationwide vilification campaign. In gambling they call this a “tell.” When your political opponent resorts to name calling, it is because he cannot articulate a credible argument against you. So instead of arguing, he intimidates and attacks.

When an organization as prominent and powerful as the SPLC turns its guns on you, it can cost you your job, your livelihood – even your standing in the community. Not because you have done anything wrong. Not because what they say about you is true, but because a focused vilification campaign forces others to avoid you out of fear. You become what they call “radioactive.”

It is a form of psychological attack familiar to the Left. Vladimir Lenin wrote:

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.

Herbert Marcuse, a German Communist scholar of the Marxist Frankfurt School, formalized this notion in a 1965 essay titled Repressive Tolerance; Marcuse argued that the First Amendment was insufficient in addressing the Left’s need to be heard. In racist, imperialist, oppressive America, their message would always be ignored. It wasn’t fair, he argued. Marcuse’s answer was to shut down the opposition:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left… Not ‘equal’ but morerepresentation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.

While most of us have never heard of Marcuse or his theory, his idea was enthusiastically embraced by the Left. Marcuse himself was an associate of Julian Bond, an SPLC board member from its founding.  Marcuse and Bond were co-founders of the leftwing newspaper In These Times. They both served on the National Conference for New Politics and were involved in other radical activism.

Marcuse’s “Liberating tolerance” found its most practical application in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which systematized the tactics of hate, ridicule and vilification to shut down opposing voices. While most leftists have memorized this tactic and we witness it every day in media and politics, I think it is the SPLC’s raison d’être. 

Note that they never attempt to justify their position, because they never could. Their sole purpose is to destroy political opposition. That is why debating the Left is impossible. They are not debating. They are calculating ways to destroy you.

And if you think I exaggerate, perhaps I should quote the SPLC itself, whose spokesman Mark Potok has said, “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…”

Read more

James Simpson is an economist, former White House budget analyst, businessman and investigative journalist. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook.