Dr. Jasser joins Fox and Friends discussing profiling as a means to combat radicalism 07.02.2016 via YouTube, July 5, 2016
Archive for the ‘Countering violent extremism’ category
Dr. Jasser joins Fox and Friends discussing profiling as a means to combat radicalism 07.02.2016
July 5, 2016Dr. Jasser joins Intelligence Report discussing the importance of identifying radical Islam
July 2, 2016Dr. Jasser discusses his testifying before the U.S. Senate & reacting to bombings in Turkey
June 29, 2016Who Are the Real Islamophobes?
June 22, 2016Who Are the Real Islamophobes? PJ Media, Roger L Simon, June 21, 2016
[“Islamophobia”] is a disease — the real Islamophobia… not irrational fear of Islam, but irrational fear of blaming Islam.
***********************
Poor ISIS. The left in our country — liberals, progressives, the administration and their media cohorts — can’t face up to, or even admit, the evils of radical Islam, no matter what the Islamists do. One wonders if the jihadists set off a dirty nuke in the press room of the New York Times whether the reporters would even object. They’d probably write an editorial about the unhappy childhoods of the bombers and how one of them was once humiliated by a Christian schoolmate in a volleyball game during recess in Beirut.
It’s almost like a disease. In fact, it is a disease — the real Islamophobia… not irrational fear of Islam, but irrational fear of blaming Islam.
Consider Orlando. Not just the uber-lefty slickster Van Jones, who comes off like a re-upped CNN version of the Soviet Union’s old Vladimir Pozner, but Kirsten Powers, playing her “liberal” role on Fox, blathered on about how she didn’t really consider Omar Mateen a radical Islamic terrorist but someone who was mentally ill and an unfortunately guilty homophobic gay.
I hate to be rude to Kirsten, who seems like a nice person, but that is incredibly naive. Of course Mateen was a mentally ill homophobic gay, unfortunate or not. So what? The point is he was a mentally ill homophobic gay who believed in radical Islam. It is radical Islam that gave him the license to kill, indeed urged him to kill with its precepts, all those innocent people. Without radical Islam, they would all be alive today.
If every non-Islamic guilty homosexual in America acted out like that, our country would be a charnel house of human remains in every major city and in a state of mass hysteria. It’s not. Why not? Radical Islam, to repeat myself, is the missing ingredient. Gays — guilty and otherwise — there are plenty.
I imagine if we went to Rakka we would find almost all the ISIS members we met to be mentally ill in some way and certainly homophobic — and not just because they are throwing gays off buildings, but because it is built into their culture, a culture imitated and admired by Mateen.
And what was it precisely that attracted Mateen? The simple, reductive answers of that radical Islam. Call it fundamentalist Islam, if you will. And is this radical Islam in any way sane? By Western standards, not at all, unless you consider lopping off the heads of people of other religions and throwing their women in rape rooms to be normal behavior approved of by the DSM. ISIS leader al-Baghdadi is no less than a religiously motivated serial killer.
“Liberals” don’t want to face that much of Islamic society is absolutely off its rocker because that would undermine their absurd lib-prog, morally narcissistic, cultural relativist narrative about the Third World. This would all be funny because, in a certain macabre way, it is, but we are all the butt of this bleak joke. We have to sit there, incredulous, when our own Justice Department, obviously on orders from the top, redacts the transcript of Mateen’s 911 call by omitting the references to ISIS and changing what is obviously the word “Allah” to “God.” It’s hard to decide if the people who do that are stupid or immoral — probably both. Highly political too, of course. But that’s the obvious (and most shameful) part.
Some, like certain State Department personnel and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, sound as if they have undergone twenty years of the Stockholm Syndrome when they discuss the topic. In a certain way they have. The insularity of the Obama administration does recapitulate the Stockholm Syndrome in the way it reinforces an entirely dishonest world view.
And then where are we — innnocent bystanders in this deadly game? What do we do? Are we next?
Florida Muslim Group Promoting David Duke Previously Linked to Site Calling for Death to Homosexuals
June 22, 2016Florida Muslim Group Promoting David Duke Previously Linked to Site Calling for Death to Homosexuals, Front Page Magazine, Joe Kaufman, June 22, 2016
While we continue to mourn the victims of this month’s attack on the Orlando, Florida LGBT establishment the Pulse, we must also investigate those radical Islamic groups which feed the mindset of terrorists such as Omar Mateen. One of the groups is the American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), an organization that regularly promotes the hatred of white supremacist David Duke and previously promoted horrific bigotry against homosexuals.
When viewing the Facebook page of AMANA, the first thing you will see is a video produced by and starring white supremacist and former head of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. The video is an anti-Semitic conspiratorial piece, entitled ‘Will Israel Assassinate Obama.’
For a Duke video to appear on the AMANA Facebook site is no aberration. Indeed, there are numerous Duke videos currently found on AMANA’s official website. One Duke video that was on AMANA’s site gained the ire of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In July 2010, the ADL condemned AMANA for posting onto the homepage of its official site an anti-Semitic Duke video, which the ADL described as being “venomous.”
Targeting people with bigotry is nothing new for AMANA. The group has been doing it from its early stages, well over a decade ago.
In December 2002, AMANA published an article on its website, entitled ‘The Call for the Unity of Religions – A False and Dangerous Call.’ It stated, “This is a very dangerous call because it mixes the truth with falsehood and thus practically implies the elimination of the truth perfected in the deen of Islaam. The Christians and Jews want the Muslims to be like them. That is why they support this deceptive call for ‘unity.’”
Shortly before that, in November 2002, AMANA published an article on its site, titled ‘Homosexuality is not O.K.’ It states, “We pray that every sinful person go back to his creator and try to ask for forgiveness before it is too late and be guided. And if not, they should keep low profile about their abnormal human activities.”
This last piece stayed prominently on the AMANA website for nearly four years. And while it can be taken by some simply as mainstream religious doctrine, not many would consider the same about discussing the murdering of homosexuals.
In July 2003, AMANA placed a link on its website to what it called ‘The Islamic Ruling on Homosexuality.’ It took you to a page which stated the following: “Islam considers homosexuality as a sexual deviation leading to a perverted act which goes against the natural order Allah intended for mankind… [M]ost Muslim scholars have ruled that the punishment for this act should be… one hundred whiplashes for the man who has never married, and death by stoning for the married man. Some have even ruled that it should be death for both partners, because the Prophet… said: ‘Kill the doer and the one to whom it was done.’”
It further states, “Just as illicit sexual relations can occur between men, they can also occur between women… [S]exual relations between one woman and another… is a punishable offence… [T]he punishment is to be set by the Qaadi [Sharia judge]… The lesbian’s testimony is unacceptable because she is a evildoer…”
The founder and President of AMANA is Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout. The bigotry of his organization reflects his own. He has repeatedly labeled Jews “apes and pigs.” He has spread the claim that the Holocaust was “faked.” And he has called David Duke “a man to believe in.”
The legal advisor of AMANA is Wilfredo Amr Ruiz. He founded the Puerto Rico and Connecticut chapters of AMANA. He has been with AMANA since at least September 2003, when he was the Director of the Puerto Rico office. He has been with AMANA for every David Duke video promoted by the group. In fact, the Duke video that the ADL condemned AMANA for was posted right above an expose about Ruiz.
Ruiz was there for the AMANA article denouncing homosexuals and their “abnormal human activities,” and he was there for the AMANA link to the report discussing murdering gays in the name of his religion, Islam.
How ironic then that Wilfredo Ruiz, in the wake of the attack in Orlando, told BBC World the following: “In Islam there is no rejection to homosexuals. There’s no condemnation or hatred…” Either Ruiz was lying or he had a bout of selective memory.
Ruiz made this statement in his role as Communications Director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical Muslim organization in its own right.
Both AMANA and CAIR-Florida have co-sponsored rallies together. This includes a pro-Hamas rally held in Downtown Miami, in July 2014, where rally goers shouted, “We are Hamas” and “Let’s go Hamas.” Following the rally, Sofian Zakkout, who was the organizer for the event, wrote, “Thank God, every day we conquer the American Jews like our conquests over the Jews of Israel!”
AMANA’s dehumanization and vilification of homosexuals and Jews is precisely the type of thing that could influence the mind of an Omar Mateen or someone like him. In propagating material condemning and calling for the killing of homosexuals, AMANA should bear some responsibility when an attack, such as the one that happened in Orlando, takes place.
AMANA has long been a hub of Islamist and incendiary activities such as those described above. Omar Mateen would have found a justification for his atrocity there.
Question: When will law enforcement shut down AMANA, so that its propagation of bigotry and violence can end?
Andrew McCarthy: Obama Administration ‘Becoming Sharia-Adherent’ in Scrubbing ‘Islam’ and ‘ISIS’ from Orlando Jihadi’s 911 Call
June 20, 2016I think the Republican Congress has been derelict in that duty – but at the same time, I think it’s self-perpetuating in a way because I guess their ostensible reason for being derelict in their duty is that the President is popular. But perhaps the President is popular because they’re derelict in their duty.”
What they’re trying to do is purge any alternative explanation. So the administration has the position that “violent extremism,” which is what they call it, is disconnected from any credible interpretation of Islam – that Islam is singularly a “religion of peace,” and there is to be no other interpretation of it. And, therefore, anything that shows the direct nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror is to be suppressed.
**************************
Former prosecutor and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy appeared on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest column, “Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist” with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon.
When Bannon welcomed McCarthy by noting that “you basically imply there are Islamic supremacists inside the national security apparatus of the United States government,” McCarthy replied, “I hope I did more than imply it.”
McCarthy said:
I stated it outright, and think that’s pretty clear, just from some reporting that’s recently come out about Laila Alawa, a 25-year-old Syrian immigrant who’s somehow on the Homeland Security advisory council, that gives the President advice on counter-terrorism policy – a woman who said that basically 9/11 was a good thing and changed the world for good, which is just about as stunning as anything I’ve ever seen from someone who has a quasi-official government position.
“I think it should be underscored that she’s hardly singular,” McCarthy continued. “The President has been turning for advice – policy advice that has been implemented from the beginning of his administration – to leaders of Islamist organizations that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
McCarthy said his book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America chronicles how the Muslim Brotherhood has “very explicitly stated – and this has been proved in federal court, this is not just Andy’s speculation here – that their mission in the United States, and basically the West, but particularly the United States, is the elimination and destruction of Western civilization from within by sabotage.”
McCarthy said there was little congressional oversight of the Obama administration’s alternately clumsy and outrageous handling of the Islamist threat because “people in Congress, particularly Republicans in Congress, believe that the country has changed.”
He argued:
We always like to assume, on our side, that it’s a center-right country. In fact, it’s hard to square that with the fact that there are public opinion polls that tell us with all the abusive things that have happened, all the lawlessness that has happened – and it’s not really disputable, or credibly contestable, that there’s been lawlessness – nevertheless, President Obama has an approval rating of something in the area of 52 or 53 percent.”
He said that “political cases against abuse of power don’t just spontaneously appear,” so it is “incumbent on the people in Congress to make those cases because unlike the rest of us who don’t have political authority, it’s a responsibility of the legislative branch to rein in executive abuse.”
If Congress won’t exercise that authority, McCarthy charged, they’re “as derelict as the Executive Branch officials who are causing the lawlessness, and who are conducting themselves in a rogue way.”
“When I was a prosecutor, can you imagine how successful would I have been in prosecuting a case if I just sat at the government’s table and did nothing, while the defense lawyer did all the work?” he asked. “It’s one thing to say crimes have been committed. It’s another thing to say you have the duty to get up and prove it to the jury.”
He suggested:
I think the Republican Congress has been derelict in that duty – but at the same time, I think it’s self-perpetuating in a way because I guess their ostensible reason for being derelict in their duty is that the President is popular. But perhaps the President is popular because they’re derelict in their duty.”
McCarthy said the announcement by Attorney General Loretta Lynch that references to Islam and ISIS will be scrubbed from transcripts of jihadi Omar Mateen’s call to 911 during the Orlando attack was clear evidence that “the government is becoming sharia-adherent, and the Left is using the same tactic with respect to law enforcement against radical Islamic extremism that it uses in the area of what they call ‘climate change.’”
“That is, they have an official version of events, which may be part of a counter-universe, but it’s their story and they’re sticking to it,” he elaborated, adding:
What they’re trying to do is purge any alternative explanation. So the administration has the position that “violent extremism,” which is what they call it, is disconnected from any credible interpretation of Islam – that Islam is singularly a “religion of peace,” and there is to be no other interpretation of it. And, therefore, anything that shows the direct nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror is to be suppressed.
McCarthy noted the absurdity of the situation by looking back to his time as a prosecutor in the 1990s, when he proved “exactly that connection” in court: “that is, that there are these commands to violence in the Koran, they’re mediated by these influential jihadist sharia jurists, and then acts of terrorism get carried out.”
“For doing that, the Justice Department gave me the highest award that the Justice Department gives out,” he recalled, adding:
Now, what I proved in court is deemed to be something that’s so improper that it can’t go in the Justice Department’s official account of what happened, in what was obviously a jihadist attack. So we’ve gone from rewarding people who demonstrate what the truth is to suppressing the truth and making the people who would expose it persona non grata.
Obama and the Moderate Muslims
June 17, 2016Obama and the Moderate Muslims, Front Page Magazine, Caroline Glick, June 17, 2016
On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.
How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama’s White House?
************************
Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.
As far as the White House is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s top reporter, is President Barack Obama’s unofficial mouthpiece.
This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels’s profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.
In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that “handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic… helped retail the administration’s narrative.”
Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg’s explanation of Obama’s refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what Obama wants the public to believe about his position.
On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.
“Obama,” he wrote, “believes that [a] clash is taking place [not between Western and Muslim civilization but] within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists.”
Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.
Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with Obama’s position.
Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump’s outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.
But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.
Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.
Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.
Among other things he said, “I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing…. It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.
Impossible! “That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion,’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!…
“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible! “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…because this Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost – and it is being lost by our own hands.”
Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.
No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.
Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.
He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.
Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.
Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.
Obama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US’s key interests in Middle East.
Then there is Iran.
If Obama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women’s rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has Obama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg’s claim that Obama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Obama’s actual schemes for relating to – as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating – the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.
Yes, there are exceptions to this rule – like Obama’s belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not Obama’s overarching strategy.
In the case of the Kurds, Obama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that Obama began actively supporting the Kurds.
Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.
Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since Obama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But Obama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.
To the contrary, Obama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.
Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.
The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of Obama’s task for on “violent extremism” last year.
Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that “changed the world for good.”
According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms “jihad” and “Shari’a” in discussing terrorism – as if Obama needed the tip.
So far from helping Muslim moderates, Obama’s actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, Obama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom Obama has supported.
The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that Obama’s actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.
Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.
How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama’s White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.
The same leaders now support ISIS.
A counter-argument to Lake’s is that Bush’s policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains’ decision to side with the US forces.
Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.
They now side with ISIS because they don’t trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.
In other words, for them, the question wasn’t one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.
In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist – or moderate – Muslims. Maybe you can’t help one without calling out the other.
House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy
June 16, 2016House GOP Leaders Set To Endorse Obama’s Failed Anti-JIhad Strategy, Breitbart, Neil Munro, June 15, 2016
House GOP leaders are set to endorse President Barack Obama’s failed domestic anti-jihad strategy, according to Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert.
The GOP’s Obama endorsement is hidden in a new bill, titled the ‘‘Countering Terrorist Radicalization Act.” The showpiece bill’s title and language is undermined by numerous exceptions that allow the president to continue his failed “Countering Violent Extremism” strategy, Gohmert said.
The bill is a post-Orlando showpiece that actually entrenches Obama’s harmful policies, he said. “All this is doing is giving more and more credibility to this ridiculous term ‘CVE’ instead of describing the killers that were behind 9/11, the Boston bombings, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando shooting, the bomber in Times Square… all these people who are trying to kill us in America,” he said.
“We’re doing the same thing as the president… we’re not identifying radical Islam” as the enemy which nurtures and motivates attackers, Gohmert. “There is going to be more and more killings of Americans … until we can train our people to recognize radical Islam,” he said.
Under the CVE strategy, Obama has blocked FBI investigators from examining the supposedly non-political and peaceful networks of mosques that actually nurture jihadi attitudes, while redirecting FBI attention to less dangerous non-Islamic groups, such as small-government militias. The strategy has also put FBI agents under the supervision of an oversight panel influenced by Muslim political activists, including an immigrant who reportedly welcomed the slaughter of 3,000 Americans in 2001 by her Muslim co-religionists.
Moreover, Obama’s tight restrictions on investigators have not earned the expected cooperation from Islamic groups. In fact, many self-segregating Islamic groups have rejected Obama’s proposal to allow local Imams to police their young men in exchange for sharing information about jihadi groups with the FBI.
The GOP endorsement bill is slated for a vote as early as Thursday, June 16.
Under a subtitle, “AMPLIFYING LOCAL EFFORTS TO ROOT OUT TERROR,” the bill simply authorizes extra training, the creation of a committee and establishes some conditional reporting requirements, according to the draft given to Breitbart. The bill does not reform Obama’s CVE strategy, training rules or investigative priorities.
The bill was drafted by staff working for Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Press aides at the committee declined to comment on the bill, or even if the committee plans to hold oversight hearing on Obama’s failed CVE strategy in the run-up to the 2016 election.
In March, McCaul endorsed Obama’s tacit alliance with U.S-based Islamic religious groups, many of which share overlapping umbrella networks that are exempt from normal FBI anti-terror monitoring.
“The effective thing is … effective outreach to the Muslim community, so you can pull the religious leaders really on to our team, if you will, to protect us from radicalization from within those communities,” he said March 27. “I think we can get good intelligence from the Muslim communities in our outreach efforts, in our working with the religious leaders in the communities in the United States,” he said.
In contrast, federal prosecutors do not offer political favors to let the Catholic priests run law-enforcement tasks in Latino neighborhoods, for example, keeping track of MS-13 and various drug-gangs.
In practice, much of that hoped-for intelligence about emerging jihadis has been blocked by determined opposition from Islamist advocates. For example, Linda Sarsour, a prominent Islamic advocate who is called a “Champion of Change” by Obama’s deputies, is a strong opponent of the information-exchange.
The government’s practice of providing funds to Muslim community partners in the fight against violent extremism has also raised concerns about the true goal of these partnerships. Are they being formed in order to gather intelligence and information about community members, or to actually engage in valuable community outreach about civil rights protections? CVE programs can foster mistrust between government entities and community members.
In December 2015, George Selim, then the director of the Office for Community Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security, told NPR that Muslim communities are not identifying emerging jihadis.
The research and the statistics have all indicated that peers, people that are in close association with subjects that ultimately commit an act like this, see something that’s a little bit out of the norm, but they don’t necessarily report it. And so part of our goal is to create the type of partnerships in which peers know when and how to elevate those type of suspicions.
There’s growing evidence that wife of the Orlando jihadi knew of his pending attack, but did not warn Americans.
Gohmert is trying to reform the McCaul bill before the vote — but he’s skeptical the GOP leadership is willing to fight for an effective anti-jihad strategy.
“There are plenty of representatives who are concerned about this, but the Speaker [Rep. Paul Ryan] and the Majority Leader [Rep. Kevin McCarthy] control what comes to the floor for a vote. and they have no intentions of bringing a bill that says we’ll stop radical Islamists,” he said.
Anti-jihad groups are urging voters to protest the planned bill. “Congress is about to help President Obama whitewash his approach to Counterterrorism to hide any mention or focus on Islamists or their Jihad against the free world,” said Jim Hanson, an executive vice president at the Center for Security Policy. “The Countering Violent Extremism Bill ignores the very Islamic nature of the Sharia ideology that motivates our enemies to slaughter innocents from Paris to Orlando,” he added.
The problems in Obama’s CVE strategy, said Gohmert, include the tight curbs on FBI investigations and training, the gag order to prevent any discussion of Islamic ideas — such as ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia’ or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ — an intrusive oversight panel staffed by Islamic advocates, the legal shield for Islamic networks and political groups, and an eagerness to direct stigma and investigations against non-Islamic groups, such as “right wing militias,” plus its failure to win cooperation from self-segregating Islamic political groups.
For example, the gag-order means “the FBI is not allowed to learn or discuss or look for the things that radical islamics read, or the type of activities they’re doing when they going through radicalization,” Gohmert said.
In contrast, GOP 2016 candidate Donald Trump has called for more oversight over the Islamic networks. “We have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques and we have to check other places because this is a problem that, if we don’t solve it, it’s going to eat our country alive,” he said during his June 15 campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia.
Obama’s CVE strategy also created an advisory group of outsiders who have much influence over FBI investigations.
The committee has pushed for a FBI focus on non-Islamic groups, and just before the Orlando massacre, presented a report to top DHS officials asking for a gag-order that would prevent officials from studying, debating or even recognizing jihadi ideas. Officials should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English,” said the report, which also urged officials to use “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,” according to the The Daily Caller.
That’s the equivalent of President Franklin Roosevelt and his generals and their soldiers waging war against National Socialist Germany without mentioning “Blitzkrieg,” “U-boat,” “Fuhrer,” “Lebensraum,” “Panzer,” “Stuka,” or “Untermensch” or “Flak,” “Panzerfaust” or “SS.”
Committee co-chair Farah Pandith was born in the Muslim-vs.-Hindu battleground of Kashmir. For decades, that area has suffered from Muslim attacks, and many non-Arab Muslims consider that war to be as important as the Arab fight to destroy the Jewish state.
In 2012, co-chair Adnan Kifayat threatened this reporter with criminal charges for asking George Selim about the White House’s many quiet contacts with the Council on American Islamic Relations. “That was wrong… it is really bad form … You’re putting a career at risk by asking [questions] without telling him… you cannot ambush people and expect them to actually cooperate,” Kifayat told this reporter.
The CAIR group is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various financial and terror-related offenses. Critics show that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, and that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS.
Another member, Mohamed Elibiary, quit in 2014 after he tweeted that the Islamic empire, dubbed the “caliphate,” will return.
Obama’s deputies have recently appointed a young Muslim activist from Syria to the panel, Laila Alawa. She wears a hijab in observance to Islam, has tweeted a message supporting the 9/11 atrocity by her fellow Muslims, and tweeted a series of hateful messages about jihad opponents, according to a new report in The Daily Caller.
The new GOP bill eliminates any GOP oversight or leverage over Obama’s counter-productive CVE strategy by adding numerous loopholes in the weak GOP bill, Gohmert said. For example, the bill says;
COORDINATION.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, where appropriate, coordinate the efforts described in subsection (a) with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, and, to the extent practicable, engage nongovernmental and international partners in the identification and use of testimonials described in such subsection.
But the phrase “to the extent practicable” really means “only if you want to … if it is not too much trouble,” Gohmert said. The phrase “where appropriate” really means “if you feel like you want to,” he said.
“Shakespeare has the appropriate phrase— much ado about nothing,” he added.
“We all know most Muslims are not terrorists,” said Gohmert. “At the same time, it is ridiculous to not recognize there are radical islamists who are in America, who want to bring this country down and who think they go to paradise if they kill Americans.”
Muslim DHS Advisor Called Israel A ‘Suspect’ In September 11 Attacks
June 16, 2016Muslim DHS Advisor Called Israel A ‘Suspect’ In September 11 Attacks, Daily Caller, Peter Hasson, June 16, 2016
A current adviser to the Department of Homeland Security is a Muslim leader who has accused America of doing Israel’s “dirty work,” named Israel as a “suspect” in the September 11 terror attacks and has been criticized as an apologist for terrorists.
Salam Al-Marayati is the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. He currently serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Committee’s (HSAC) Foreign Fighter Task Force, as well as the HSAC Subcommittee on Faith Based Security and Communications. (Note: this is not the Muslim DHS advisor The Daily Caller wrote about on Monday.)
In 2001, Al-Marayati suggested that Israel — not Islamic extremists — was ultimately behind the September 11 terror attacks.
“If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies,” he said.
In 2013, Judicial Watch noted that Al-Marayati told attendees at a 2005 conference for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that “Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country. So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another.”
In 2012, in a debate on RT, Al-Marayati accused the United States of doing Israel’s “dirty work” for them.
“The other point here, which is very important historically, the United States has done a lot of dirty work that has served the interests of Israel,” he said. “It destroyed Iraq. It supported the destruction and crippling of Egypt. It has crippled the Gulf.”
In 2015, the Obama administration was sharply criticized for inviting Al-Marayati to a three-day summit on fighting extremism — a fact the White House initially tried to conceal from reporters.
Investor’s Business Daily took an editorial stand against the invite, arguing that: “Al-Marayati has a long record of defending terrorists and justifying violence against non-Muslims — an easy one for the White House to vet for extremism.”
According to White House visitor records, Al-Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.
The IBD editors went on to note that “In a 1999 PBS interview, moreover, he called Hezbollah terrorist attacks ‘legitimate resistance,’ doubling down on his months-earlier claim that Hezbollah’s 1983 suicide bombing of more than 240 Marines in Lebanon was not terrorism but a ‘military operation — exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington’s enemies.’”
Kyle Shideler, the director of the Center for Security Policy’s Threat Information Office, told The Daily Caller that “Al-Marayati’s association with the HSAC underlines what an unfortunate farce the entire [Combatting Violent Extremism] program is. Al-Marayati’s only notable counter-terrorism contribution is having suggested Israel be included as a suspect on 9/11.”
“His very organization, MPAC has historically co-sponsored events in support of the very kinds of extremists he’s been appointed to help oppose, which is no surprise given that the organizations roots lay with men who literally studied at the foot of Muslim Brotherhood leader Hassan Al-Banna,” Shideler said.
“As long as the Obama Administration is more concerned with keeping groups like Al-Marayati’s happy with them instead of investigating actually terrorism, we will never have a sane counter-terror policy.”
The Daily Caller previously reported on Monday that a current sitting member on the HSAC Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism, Laila Alawa, is a 25-year-old immigrant of Syrian heritage who said that the 9/11 attacks “changed the world for good” and has consistently disparaged America, free speech, and white people on social media.
The Department of Homeland Security has not replied to multiple requests for comment regarding Alawa and Al-Marayati’s advising roles.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments