Posted tagged ‘Islamist terrorists’

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist

February 27, 2017

Anti-Trump Women’s Movement Teams Up With Islamist Terrorist, Clarion Project, February 27, 2017

rasmea-odeh-screenshot-640-320Rasmea Odeh speaking at the International Working Women’s Day 2016 (Photo: Video screenshot)

The liberal left has teamed up with extremist and violent Islamists in its next salvo against newly-inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump.

On March 8, International Women’s Day, a follow-up event to the January 21 Women’s March on Washington, will be staged.

One of the co-authors of the “militant” manifesto behind the nationwide event is convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Yousef Odeh.

Odeh was convicted in Israel in 1970 for being involved in two fatal bombings. Odeh spent 10 years in jail before she was released in a prisoner exchange in 1980.

She moved to the U.S. by omitting her terror conviction on her immigration papers and served as the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago and later as an ObamaCare navigator. In 2014, she was convicted in the U.S. for concealing her past and thus illegally obtaining U.S. citizenship.

After claiming she forgot about her conviction and imprisonment in Israel due to post traumatic stress disorder, she was awarded a new trial which is currently pending.

The women’s event manifesto, printed as an open letter in The Guardian, calls for “striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work” and “boycotting” pro-Trump businesses.

All women are requested to wear red in solidarity for a day of “anti-capitalist feminism.”

Odeh’s co-authors include Angela Davis, a self-professed communist professor (now retired), who was a supporter of the original Black Panthers and a 1960s radical icon. Davis was prosecuted and acquitted in 1972 for an armed takeover of a California courtroom that resulted in the murder of a judge.

The January 21 Women’s March on Washington was organized by Islamist apologist and activist Linda Sarsour, a supporter of shariah law.

Shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics,tweeted Sarsour.

As for women with whom she does not agree, Sarsour tweeted, “Brigitte Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”

Democrats fear Trump’s success with Russia

February 16, 2017

Democrats fear Trump’s success with Russia, American ThinkerE. Jeffrey Ludwig, February 16, 2017

(Please see also, Pro-Kremlin Pravda.ru: ‘ Iran Is Becoming A Major Problem, First And Foremost For Russia’s Interests’. If Russia decides to ally with Trump’s American rather than with Khamenei’s Islamic Republic — the world’s most prolific sponsor of Islamist terrorism — it would be a good thing. — DM)

In one of his latest tweets, President Donald Trump stated, “The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by ‘intelligence’ like candy. Very un-American!”  He is rightly concerned that he is being portrayed as soft on Russia, and even of cooperating with the Russians in their nefarious plots.

Certainly, the characterization of Trump as “soft” on Russia is bewildering when one considers that during the Obama years, an arms agreement was signed between us and Russia; Russia and the U.S. were on the same page regarding the Iran deal; Obama relented on his Syrian red line, so called, by accepting Russian intervention to get Bashar al-Assad to eliminate his chemical weapons (whether or not he did is still the $64,000 question); and Russia was allowed to take Crimea with nary a peep from the USA.  Further, we all recall Obama saying to Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev when he thought the microphones were off that he would be able to work more closely with the Russians once he was re-elected.  Thus, it seems to any impartial observer (including Hillary) that the Obama administration was quite open to deals with Russia.

Yet, because of some positive remarks about Vladimir Putin from Trump, the public position taken by the Dems as a whole has been that Trump is soft on Russia.  Because their criticism of Trump contradicts their actions taken over eight years, it seems as if their criticism is more of a political ploy than merely a needed rebuke.  Trump is against the Iran deal and will be no pushover regarding Russian aggression, but there might be common ground between the U.S. and Russia in the fight against ISIS and other maniacal Islamic groups.  This possibility is deeply offensive to the Democrats who insist, against overwhelming evidence, that there is no threat to the U.S. or the West from adherents of Islam.

So, Trump’s positive comments should not be taken as meaning that we are all lovey-dovey with Putin or Russia as it exists today.  Rather, a reorientation of our relationship is needed.  The Democrats are afraid of such a reorientation of U.S. policy with Russia – one that will successfully lead to an abandonment of the Iran deal and the deliverance of a knockout blow to the Islamic maniacs in the Middle East and around the world.  Those successes would prove that the Democrats are weak and silly creatures.  Further, Trump has reintroduced a personal element into the insipid world of diplomacy and has a sense that Putin’s macho man persona matches more with his own than with the Obama effeminacy.

 

On Boycotting Radical Islamic Nations

January 31, 2017

On Boycotting Radical Islamic Nations, Gatestone InstitueNonie Darwish, January 31, 2017

The interviewer seemed shocked to hear that I do not have any Arab or Muslim friends who are protesting President Trump’s ban, and that many immigrants of Islamic origin support the ban and are fed up and embarrassed by what jihadists are doing.

The lesson America needs to know is that the West is not doing Muslims a favor by constantly treating them as children who should be shielded from reality. They hungry for the truth: that their educational system and mosque preaching are full of incitement, are abhorrent, hate-filled and the foundation upon which violent jihad is built.

Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims.

Muslims need to look at themselves in the mirror and see the world from the point of view of their victims. Instead, the West is sacrificing its culture, values, laws, pride and even self-respect.

It might compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees but it is reckless compassion. Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?

Some “tough love” is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.

Early this morning an Arabic radio station in the Middle East called asking my opinion about President Trump’s ban on refugees and citizens of seven Muslim nations. The radio host, who sounded angry over the ban, was a Christian Arab. She was surprised to hear that I supported the ban and think that it should have taken place the day after 9/11.

She then asked me if I knew any Arab American activist who was against the ban because she wanted to interview someone against the ban. She seemed shocked to hear that I do not have any Arab or Muslim friends who are protesting the ban, and that many immigrants of Islamic and Middle East origin support the ban and are fed up and embarrassed by what jihadists are doing.

She said that all she sees on CNN and other channels are riots that portray almost all Americans supporting Muslims and against Trump. I am upset over the success of the leftist propaganda all over the Middle East. It brings back memories of the life of the hate indoctrination and misinformation I lived under for most of my life.

What would Muslim countries do to the West, I asked, if 19 American terrorists flew airplanes into Arab capitals and their government and military headquarters? What did she think Arabs would do if every week or so American terrorists would conduct synchronized killing sprees all over the Muslim world, gunning Muslims down, blowing them up with homemade pressure cookers, ramming into crowds with trucks? There was silence.

She then started calming down and said that of course she is against terrorism, “but”. I asked: “Do you see what jihad did to your Christian community in the Middle East?” She was silent for a minute, then it occurred to me that she might be afraid to continue the conversation because her bosses were probably Muslims.

I was sure she was going to hang up on me, but to my surprise she asked me to please hold. Then she was back, live from the studio, and started interviewing me and asked the same questions on air. I poured my heart out in Arabic to the Arab listeners.

The lesson here is that Arabs are hungry to hear the truth; this Arab station, instead of rejecting these ideas, ended up putting them on air. The lesson America needs to learn is that the West is not doing Muslims (especially the reformists) a favor by constantly treating them as children who should be shielded from reality.

Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims. Muslims need to look at themselves in the mirror and see the world from the point of view of their victims. Instead, the West is sacrificing its culture, values, laws, pride and even self-respect. Muslim culture needs a wake-up call telling them that, sooner or later, non-Muslim nations will close their doors to any kind of Muslim immigration if the jihad culture continues. That will also be a strong message to Muslims already in the West who still believe in jihad.

2256President Donald Trump signs an executive order restricting immigration, January 27, 2017. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

The Muslim people are hungry for the truth: that their educational system and mosque preaching are full of incitement, abhorrent, hate-filled and the foundation upon which violent jihad is built. The Islamic commandment to do jihad sacrifices Muslim men, women and children to kill and get killed.

As long as the West continues its appeasement of Islamic jihad, Islam will never reform and the West will lose. So far, the West has continued to extend a lifeline to the religion of Islam; a religion for which the number one enemy is the truth, and which struggles to suppress the truth.

It might be compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees, but it is reckless compassion. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia taking refugees temporarily until things settle down in Syria and Iraq? Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies, as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?

Who is really benefiting from the policy of appeasement, the acceptance of Sharia-stricken theocracies and their jihadist, hate-filled education? Some “tough love” is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.

Where is Suit-Wearing Jihadi Suhail Khan Today?

January 17, 2017

Where is Suit-Wearing Jihadi Suhail Khan Today? Understanding the Threat, January 17, 2017

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

khan

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

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

mahboobMahboob Khan

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

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

alamoudi-jailAl Qaeda Financier & Close Friend of Suhail Khan – Abdurahman Alamoudi

See the UTT video of Suhail Khan HERE. (Video embedded below. — DM)

Suhail serves on the board of Muflehun with the former President of ISNA (ie a jihadi) Mohamed Magid. The two were deeply involved in the creation of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council – a Muslim Brotherhood operation to deceive naive Jewish leaders into believing jihadis like Khan and Magid had “come to their senses” and no longer hate Jews or deny the holocaust.

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-11-51-33-pm-768x1169

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

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

khannorquistJihadi Suhail Khan with Grover Norquist

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

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

UK: Lawyer for jihad killer says he was “confused by vehicles driving on different side of road than he was used to”

January 7, 2017

UK: Lawyer for jihad killer says he was “confused by vehicles driving on different side of road than he was used to”, Jihad Watch

(Remember the old Art Linkletter segments on Kids say the Darndest Things? 

— DM)

 

A convicted murderer from Holland was able to walk through Britain’s porous borders without any checks and went on to attack two police officers with a claw-hammer.

Court documents in Holland said he was ‘inspired by Taliban movies in which beheadings were seen’…

Simon Blackford, defending, said there was a ‘long gap’ between the murder and the latest offences.

He said: ‘This offence was committed at a time of stress for my client. He was in a foreign country. He seems to have been vulnerable. He seems to have been hallucinating.

‘He was very confused by the vehicles driving on a different side of the road than he was used to.’

It is astonishing that Simon Blackford would offered the gelastic defense of his client when he was inspired by Taliban jihad videos and is by no means the first killer in the Netherlands or Britain to be inspired by the jihad doctrine. The likes of Jamshid Piruz have been freely moving in and out of Western countries for years. Take just one of innumerable examples: the Berlin jihadi Anis Amri, who was a known terror threat, yet authorities failed to detain or deport him before he ploughed a lorry into a Christmas market.

Also, research is showing that as many as 30,000 jihad fighters of the Islamic State could soon flood back into their “home countries,” ready to continue their jihad there.

Clearly there is a critical problem stemming from loose Western borders from a homeland security standpoint. Yet foes of border controls continue simply to charge their opponents with “racism.”

jamshid-piruz-1

More on this story. “Why wasn’t foreign killer turned away at the UK border? Afghan who beheaded Dutch woman is allowed into Britain… where he assaulted a Gatwick staff member and two police officers with a HAMMER”, Daily Mail, by Ian Drury, January 5, 2017:

A convicted murderer from Holland was able to walk through Britain’s porous borders without any checks and went on to attack two police officers with a claw-hammer.

Afghan-born Jamshid Piruz was allowed to enter the UK unchallenged despite being sentenced to 12 years in jail for slaughtering his female tenant in cold-blood after watching a Taliban beheading video.

Fury erupted after it emerged that the jobless 34-year-old was the latest in a string of foreign criminals to commit horrific offences in Britain after exploiting EU free movement rules.

MPs condemned the shocking lack of checks on offenders from the EU which left gaping holes in UK border controls.

European countries have no obligation to alert the UK about convictions of murderers or sex offenders, meaning many are able to travel to the UK unhindered.

Outraged critics blasted the embattled Home Office for allowing the scandal, by failing to ensure the authorities were notified about EU convicts before they set foot on our shores.

Politicians have called for Home Secretary Amber Rudd to introduce a tougher US-style warning system to flag up whether any traveller has a conviction as they attempt to enter Britain.

Failure to control the country’s borders – and the number of serious criminals arriving here – was a major reason why millions of people voted for Britain to leave the Brussels bloc last June.

Piruz, who was a permanent Dutch resident, will be sentenced on Friday after pleading guilty to an appalling hammer attack on PC Jessica Chick and PC Stewart Young, of Sussex Police, on January 7 last year.

PC Young was taken to hospital with head injuries but later recovered.

The officers were later praised in Parliament by ministers for their bravery.

Piruz had been in the UK a matter of days when he launched the frenzied assault on the officers as they investigated a burglary in Crawley, West Sussex.

Days earlier he had assaulted a member of staff at Gatwick Airport – but was released onto the streets by local magistrates.

Piruz got into Britain despite being a convicted murderer in Holland. In June 2006, he murdered his Chinese female tenant by cutting off her head at a house in Almere, a city close to Amsterdam.

Court documents in Holland said he was ‘inspired by Taliban movies in which beheadings were seen’.

The files said he locked his victim in her room, snatched her mobile phone, then cut her throat.

They said he acted ‘intentionally and with premeditation’.

Rejecting his plea of insanity, Dutch judges concluded: ‘The killing of the victim was not the result of an instantaneous violent emotion, but a decision to do so.’

Piruz was convicted of murder in August 2007 and sentenced to 12 years’ behind bars.

He was released in 2014, after serving seven years. As a permanent Dutch resident, the killer was allowed to travel freely across the EU.

Last night WED Tory MP Henry Smith, who represents Crawley, said: ‘The country has got to have tougher border controls. Clearly, being a member of the EU did not protect us on this occasion.

‘A very dangerous individual was allowed to travel here without us having prior knowledge that he’d committed murder in the Netherlands.

‘It is staggering that someone could assault staff at Gatwick and then a couple of days later attack two police officers.

‘Why was the information that he was a violent offender not available to us from our EU partners?

‘This is an appalling example of the kind of people who are getting into the country undetected.’

Piruz pleaded guilty at Hove to two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, burglary and affray.

Two counts of attempted burglary and one of threatening with an offensive weapon will lie on file.

Simon Blackford, defending, said there was a ‘long gap’ between the murder and the latest offences.

He said: ‘This offence was committed at a time of stress for my client. He was in a foreign country. He seems to have been vulnerable. He seems to have been hallucinating.

‘He was very confused by the vehicles driving on a different side of the road than he was used to.’

When EU nationals arrive at the border, their passport details are checked against a ‘watchlist’ of suspected terrorists and foreign criminals compiled by the border agency.

But unless an offender is high profile, is known to have committed crimes in several countries, or is on the Interpol wanted list, the system is unlikely to be aware of their previous convictions – leaving a gaping hole in our border controls.

Except in the most extreme circumstances, Brussels does not force member states to share information on known criminals who might be planning to travel.

France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland flag up potential dangermen to the UK so they can be put on a watchlist and turned away at the port or airport.

But if countries do not warn the UK that a dangerous offender is on the way – and some do not even keep information of convictions for their own internal use – there is little we can do to stop them slipping through the net…..

Trump Sec of Defense Pick: Enemy of Islamism and Iran

December 4, 2016

Trump Sec of Defense Pick: Enemy of Islamism and Iran, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, December 4, 2016

united-states-general-james-mattis-640-320-getty-drew-angerer_0General James Mattis with President-elect Trump (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

General Mattis completely and utterly rejects the romanticized interpretation of the Iranian regime as “moderate” or part of the solution to Sunni terrorism. In April, he described the Iranian regime as the “single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East;” one greater than Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

***************************

President-Elect Trump has chosen Marine Corps General James “Mad Dog” Mattis for secretary of defense, eliciting widespread enthusiasm focusing on his status as the “most revered Marine in a generation” and factory of quotable quotes.

Deserving of more positive attention is his emphasis on confronting Political Islam and the Iranian regime.

General Mattis has advocated for significant changes in both the military fight against the specific Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, as well as the fight against the Islamist ideology that births them. Although ISIS’ caliphate is on the decline, General Mattis doesn’t settle for an encouraging positive trend. He wants to win quickly and decisively, yet humanely with care for civilians.

In August, he said the strategy still is “unguided by a sustained policy or sound strategy [and is] replete with half measures.”

Mattis was one of the chief architects of the counter-insurgency campaign that turned Iraq around so rapidly that it even surprises many of its supporters.

In testimony to the Senate in 2015, he said, “The fundamental question I believe is, ‘Is political Islam in our best interest?’ If not, what is our policy to authoritatively support the countervailing forces?”

In another speech, General Mattis said that the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been a failure to define Political Islam as the enemy of U.S. interests. He made the correct observation that such a delineation between friend and foe would allow us to identify supportable Muslim allies.

“If we won’t even ask the question [if Political Islam is in U.S. interests], then how do we ever get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight, we are leaving others adrift,” he said.

He then referenced his recent trip to Egypt and the widespread perception that the U.S. actually intends to empower the Muslim Brotherhood. The failure to base policy around a rejection of Political Islam inevitably leads to a tolerance or even an embrace of Islamists who surpass the low bar of condemning Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The Muslims who oppose Islamists are, as Mattis put it, left adrift.

Countless articles have been written claiming that a policy based on fighting “radical Islam,” “Political Islam,” “Islamism” and similar terms will inflame the Muslim world. Islamists and allied institutions will undoubtedly cry foul, as they always have at every minor slight, but the delineation will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Overlooked allies amongst Muslims and non-Muslim minorities will surface as U.S. policy forces the Muslim world to take stances on Islamism and its adhering organizations. New allies will be born as the discussion of Islamism leads to rejections of it. If messaged correctly, the U.S. will end up with more Muslim allies of better quality.

This view of Islamism as the adversary, rather than just specific terrorist groups targeting the U.S. homeland, is why General Mattis rejects the notion of a “moderate” Iranian regime. He was fired by the Obama Administration for his tough questions about the ramifications of current U.S. policy towards Iran.

General Mattis completely and utterly rejects the romanticized interpretation of the Iranian regime as “moderate” or part of the solution to Sunni terrorism. In April, he described the Iranian regime as the “single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East;” one greater than Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

We recently pointed out that four of Trump’s picks want to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and wage a long overdue ideological offensive against Islamism, also known as Political Islam.

Trump then chose K.T. McFarland as deputy national security adviser and Katharine Gorka as part of his Department of Homeland security “landing team” to manage the transition between administrations. Both are strong advocates of an ideological war against Islamism and Gorka has advocated for the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

The U.S. war against Islamist extremism now enters a new, decisive phase, but let not our enthusiasm for this strategy blind us from the risks.

The successful implementation of the anti-Islamism strategy is not solely dependent upon Trump’s national security team. It’s dependent upon him.

If his decisions prevent demonstrable success, the ideological strategy will be considered a failed concept. Its advocates will have their credibility tarnished, perhaps unfairly, and the Western response to Islamism will be put on an indefinite hold as the ideology marches on.

Jihadist Tactics 101 – Going on the Dole

October 17, 2016

Jihadist Tactics 101 – Going on the Dole, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Patrick Dunleavy, October 17, 2016

1869

Milking the system for all they can get now appears to be a strategy employed by radical Islamic extremists. While counter terrorism investigators were busy searching for the funding terrorist organizations used to plan attacks and get out their message of violence against all non-believers, there is one place nobody thought to look: the social welfare line.

We now know that some of the individuals involved in the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels were supported by benefits supplied by Europe’s social welfare net.

Some of the money came from unemployment claims and some came from student assistance claims submitted by the terrorists while they were planning the attacks.

“We’ve identified that the benefit system is vulnerable to abuse for terrorist financing purposes,” Tom Keatinge, director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London said. And then he posed the question, “What are we going to do about that?”

One of those who received benefits was Anjem Choudary, the radical Islamic preacher who for more than 20 years proselytized and recruited people to a radical form of Islam that encourages jihad as a necessary tenet of the faith. He did it on street corners, mosques, and in front of television cameras.

Choudary received more than £25,000, or roughly $40,000 a year, in social benefits. He had the audacity to call those payments “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.” He described it to his flock of potential jihadists as a form of jizya.

According to the Quran and the Hadiths, the jizya is a per capita yearly tax historically levied by Islamic states on certain non-Muslim subjects permanently residing in Muslim lands under Islamic law. Choudary taught that milking the social welfare system was another form of collecting the payment that was owed to Muslims.

Sly like a fox, he avoided prosecution for years because no direct contact between him and a terrorist organization could be proven. But then British authorities uncovered a video of Choudary pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. He was convicted of providing material support to a terrorist organization and was sentenced to a mere 5½ years in a specialized maximum security unit.

A similar case is taking place right here in the United States. Suleiman Anwar Bengharsa has been an Islamic cleric in the Baltimore area for more than 10 years. During that time he has drawn FBI attention for his fiery sermons, which, like Choudary’s, walk right up to the legal line of incitement. But it has yet to be proven that he crossed it.

Bengharsa founded the Islamic Jurisprudence Center, which calls for the death of homosexuals. He has also been implicated in the case of Sebastian Gregerson, a Muslim convert who was arrested in July for possessing explosive devices. According to the New York Times, an FBI affidavit from last year that was mistakenly filed publicly said that Bengharsa gave Gregerson $1,300 in June 2015. Gregerson, who also goes by the name Abdurrahaman Bin Mikaayl, then used the money to buy grenades and other weapons.

The reason for them, according to the agent who wrote the affidavit was clear: “Based on the totality of the aforementioned information and evidence, there is reason to believe that Bengharsa and Gregerson are engaged in discussions and preparations for some violent act on behalf of the Islamic State.”

And yet Bengharsa, like Choudary did for so many years, has avoided being charged with any crime.

Bengharsa is a former civil servant employed by both the federal government and the state of Maryland. He worked for the U.S. Department of Commerce as an international trade specialist, a position that paid over $80,000 a year.

Bengharsa resigned in 2006 after admitting to plagiarism, records show. He filed for unemployment compensation, which was contested by the Department of Commerce and upheld by a D.C. administrative judge. From there Bengharsa applied to the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to be a prison chaplain. He worked in the state prison system until 2009 when he filed for worker’s compensation, alleging he was hurt lifting a box of books.

The more alarming fact is that someone like Bengharsa, who holds radical Islamic views and preaches a message of hate, was even considered to work in the prison environment.

Authorities have known for quite some time that prisons are fertile soil for recruiting potential Islamic terrorists, and that one of the catalysts in the radicalization process is the presence of clergy or religious volunteers holding extremist views. Bengharsa’s dismissal from that sensitive position should have occurred before he was able to apply for a financial benefit from Maryland taxpayers. The social safety net was designed to help those in our society who truly need a hand up. Not a radical Islamist who wants a handout.