09/8/16

Islamic Colonization of Virginia

*** Refugee Resettlement Activism – Please consider joining the network to stop refugee resettlement. Help get the word out in your state so we can halt unvetted refugees from being shipped into the US to terraform our country into an Islamic nation and foster Jihadism/Terrorism across America.

RR MAP VA

Status: On-going
In Dan Wolf’s recent article, Resettling Immigrants in Virginia, we presented several maps to illustrate the correlation between the resettlement of Muslim refugees and the growth of Muslim institutions throughout the Commonwealth. Now you’re most likely asking yourselves what all this means. And you would be right to do so.

It’s expected and perfectly natural for a newcomer to gravitate towards and seek out people who speak his language or are from the same region. This provides an added degree of comfort and support to someone who understandable feels alone and surrounded by the unfamiliar. We’ve seen this time and again; immigrant groups congregate in certain neighborhoods and establish their own houses of worship, shopping districts, etc. Examples from the past and present are the Chinatowns, Little Italys and Little Saigons that popped up after certain waves of immigration.

And as time goes by, the immigrants and their children assimilate and begin to spread out to other areas of the country.

…But this time it’s different. Very different.

Muslims coming to our country and state arrive with a 1,400+ year old religious mandate to spread their faith. Islamic immigration comes with a directive from Mohammed himself to change the civilization to which it moves. Islamic colonization.

Mohammed said to his followers, “I charge you with five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage Jihad for the sake of Allah.” In this they are emulating Muhammad himself. This is the “hijra” – Islamic immigration to non-Muslims lands for the sole purpose of spreading Islam and establishing Islamic domination and eventual conquest of the host country.

There are multiple quotes in Muslim religious texts that exhort and command Muslims to immigrate and conduct civilizational jihad, but examination of Islamic scripture is unnecessary. You don’t have to be an Islamic scholar or be fluent in Arabic to figure this out. As Raymond Ibrahim recently observed,History suffices.

And so does common sense. If you want to predict what a certain group will do, how it will behave all you have to do is examine that group’s behavior, past and present. History shows a clear pattern, a preset plan and a purpose that is obvious to anyone willing to see.

Every country to which Muslims have immigrated in the past is now either dominated by Muslims or under Islamic rule. Turkey, Egypt, all of North Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia in the past. Historical records from all sides agree on what happened. In the present, this is happening in Kenya, Nigeria and in every country in Europe. All the proof you need is offered in the daily news reports out of Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. The guest consumes the host.

And yet our dear leaders insist that immigration from Muslim lands will only add to our diversity and enrich our culture and heritage that America is different so the Muslim experience in America will be different than elsewhere, that they can and will love America just like we do. They want you to believe that, if Muslim immigrants traverse a body of water large enough on their way to America, the obvious and historical pattern of intolerant supremacism and the mandated imperial impulse of Islam will be washed away. They want you to believe in something that has never happened and is not happening anywhere else in the world. They want you to believe in magic.

The Europeans have been told similar lies for years and are still forced to listen to them. That magic spell has now been broken, but it may be too late for Europe. Many native Europeans can no longer protest the tsunami of Muslim immigration without risking criminal charges and jail time for “hate speech” violations. Nowadays, a Facebook post will land you in prison.

And what a heavy price they pay. Violence and lawlessness on a mass scale, no-go zones where police dare not enter, the explosion of sexual violence against European women and children and the exodus of the Jews once more from Europe, etc. Yes, any Jew with any sense and any means has already left or has exit plans in place. They stay liquid and mobile, ready to leave at a moment’s notice. Lesson learned. They will not be trapped in Europe again.

It remains to be seen if Europe has the strength and the will to rise from its knees. And where goes Virginia and America? It all depends on you, on us.

We must banish political correctness from our speech and from our hearts.
We must dare to call things by their true names and recognize the true nature of events.
We must demand that all Muslims presently in our state and in our country abide by our laws and by no other system of law.
We must demand that our politicians stop funding refugee resettlement in Virginia and we must be prepared to vote them out of office when they do not comply with the will of the people.

Now, a question. What can I do? Connect with us on Virginia Free Citizen Watch and build a network of concerned citizens for our communities.

Email us at: [email protected] and will plug you into our network. Subscribe to our newsletter, forward our newsletter to other Virginians.

12/22/15

AIM Editor on Conservative Commandos radio about Media and Muslim Brotherhood

Accuracy in Media

AIM Editor Roger Aronoff appeared on December 17 on the Philadelphia, PA Conservative Commandos radio show to talk about his recent column “Media Continue Attacks on Muslim Brotherhood Critics.”

Aronoff’s article discusses how Frank Gaffney, a strong national security advocate warning about the dangers of shariah law and the Muslim Brotherhood, was attacked during a recent CNN appearance for allegedly promoting “McCarthyite” politics, and also belittled by The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.

Aronoff said that Gaffney, who heads the Center for Security Policy, is “someone who I have great admiration for.”

“I think he’s been a powerful force in this country for good, and for peace through strength,” said Aronoff.

Gaffney has been a leading critic of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been clearly identified as a Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood front organization posing as a civil rights organization, noted Aronoff.

CNN host Don Lemon misled his viewers by falsely claiming during his segment with Gaffney that “There is no direct knowledge that we had that CAIR has anything to do with the Muslim brotherhood.”

“The FBI used to have a relationship with CAIR, and after the Holy Foundation trial a decade or so back, they cut off ties with them because it became quite clear that they are a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Aronoff. “And these are sensitive topics, but our survival is at stake.”

“So the real question—and this should be a discussion—Should we be concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood, or should we just think of them as sort of the Elks Lodge of Muslims?” asked Aronoff on the show.

“Let’s go ahead and make the disclaimer right now,” said Aronoff, continuing, “we’re not saying all Muslims are terrorists, but I guess we’re saying that all jihadists are Muslims, and that jihadists, whether they are the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood types or the Iranian Shiite, they are of great concern.”

Aronoff argued that Obama really has gotten a “free pass” on having advisors who are connected to the Brotherhood. “I think it’s something that should be asked of every candidate: what they know about them, and what they think about them.”

Asked why the mainstream media refuse to cover the truth, Aronoff said that the mainstream media are still largely in bed with the Democrats, and “always looking to protect them, cover for them.” The mainstream media remain corrupt and biased so that its members continue to ask tough “gotcha” questions of Republican presidential candidates, like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, whilerefusing to give Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the same treatment, noted Aronoff.

You can listen to the entire interview here…

12/17/15

Media Continue Attacks on Muslim Brotherhood Critics

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media never tire of attacking those who warn that the Muslim Brotherhood has established deep ties to the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. That might just be because the media have forged their own intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Preeminent figures who dare to contradict the narrative of the liberal media, arguing that the greater concern is terrorism or shariah law, not Islamophobia, are regularly cast as conspiracy theorists, and worse, outright racists.

The head of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), Frank Gaffney, has been repeatedly attacked by the media for his message that Americans cannot be forced to yield to shariah. On December 8th he said on CNN that CAIR has “been established in court to be a Muslim Brotherhood front organization” that associates with the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.

“The fact that nobody, including your guest recognizes that reality and suggests it’s a conspiracy theory or something to sort of try to obscure it is a scandal,” he told CNN’s Don Lemon. The other guest, Michael Weiss, a senior editor at The Daily Beast, declared that Gaffney’s words were “deranged hysteria masquerading as national security policy,” and likened his rhetoric to McCarthyism.

Each and every presidential candidate should be asked their opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood and its influence on the American government, we urgedback in September. “Should the Muslim Brotherhood be viewed as some benign, moderate organization?” we asked, “Or instead as the organization that spawned Al Qaeda and other significant terrorist organizations?”

“The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has provided a detailed analysis of several members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who are official advisors to the White House or various agencies within the Executive branch,” we reported. “The question…is whether or not we should care about the influence of the MB on this and other administrations.”

CNN’s Don Lemon falsely maintained that there wasn’t a connection between CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, he broadcast a statement by CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

“Shortly after CAIR’s founding in 1994, Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director, was videotaped publicly declaring support for Hamas,” wrote Kyle Shideler for Townhall.

Shideler, the Director of the Threat Information Office (TIO) at Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, argues that this was a “televised ambush” of Gaffney. You can watch the complete segment at the Breitbart website and decide for yourself.

As Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) member and head of the IPT, Steven Emerson, recently pointed out, “CAIR’s connections are not really matters of interpretation” because the FBI has “internal documents” demonstrating its strong ties to terror.

“The FBI read those documents and promptly cut off communication with CAIR ‘until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,’” writes Emerson. Yet, he observes, The New York Times continues to peddle CAIR’s “garbage.”

The Washington Post also peddles its own garbage about the threat of Islamophobia. Dana Milbank’s December 15 column in The Washington Post focused in part on how “Respectable conservatives long ago abandoned Gaffney, but Trump Made Gaffney Safe Again.” Watch out, conservatives, a “far-right provocateur” such as Gaffney may be influencing the presidential campaigns of Republicans Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz.

“The killers who plotted and executed the massacre in San Bernardino are no different than Islamic supremacists the world over,” writes Gaffney for the CSP on December 14. “For them, terror is one of the tools used to advance an agenda aimed at imposing worldwide the repressive politico-legal-military code they call shariah and establishing a global Caliphate,” he continues. “Other techniques employed by the granddaddy of all modern jihadist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, involve more stealthy efforts to penetrate and subvert from within our civil society and governing institutions.”

As we have repeatedly noted, Mr. Milbank is the type of columnist who has built his career upon identifying conservatives that he believes he can belittle at a distance. He emphasizes others’ missteps or alleged hyperbole and conspiracy theories while ignoring his own biases. He makes no effort to challenge Gaffney’s claims about the Muslim Brotherhood, but instead relies on snarky, personal attacks. This plays into the mainstream media’s overall playbook, where the so-called mistakes made by conservative figures are unforgiveable and unforgettable. In Milbank’s world, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other liberals, of course, rarely err, but when they do, it is not a reflection on their character.

Neither, apparently, does Milbank err; he links to one of his prior columns that Accuracy in Media has thoroughly debunked.

“In other actions, this friend of GOP presidential candidates [Gaffney] has made allegations about Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s ‘deep personal’ ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and said Abedin (also a Trump target) may have advocated for laws against ‘sharia blasphemy,’” asserts Milbank, linking to his assessment of an “ugly” Heritage Foundation panel on Benghazi.

As we reported last year, Muslim advocate Saba Ahmed attended the Heritage Benghazi panel, after which Milbank accused the panelists of “ugly taunting” following Ahmed’s question. We later exposed Ahmed’s, and Milbank’s, false victimization story.

Mr. Milbank’s article also failed to note at the time that Ahmed ran her own lobbying firm, was a Democratic Party activist, and was close to the Portland, Oregon convicted Christmas tree bomber. Instead, Milbank described her as an American University student, which was also true. More recently she has re-invented herself as the head of something called the Republican Muslim Coalition, which appears to be little more than a website void of any substance. Yet she has made it onto the Fox News Channel’s “Kelly Files” with Megyn Kelly on at least two recent occasions.

Despite the continued misreporting, members of the CCB continue to sound the alarm about the Muslim Brotherhood’s inordinate influence under the leadership of President Obama.

“The Obama administration has already demonstrated its proclivity to side with the wrong party—al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood—in Libya and Egypt,”write CCB Members Pete Hoekstra and Clare Lopez. “We should not allow ourselves to become drawn into such mistakes again, especially when the ability of the West, Russia and Iran to fully destroy ISIS—or its jihadist ideology—is not entirely clear right now.” Hoekstra is the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Both CCB members Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons and Clare Lopez are with Gaffney’s CSP while simultaneously serving on the Commission. You can watch Admiral Lyons address the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood, after being introduced by Gaffney, at a CSP event. This video has been viewed more than 400,000 times.

Far from a conspiracy theory, the influence of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood upon this and future administrations must be confronted head on, whether members of the mainstream media choose to look the other way, or peddle CAIR’s lies.

07/25/15

Legacy National Security Advisory Group Launch – MG Vallely

The American Report

Original at Stand Up America.

Editor’s Note: Obama and his minions have tried their best, and largely succeeded, to purge the U.S. military of patriotic officers who love this country. As a result, under Obama, America’s best interests are always put last.

This group of retired and decorated officers and experts, led by MG Paul E. Vallely, offers all Presidential candidates advice on forging a national strategy that is in the best interests of America!

* * *

Last week, MG Vallely, along with several staff members of Stand Up America US visited Washington, D.C. to attend several events and to launch the Legacy Group, an SUA project.

The events included a full meeting with the entire Legacy Group, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, an evening with friends hosted by MG Vallely, and a reception hosted by Congressman Ryan Zinke, R-MT. There were several other meetings and interviews.

The Legacy National Security Advisory Group (LNSAG) is set up to advise presidential and congressional members and candidates on national security and military strategy.

LNSAG was created by MG Paul E. Vallely, (US Army, retired) and is populated by former military command and flag staff, special operations leadership, seasoned intelligence community members, former law enforcement, cultural and diplomatic experts, and a network of HUMINT that spans the globe.

As a well-recognized leader with impeccable characteristics and talents, the best and the brightest have gravitated to his side and are unparalleled in their fields and endeavors.

To commemorate the trip, here are several photos capturing the events:

MG Vallely arriving at the Citizens Commission on Benghazi then off to be interviewed by Frank Gaffney, Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy. Also pictured are the General with his Senior Middle East Advisor, Mr. Nagi N. Najjar, and SUA Marketing Director, Kevin Moore at breakfast that morning.

The Legacy National Security Advisory Group meets on the 18th. From left to right seated are Admiral Ace Lyons, Jack Shaw, Roger Aronoff, Wayne Simmons and Nagi Najjar. Standing (L to R) are Kevin Moore, LtC Dennis Haney, Clare Lopez, MG Vallely, and LtG Tom McInerney.

MG Vallely hosted a reception and is pictured with Wayne Simmons (center), and LtG Tom McInerney (right)

A group picture at the reception includes from left to right, Clare Lopez (standing), and seated on the couch are Roger Aronoff of Accuracy in Media, and Ray Tanter of the Iran Policy Group.

Seated in the chair is Mary Clare Kendall. Standing in the middle are MG Vallely, Christine Wagner, LtC Tony Shaffer, a Senior Fellow with both the London Center for Policy Research and the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, Admiral Ace Lyons, Wayne Simmons, LtG Tom McInerney, Sara and Marty Carter, Tommy Sears, Managing Director of the Legacy Group, and Nagi N. Najjar.

MG Vallely speaks with Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy and the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

MG Vallely shares a laugh with (L to R), Kevin Moore, Congressman Ryan Zinke, Admiral Ace Lyons. (Turned from the camera are Lola Zinke and Tom McInerney.)

Another moment of group conversation.

MG Vallely with Tony Shaffer

Reception hosted by Congressman Zinke seen on the left next to his wife Lola, and accompanied by Tony Shaffer, MG Vallely, Kevin Moore, Tommy Sears and Nagi N. Najjar

Congressman Zinke gives a thumbs up and shares a laugh with Tony Shaffer and MG Vallely

Tommy Sears with Kevin Moore and MG Vallely holding a Legacy Group flyer.

07/24/15

Thousands Rally in Times Square to Stop Iran Deal

The American Report

In response to Barack Hussein Obama’s unprecedented capitulation to Iran, the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism, more than 12,000 people gathered in Times Square to protest the deal.

Holding signs that read “No Nukes for Iran,” “Don’t Trust Iran,” and “Urge Congress to Stop Iran from Going Nuclear,” protesters were sounding the alarm bell for a deal that does effectively nothing to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Indeed, it encourages the rogue nation to develop ever more destructive methods of killing innocents.

The civilized and respectful crowd gathered for more than six blocks, from 42^nd St into the Fashion District. With the exception of a single counter-protest that was intentionally provocative, there was no detectable acrimony in the crowd. Instead, they focused their concerns and anger at Senator Chuck Schumer, who could potentially prove the decisive vote to approve, or derail, the deal.

The rally featured an all-star cast of speakers, including retired military, national security experts, politicians, and journalists. Among the speakers were Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons, Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez, Major General Paul E. Vallely, Colonel Allen West, and Caroline Glick, who presented via television from Israel.

Col. West’s speech, delivered without notes, electrified the crowd as he spoke from the heart about the greatness of America and the smallness and treachery of Obama and Kerry. This deal is yet another betrayal to the military veterans who fought in Iraq, only to have Obama intentionally lose the war and hand over parts of the country to ISIS.

Gaffney ended his speech calling this “deal” with Iran what it actually is – “TREASON!”

If it Walks like a Duck, and Quacks like a Duck…

Why would Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry hand a carte blanch deal to Iran? A deal that allows inspections only after a lengthy appeals process and 24 days between inspection requests and actual inspections?

Extensive research has shown conclusively that the Obama administration is filled with agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, the mothership of all Islamic terrorism. In Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria, the United States backed Muslim Brotherhood rebels to overthrow stable governments. This plan was made explicit in a secret presidential directive, PSD-11.

Once the Muslim Brother Mohamed Morsi was elected President in Egypt, he traveled to Tehran to establish a closer relationship with the terror master Mullahs.

Kerry, who like Obama is desperate for a legacy, is personally close to the Iran because his daughter is married to an Iranian man with family there. Moreover, Obama’s Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, who many believe to be the true force behind this calamitous presidency, was born in Shiraz, Iran.

The rally was organized by a large and diverse coalition of organizations that included activists and concerned citizens who are anti-terrorism, pro-Israel, and for a strong national defense of America and American values.

07/19/15

Details Emerging on Chattanooga Shooter and Family

By: Denise Simon
FoundersCode.com

According to CNN Arabia:

Amman, Jordan (CNN) – Jordanian official said that the shooter in the American civil Chattanooga Tennessee, which led to the deaths of four US Marines Thursday, [was] not a Jordanian citizen, but [held] a Palestinian passport temporarily and without a national number.

The source explained that “after investigations show that the name of the person who launched the attack in Tennessee in the United States, is Mohammed Yousef Saeed Ali Haj, who was born on September 5 / September” in 1990, according to the source. His father moved to live in the United States in 1982.

He added that Mohammed’s father had changed his name to Abdul Aziz in 1990, so that became his son’s name is Mohammad Yousuf, Abdul Aziz, according to the Jordanian government source, who added that the gunman holds a US passport, and that the son was in Jordan in 2014 on a visit to his uncle.

***

According to a tip that came into WDEF, Muhammad Abdulazeez was spotted at a gun range just weeks before killing four Marines and one Navy Petty Officer.

Abdulazeez was reportedly spotted with three other men who were wearing long beards like Abdulazeez. All four were reportedly practice shooting.

The claim has not been confirmed by law enforcement but several sources told WDEF the men were likely spotted at Prentice Cooper Gun Range.

When News 12 arrived at the gun range, several men who were practicing shooting said a man who claimed to be a former Marine arrived at the range Saturday morning and said he was doing his own investigation to see if Abdulazeez had been shooting at that location.

The men said he asked multiple groups of people who were at the range.

CBS News is also reporting that Abdulazeez told his co-workers that he and a group of guys recently went shooting at a gun range. CBS News got its information from law enforcement sources who interviewed Abdulazeez’s co-workers.

According to a published CBS News report, the men reportedly shot rifles, BB guns and pistols last month.

***

Abdulazeez had purchased three guns after returning from Jordan, including an AK-74, an AR-15, and a Saiga 12. In the home was also a 9mm and a .22 caliber weapons, it is unclear in whose name those weapons were registered.

***

From the Center for Security Policy:

As we reported Friday, the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga (ISGC) is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood through the Hamas-linked North American Islamic Trust (NAIT.) Now new evidence has been revealed showing that ISGC actually raised funds for the building of their new mosque in 2009, by referencing jihad and key Muslim Brotherhood figures.

According to a 2009 Iftar fundraising dinner slide show, first apparently noticed by Twitter user @alimhaider, contained an overt reference to key Muslim Brotherhood figure Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Shooter’s mosque run by MB? http://t.co/lCTuEp6XiZ #Chattanooga pic.twitter.com/d2JsRt8FGs

— A.M.H. (@alimhaider) July 17, 2015

The title of the slide, “In the cause of Allah” is an English translation of Fi Sabil Allah, as in the phrase “Jihad Fisabilallah”, which means violent jihad against unbelievers. Classic Islamic law reference book, the Reliance of the Traveller, notes in its index, “Fisabilallah: See Jihad”. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase in context.

The reference to jihad in the fundraiser related to the Mosque, was done as a means of explaining that a contribution to the building of the mosque qualified under “Zakat” (annual tithe which is obligatory in Islam), under the category of funding Jihad.

Reliance of the Traveller notes, “The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration)…”

The slide “Cause of Allah” references Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and S.A.A. Maududi, founder of Pakistani Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. Both Qaradawi and Maududi are prolific on the subject of Jihad.

Qaradawi has been noted for his avid support for the terrorist group Hamas and their jihad against Israel, including issuing fatwas authorizing suicide bombing, and has supported jihadist movements in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and most recently in Egypt. Qaradawi is the leader of the Hamas financing network known as the “Union of the Good”, which utilizes Zakat funds received by its charities in order to support Hamas.

In his work, “Islamic Education and Hassan Al Banna,” Qaradawi discusses how it was the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) which revitalized the classical concept of Jihad for a modern age:

The aspect of Ikhwani training which makes it eminent and unique is Jehad or crusade i e. : Crusader·like training…The real implication of · Jehad (crusade) had been dismissed from Islamic training and way of life, before its conception among the lkhwans.

And in his “Priorities of the Movement in the Coming phase” Qaradawi says:

…it is a duty to defend every land invaded by infidels, stating that such jihad is imperative for Muslims in this land as an individual obligation and that all Muslims must support them with money, arms and men as required until all their land has been liberated from any aggressor who usurps it. Therefore, the Islamic Movement cannot stand idle and watch while any part of Muslim land is occupied by a foreign aggressor.

The other modern Islamic scholar referenced by the document, Maulana S.A.A. Maududi, was famous for successfully merging classical Islamic concepts of Jihad with a modernist language of revolution. He noted the following in his work “Jihad in Islam”:

It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of the Islamic ‘Jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the State system of the countries to which they belong, but their ultimate objective is no other than to effect a world revolution.

So the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga announced in 2009 that it openly aligned its views of Jihad with the views of Qaradawi and Maududi, and told its Muslim congregants that donating to the construction of ISGC was permissible, because it represented funding jihad.

Chattanooga shooter Mohammed Yusuf Abdulazeez and his family were regular attendees as ISGC. Despite claims by the mosque leadership that Abdulazeez was a rare attendee or little known there, a photo from a family Facebook account shows that Abdulazeez held his graduation party at the mosque, and that it was well attended, indicating they were well known regulars.

This fundraising document was publicly available information, three years before U.S. District Attorney William Killian attended the grand opening in 2012 and expressed his friendship with a mosque leadership who built their mosque with a promise that funding them represented an investment in jihad.

Now that investment appears to have matured.

U.S. District Attorney William Killian should recuse himself from this case, because of his association with ISGC, and the investigators must begin to conduct a detailed and through investigation of ISGC itself, and what role its support for violent jihad may have played in the attack in Chattanooga which claimed the lives of five servicemen.

05/6/15

Ann Corcoran on Refugee Resettlement

02/18/15

10 Troubling Aspects of President Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Summit

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

The White House’s “Countering Violent Extremism” summit is barely underway, yet the message is already clear: the conference is politically correct — and far worse — a charade.

And that is a charitable interpretation.

Its sponsors are engaging in intentional obfuscation (e.g., saying “violent extremism” is the enemy), as well as peddling ineffective and ill-considered policy proposals (more community “empowerment”). The conference will effectively aid and abet America’s increasingly ascendant jihadist foes.

Violent extremism is not an enemy, it’s a euphemism. Terrorism is not an enemy, it’s a tactic.

Reviewing the Obama administration’s summit preview, here are its 10 most disturbing aspects:

1. Contrary to its big government ethos, the Obama administration asserts that national security should be driven by the people, not the state.

(Image source: BuzzFeed)

According to the White House preview [emphasis mine]:

Really at the core of our approach is that the government does not have all the answers in combatting violent extremism. It is, at its core, a bottom-up approach. It puts communities with civic leaders, with religious authorities, with community power brokers, teachers, health providers, et cetera, in the driver’s seat. They know their citizens best. They are the first line of defense to prevent or counter radicalizing forces that can ultimately lead to violence. And so our approach is to really embrace and empower what local communities can do. So we’ve been working with our federal partners and our local partners to put in place this approach over the past couple of years.

Further:

Again, this is not about government, especially the federal government. The federal government doesn’t have all the answers. This is about building a comprehensive network to fight back against violent extremism. And we are explicitly recognizing the role that civil society plays, the private sector plays, and that families, et cetera, can play in countering violent extremism.

Who knew the Obama administration had so much respect for and faith in civil society?

Yet of course, this faith turns out to be dangerously misplaced as…

2. The groups the president wants to empower are those who may pose the biggest threat.

As Patrick Poole noted in an extensive report for TheBlaze:

In December 2011, the White House issued the “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” – the local partners, of course, being Islamic organizations, including those cited by the Justice Department as working to aid foreign terrorist organizations. All national security and law enforcement agencies on the federal, state and local level would now have to consult these groups and rely on “local partners” as a matter of policy. And as made clear in Salam al-Marayati’s Los Angeles Times op-ed, Islamic groups complaining about counter-terrorism policies or training would disrupt government efforts to “counter violent extremism” gave them an implicit veto over counter-terrorism policies. [Los Angels Times link added for context]

Why should we care about this 2011 report?

A senior Obama administration official noted in previewing the summit that the report details the very efforts the administration will be hawking during the three-day event.

Local partners such as the Council on American-Islam Relations — an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Hamas funding trial in history — has advised members of the Muslim community not to work with the FBI, and religious leaders to lawyer up as opposed to working together with law enforcement when it comes to potential jihadists. On the eve of the summit, CAIR is reportedly calling for the Department of Justice to “protect those who act in good faith to prevent violent extremism by engaging with [Muslims] considering it in order to dissuade them.”

A partner of perhaps higher standing is the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), a group linked to numerous jihadis and jihadi-sympathizers, that is reportedly the primary liaison between the Muslim community and law enforcement in countering violent extremism. The Boston program will be one of the three held up as a success story during the summit, despite the ISB’s Islamic supremacist efforts.

Looking to the heart of Muslim communities, according to the Mapping Sharia project, imams in over 80 percent of 100 randomly surveyed representative mosques in America recommended the study of violence-positive texts. The correlations with these texts are disturbing, as illustrated below:

Sharia Adherence Mosque Survey: Correlations between Sharia Adherence and Violent Dogma in U.S. Mosques (Image Source: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html)

(Image Source: Sharia Adherence Mosque Survey: Correlations between Sharia Adherence and Violent Dogma in U.S. Mosques)

In Pew’s extensive 2011 report on Muslims in America, 21 percent of those polled indicated there was a great deal or fair amount of “support for extremism among Muslim American;” 19 percent did not indicate that “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies;” only 70 percent indicated that they viewed Al Qaeda “very unfavorably.”

As leaked Department of Homeland Security documents reveal, the second highest concentration of people designated as “known or suspected terrorists” by our government reside in Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn’s population is 96,000, and it has the highest percentage of Arab-Americans of any city in the country.

In light of these figures, and the fact that jihadist groups worldwide claim they are at war with America, having committed over 25,000 attacks in the name of Allah since Sept. 11, 2011, one must ask, what exactly is the rationale behind leaving self-policing to Muslim communities when these are the very places from whence jihadists spring?

Such a policy of course is only baffling if you are of the belief that jihad is an Islamic tenet, and that Islamic supremacist ideology is what animates the vast majority of the world’s “violent extremists.”

But of course…

3. According to the administration there is no profile of a “violent extremist.”

Returning to the transcript:

[I]n the United States there has been violent extremists that come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and so the agenda for all three days is going to show a wide array of speakers and participants from all backgrounds who combat radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism in its many forms.

…In terms of the phrase “vulnerable community,” I think one is that we want to be clear that the evidence doesn’t show that there’s any particular community, there’s no profile that we can point to say this person is from this community, is going to be radicalized to violence.

4. The administration thinks a key focus should be on non-Muslim terrorist groups — like those in Colombia.

Per the preview:

Q: I’m just wondering, in light of the current events that Andrea Mitchell and others mentioned during this call, almost all of those involves Muslim extremism. And I get that the phrase for this three-day event is “violent extremism.” Might some critics think that you’re avoiding the world “Muslim” as though extremists in the Islamic communities are the focus — or are they not the focus? That’s my question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: …I think obviously we want to be taking into account the current concerns that different countries are facing. But as I think will be clear from the variety of presentations and case studies that are mentioned — to include some of the media that we have organized to help catalyze the discussion that features some of the longer-running terrorist threats that people sometimes forget about in the current context, such as the FARC in Colombia, which is now in negotiations, but has been a designated terrorist organization for some time, responsible for countless acts of violence.

I think we will see through the complexity of the discussion that violent extremism is a broader trend…I think we’ll see in the context of the meeting itself the diversity that reflects the reality of recent history.

5. The administration disavows a link between jihadism — a word it won’t use — and religion.

This image made from a video released Sunday Feb. 15, 2015 by militants in Libya claiming loyalty to the Islamic State group purportedly shows Egyptian Coptic Christians in orange jumpsuits being led along a beach, each accompanied by a masked militant. Later in the video, the men are made to kneel and one militant addresses the camera in English before the men are simultaneously beheaded. The Associated Press could not immediately independently verify the video. (Image source: AP)

Per the administration preview:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let’s be clear. We recognize that violent extremism spans many decades and has taken many forms. But we all agree that the individuals who perpetuated — who perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere are calling themselves Muslims and their warped interpretation of Islam is what motivated them to commit these acts. They’re not making any secret of that, and neither are we.

But we are very, very clear that we do not believe that they are representing Islam. There is absolutely no justification for these attacks in any religion, and that’s the view of the vast majority of Muslims who have suffered huge casualties from the likes of folks like ISIL or al Qaeda. So you can call them what you want. We’re calling them terrorists.

6. The administration continues its “mea culpa” campaign, attributing radicalism to economic, social and political disparities — but not religion.

Per the White House preview [emphasis mine]:

The final panel will focus on secure and resilient communities, and it will, in particular, begin by looking at the role of civil society, particularly youth and women preventing violent extremism. It will look at community-police relations and community-security force relations as a critical element of prevention. And it will finally broaden that conversation to address social, economic and political marginalization, including the effects of integration of minority communities.

Based on all we have observed from this White House, do you think that the onus will fall on law enforcement to work on “improving relations” with “violent extremist” communities, or vice-versa? Reports on the Minneapolis countering violent extremism pilot program, one of the three that will be presenting at the summit, indicate that its Somali Muslim community mistrusts law enforcement because it fears being spied upon. Does this give you confidence in cooperation from a neighborhood that has produced over a dozen known jihadists in recent years?

The notion that “marginalization” and poor integration in minority communities is the root cause of jihadism, as echoed by State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf is a canard. Not only are there very wealthy families from the bin Ladens to the Saudi royals who drive jihadism worldwide, but conversely practically every group that has ever succeeded in America came to this country poor and marginalized, yet did not resort to strapping bombs to themselves or chopping off heads.

None of this is even to mention the fact that Muslims, other ethnic and religious minorities and the most important minority, the individual, has at least historically had more freedom and opportunity in America than in any other country in the world. Perhaps the White House wishes this forum to be a vehicle for revisiting Ferguson.

7. The administration wants to rehabilitate and reintegrate violent extremists.

Clearly the recidivism rate for Guantanamo Bay detainees has not sunk in to the collective mind of the public, as the White House continues:

The third session focuses on weakening the legitimacy and the resonance of the brand of violent extremism. So that will include a panel on strategic communications, social media. It will include a discussion of how non-violent religious issues and education can be elevated as a matter of international and local-level concern. And it will look at best practices with regard to rehabilitating and reintegrating violent extremists.

Note that this is also in keeping with the Obama administration’s efforts through Eric Holder’s Justice Department to treat terrorism as a criminal matter.

8. The Obama White House has regularly partnered with and enabled ”violent extremists,” without whom a countering violent extremism summit would not be necessary in the first place.

One of the more unbelievable indications of the Obama administration’s willful lack of self-awareness is that it has regularly partnered with the “violent extremists,” aiders, abetters and sympathizers with whom theoretically this summit is about countering.

The administration is currently negotiating with Iran on its nuclear program — the largest state sponsor of terror in the world.

Several weeks ago the White House met with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization whose 1991 strategic memorandum on North America called for a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

In Libya and Syria we have armed jihadists to our own great detriment.

How can a president who so frequently makes common cause with, and whose interventions overseas have so consistently aided jihadists, have any credibility in countering violent extremism?

9. The summit’s very name tells us how fatally flawed the exercise is.

Little exemplifies better how ill-equipped America is to deal with the threats facing her than the fact that the Obama administration wants us to believe that we are fighting “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism is not an enemy, it’s a euphemism. Terrorism is not an enemy, it’s a tactic.

As many have said in recent weeks, if you cannot identify your enemy, you cannot defeat it. By not having the moral clarity, or even worse by exhibiting such cowardice in creating a mushy phrase like “violent extremism,” which not only obscures the enemy from the American people, but allows the Obama administration to associate all sorts of other peoples with jihadists is shameful.

Islamic supremacists are at war with us. It is quite evident we are not at war with them.

10. Finally, the key issues crucial to understanding the nature of, and means of best countering Islamic supremacism are not going to be addressed.

Were the summit actually to identify Islamic supremacism as the enemy, as the Center for Security Policy’s recent Defeat Jihad Summit illustrated, we might examine issues among many others including:

The Islamic doctrine that animates jihadists both Shitte and Sunni, and the goals, tactics and strategies set forth therein
The global funding of the jihadist support architecture
- Activist groups
- Educational institutions including America’s Middle East studies departments
- Media organizations
- Mosques
- Other agents of influence
Jihadist infiltration of American political institutions
The undefended borders through which jihadists are surely entering
Legal immigration policies including visas for religious leaders, student visas and immigration from jihadist areas worldwide
Iran’s efforts to infiltrate South America
Radicalization in prisons

We should seriously consider the aforementioned 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum on its mission in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

…A mission as significant and as huge as the settlement mission needs magnificent and exhausting efforts. With their capabilities, human, financial and scientific resources, the Ikhwan will not be able to carry out this mission alone or away from people and he who believes that is wrong, and God knows best. As for the role of the Ikhwan, it is the initiative, pioneering, leadership, raising the banner and pushing people in that direction. They are then to work to employ, direct and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

02/16/15

“Defeat Jihad Summit” – Diana West Summary – Videos

Diana West
Hat Tip: Dick Manasseri

Editor’s Note – From the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, the following summary identified what the Defeat Jihad Summit was designed to accomplish, this followed by notes taken by one attendee, Diana West:

Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C.

Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah.

Please read the notes here and then go their site and view the videos of the speakers and more. Videos for Senator Ted Cruz. Governor Bobby Jindal, Speaker Newt Gingrich, General Jerry Boykin and a list of many others are on that link.

Notes from a Defeat Jihad Summit

By Diana West – “Death of the Grown-Up”

Earlier this week, I participated in the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit.

I find that the several hours of speeches and discussion have distilled into some salient recollections and comments.

1) There remains a chasm between American “messaging” and that of some of our European friends who were invited to speak, including the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, who contributed a taped message, and Lars Hedegaard, who addressed the conference via Skype from Denmark.

American participants in the main demand, even a little truculently, that we now, finally, break the bonds of “political correctness” and speak frankly about “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” “ideas of ISIS,” etc.

Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is No. 1 in the Dutch polls, and Dispatch International editor Hedegaard both speak, and have always spoken about “Islam” — pure and very simple.

Indeed, Wilders has encapsulated everything you need to know about Islam and the West thus: “The more Islam there is in a society, the less freedom there is.”

Not “Islamism.”

This difference is more than semantic.

The primary mechanism of control that Islam exerts over people is Islamic slander law, Islamic blasphemy law. This is the institutional means by which Islam protects itself against criticism, even objective facts about Islam that might be construed critically.

The penalty is death. Not for nothing did Yusef Qaradawi state that Islam wouldn’t even exist without the death penalty for “apostasy.”

We have seen innumerable instances, particularly since the 1989 publication of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, where Muslims have executed, or tried to execute this death sentence even against non-Muslims, from Europe to Japan, in efforts to extend the rule of Islam.

When American lawmakers, generals and security experts omit “Islam” from their debates and war councils, focusing instead on what they have dubbed “radical Islam,” “Islamism” and the like, they are succombing to this same control mechanism.

They are protecting Islam. They are themselves sheltering Islam against the cold light of analysis. By extension, they are also preventing their own Western societies from devising means of defense against Islamization. They are accepting and carrying out what is probably the most important Islamic law.

There is concrete danger in this. Unless we can come to an understanding that it is the teachings of Islam — not the teachings of some peculiar strain called “Islamism,” or of an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood or ISIS — that directly undermine our constitutional liberties, we cannnot protect our way of life from these teachings, whose popularity grows with the increasing Islamic demographic.

This is what the advanced Islamization of Europe shows us. A nominally sensible US immigration policy would immediately halt Islamic immigration to prevent a sharia-demographic from gaining more critical mass in the USA, democratically.

Then again, we don’t have a national border, much less a sensible immigration policy. That means many of these questions are moot.

2) Still, it bears noting: The Left has responded to the current cycle of Islamic jihad — a recurring blight on civilization, as Andrew Bostom’s Legacy of Jihad amply documents — by inventing a foe called “violent extremism.”

The Right, scoffing at this euphemism, “pinpoints” the threat of “radical Islamism.”

What is the difference? Ultimately, I see none. Both terms protect Islam.

Warning against the dangers of “radical Islam” implies that there exists some “normal Islam” that is completely compatible, perhaps even interchangeable, with Christianity and Judaism.

Indeed, this ongoing effort to normalize Islam is equally as dangerous as the institutional efforts that long ago “normalized” Communism.

This officially began when FDR “normalized” relations with the wholly abnormal Soviet regime in 1933, a morally odious event whose horrific repercussions are treated at length in American Betrayal.

Just as it required endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” Communism, so, too, does it require endless apologetics (lies) to maintain the fiction of “normal” or “moderate” Islam.

According to all of Islam’s authoritative texts, according to the example of Islam’s prophet, this “moderate” creed does not Islamically exist.

To turn the notion around, as Lars recently reminded me, when the brave and splendid ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan was asked several years ago to distinguish between “Islam” vs. “Islamism” at a Copenhagen conference, she brought the airy theory back to earth by asking: Based on your definition of Islamism, was Mohammed a Muslim or an “Islamist”?

3) This brings me to The Best Line of the summit, which was spoken by Nonie Darwish: “Islamism is Islam and Islam is Islamism.”

4) The Spirit of ’76 Award goes to retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons who inquired of guest speaker and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whether there was any movement in the Congress to censure Obama or initiate impeachment hearings. The consensus on this burning, patriotic question is, no, expediently speaking, there is not nor will there be such a movement.

As per the entire US elite’s corruption and complicity in Soviet crime outlined in American Betrayal, it seems we have arrived at the point where Obama’s political judge and jury — our elected representatives in the Congress — is surely complicit in his crimes against the Constitution, as well as with his identity fraud on the American people.

5) The Most Profound New Thought of the summit came from brave and splendid ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish (who, bonus, I met for the first time here).

Nonie conveyed her understanding, having grown up in Egypt the privileged daughter of an Egyptian shahid (martyr), that terrorism, the threat of terrorism is a feature of Islamic life at all levels: inside the family, in the public square, and everywhere in between.

I’m paraphrasing, but what came through her talk was the idea that Muslim “moderates” in Islamic society (which I am taking to mean human beings who do not have the seeds of violence within them) have come to take Islamic terrorism/violence/coercion as a given.

This means that they have come to accept such terrorism/violence/coercion as normal. Her great fear is that Americans, too, are coming to accept such Islamic violence as normal — that we, in a sense, are taking on the role of such Muslim moderates. This is, if it can be imagined, an even darker iteration of dhimmitude.

6) Speaking of ex-Muslims, I made a comment about the role of the apostate in the great ideological battles of our time. Today, it is the ex-Muslims who offer special insight into totalitarianism of the Islamic kind.

Many of my American colleagues, however, still prefer to lean on guidance from Muslim “moderates” — despite the fact, referenced above, that Islam’s own sacred texts, including the example of Islam’s prophet, support no such “moderation.”

As they wish, they may await, or even themselves lead an Islamic reformation, but this in no way protects free speech or preserves public safety in our country now — especially when there are indicators that an alarming level of support for curbing and even criminalizing free speech about Islam exists among American Muslims — punitive measures, again, that find support in Islam’s texts.

In the 20th-century-battle against totalitarian Communism, anti-Communists did not embrace “moderate Communists.” Rather, they embraced ex-Communists who understood the totalitarian teachings and practices of Communism in Moscow’s gangster-quest for global dominance — a “caliphate” a la Lenin & Marx.

It was mainly the Left and Center — the anti-anti-Communist Left and Center — that made common cause with “moderate Communists,” i.e., Social Democrats, Communist apologists, also Soviet agents among others, engendering meaningless treaties, defeats and loss.

Even more pernicious, though, was the resulting “postmodern” rot across the political spectrum, which tells me, as I argue in American Betrayal, that the West lost the “struggle of ideas” in the “Cold War.”

This spectral shift is interesting in and of itself. I see its patterns repeat in the past decade of military disaster in which it was US military strategy to ignore the teachings of Islam and instead lean on perceived Muslim moderates, or just bank on a hoped-for emergence of Muslim moderation, in the Islamic nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terrible defeats ensued.

As former FBI special agent John Guandolo pointed out at the summit, we’ve tried this type of thing for 15 years and it doesn’t work.

Nor does it make sense — logically, doctrinally, strategically. But then neither does seizing on “radical Islamism” and other terms of art that exclude and thus protect Islam.

The Moral of this summit: You can’t protect Islam and defeat jihad at the same time.

02/16/15

Retired four-star admiral says the unsayable about Islam and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Recently we reported on retired Lt. Gen. and former DIA Chief Mike Flynn’s devastating criticism of the terms of President Obama’s Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS.

Another prominent retired member of America’s armed forces who has emerged as an outspoken opponent of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is four-star admiral James “Ace” Lyons.

During the Center for Security Policy’s recent Defeat Jihad Summit, the naval officer of 36 years, who served most recently as the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, made some simply astounding comments about Islam and President Obama’s foreign policy strategy:

Lyons’ remarks followed a scathing critique of the bipartisan failure of U.S. leaders to deal with the threat of Islamic supremacism, dating back to President Carter.

The Defeat Jihad Summit, held on February 11, was intended to serve as a corrective for the Obama administration’s forthcoming Countering Violent Extremism summit.

The event included prominent counterjihadists such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders and dozens of others.

You can watch full video of the conference here.

(H/T: Gates of Vienna)