Posted tagged ‘San Bernardino CA Islamic attack’

George Soros network pushed “Islamophobia” propaganda after San Bernardino jihad massacre

September 30, 2016

George Soros network pushed “Islamophobia” propaganda after San Bernardino jihad massacre, Jihad Watch

“ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.”

For years I have wondered why every single mainstream media reporter I have ever encountered was completely in the tank for the “Islamophobia” myth, and wholly unconcerned about jihad terrorism. Now we know why: they were bought and paid for. These revelations should bring the whole elite media superstructure tumbling down. It won’t, but every new push brings it closer to collapse.


“Hacked Memos: George Soros Network Hyped ‘Islamophobia’ After Muslim Terror Attacks,” by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, September 28, 2016:

NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.

Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.

One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.

The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.

Here are some actions, as cited in the document:

*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.

*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.

* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.

* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.

* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”

The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.

The document reveals:

Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.

US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.

The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.

Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”

According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:

Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.

Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor

June 27, 2016

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, June 27, 2016


Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.


I have written a follow-up article to my March 18, 2016 piece with the sarcastic title, “Are DHS Leaders Seeking an MVP Award From ISIS?The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, why exactly did USCIS managers block a team of ICE agents from entering their facility?

I began my original commentary by saying that I was not trying to go “over the top” with the title of my article and that I had not lost my mind but that I was infuriated that a manager of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) would block ICE agents from entering that facility.

It is worth noting that both USCIS and ICE are component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

At the time I wrote my original article, the actual identity of the manager who blocked five ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents was not known, however, it has been disclosed that the manager is Irene Martin.

It must be noted that these ICE agents were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the office that they sought to enter was located in San Bernardino, the very same city where less than 24 hours earlier, on December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook carried out a terror attack that resulted in the murder of 14 and the wounding of 22 innocent victims.

Furthermore, Enrique Marquez, the individual the ICE agents were hoping to locate at the office, was believed to have provided the weapons used in carrying out that terrorist attack.  They had discovered that Marquez was scheduled to appear for an interview that day in conjunction with the application he filed for his wife to provide her with lawful immigrant status.

The agents were not only concerned about questioning and arresting Marquez because of the crimes he was alleged to have already committed in providing weapons and possibly other material support to the two terrorists, but the agents were greatly concerned that Marquez may have provided similar assistance to other terrorists who had not yet carried out additional attacks.  Time was obviously extremely critical and potentially innocent lives were hanging in the balance.  The clock was ticking and time was not on the side of the agents — or of possible additional victims, for that matter.

As for the supposed “marriage” between Marquez and his “wife” Chernykh, they have subsequently been charged with conspiracy to commit immigration/marriage fraud.  I addressed this issue in my May 3, 2016 article, “Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family.”

On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,  “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.”

Additionally, it must be pointed out that if ICE agents had information about anyone who was seeking an immigration benefit for an alien, even if terrorism is not a component of the case, the adjudications officers should welcome any information that would provide relevant information about the bona fides of the petition/application that is to be adjudicated.  Immigration fraud is a felony without any other factors being involved.  Furthermore the 9/11 Commission noted that immigration fraud and visa fraud were key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists.

I am intimately familiar with these issues inasmuch as I served as an adjudications officer for one year, many years ago.  I volunteered to be a part of a pilot project that paired adjudications officers with Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to uncover fraud.  During that assignment my colleagues and I collaborated closely with the agents.  When I became an INS Special Agent I worked closely with the adjudications officers who, back then, were referred to as Examiners.

However, in this case, Ms. Martin refused the ICE agents entry into her facility for reasons that have never been made clear.  This is especially insane given the nexus this all has with a terror attack that was conducted in the very same city as her office less than 24 hours earlier.

On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), requested that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up.  On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.

That OIG report noted, in part:

At approximately 12:20 p.m., December 3, 2015, less than 24 hours after the shooting, HSI was notified that the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), San Bernardino, CA, had developed information that Mariya Chernykh, a Russian national attempting to adjust her immigration status, was married to EnriqueMarquez, an associate of Syed Rizwan Farook, and that she had an appointment at 12:30 p.m. on December 3, 2015, at the USCIS Office, San Bernardino, CA.

The JTTF believed that Marquez might accompany her to the appointment. HSI dispatched a team to go to the USCIS office to prevent any possible further attacks as well as to detain Marquez and Chernykh for questioning.

The OIG report noted that the five ICE agents were wearing tactical gear and that they explained the importance of their mission and that time was critical.  They were delayed by approximately 30 minutes and when they were finally admitted into the offices, they were brought to an interview room.

This is how the GAO report described this meeting:

The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.

The OIG report also noted that Ms. Martin made statements that were contradicted by statements made by others — she apparently lied to OIG investigators.  Such lies are felonies and also subject employees to dismissal.

USCIS adjudicates more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. This process has serious national security implications.

Page 47 of “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph that draws a clear nexus between immigration fraud and national security:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

The administration has apparently decided to take action concerning Ms. Martin, however, it is not the action that would make sense. But then when has this administration taken actions that makes sense especially where immigration and terrorism are concerned?

In my March 18th article I sarcastically suggested that whoever interfered with the ongoing terror investigation should be given the Most Valuable Player Award by ISIS.  So far ISIS has not weighed in, but, unbelievably, on June 23, 2016 Fox News reported, “Immigration boss who barred feds from terror suspect up for award, but agency won’t say why.”

Here is an excerpt from report about the egregious actions of the administration:

Irene Martin heads the San Bernardino U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, where last December, she allegedly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents from the man authorities say supplied the firepower in the deadly attack a day earlier. Although an Inspector General’s report found she acted improperly, and then lied to investigators, has learned she has been nominated for the Secretary’s Award for Valor.

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

Obama White House Turns To Islamists Who Demonize Terror Investigations

December 28, 2015

Obama White House Turns To Islamists Who Demonize Terror Investigations, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, December 28, 2015

(CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate. Please see also, Naming the Muslim Brotherhood a National Security Threat. — DM)

Jihadist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris have Americans on edge. Yet part of the Obama White House’s response to the attacks has been to invite Islamist groups that routinely demonize the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to the White House to discuss a religious discrimination. “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away,” President Obama said in his speech following the San Bernardino attack.

But partnering with such organizations sends the wrong message to the American people, said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID).

“I think it says a lot when the president uses those organizations that have an ACLU-type mentality. They should have a seat at the table. That’s fine,” Jasser said.  “But not to include groups, which have completely different focuses about counter-radicalization, counter-Islamism creates this monolithic megaphone for demonization of our government and demonization of America that ends up radicalizing our community.”

A White House spokesperson acknowledged to the Investigative Project on Terrorism that the Dec. 14 meeting on countering anti-Muslim animus included Hassan Shibly, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida chapter. The same forum – attended by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – also included Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates; Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI); Mohamed Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); and Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) among others.


The White House guests, or the organizations they represent, have long histories of criticizing counter-terror investigations. CAIR leads the pack. Its Philadelphia chapter is advertising a workshop, “The FBI and Entrapment in the Muslim Community,” which features a spider with an FBI badge on its back, spinning a web of entrapment around an image of a mosque. The workshop “provides the tools needed to prevent entrapment of community members to become terrorists in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Since 9/11, CAIR has repeatedly taken the side of defendants accused of financing or plotting attacks, calling their prosecutions a “witch hunt” against the Muslim community.  For example, CAIR denounced the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, who turned out to be the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “politically motivated” and a result of the “Israelization of American policy and procedures.”

A year ago, CAIR similarly protested the incarceration of Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda” – convicted in 2010 of trying to kill two FBI agents. The protest came after the Islamic State (ISIS) offered to spare the lives of executed American photojournalist James Foley and aid worker Kayla Mueller in exchange for Siddiqui’s release.

CAIR also denounced the December 2001 shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation for Hamas support, saying, “…there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam.”

Demonizing law enforcement and spreading “the idea that America and Western societies [are] anti-Muslim – the whole Islamophobia mantra is part of the early steps of radicalization so that Muslims get separated out of society,” Jasser said. “These groups certainly aren’t on the violent end of the Islamist continuum, but if there’s a conveyer belt that goes towards radicalization then it certainly starts with this siege and separatist mentality.”

CAIR has used such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric for years, with its San Francisco chapter removing a poster urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance – Don’t Talk to the FBI” in 2011 after the IPT reported on it.

Later that year, a CAIR-New York official told a Muslim audience that FBI agents would break the law to force them to talk. That includes threats and “blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal,” Lamis Deek told the audience. “But they’ll do it.”

Jasser blames CAIR and others which spread similar rhetoric for the increased fear of Islam and Muslims in America since 9/11 because they refuse to discuss Islamic extremism and the role Muslims have in fixing the problem.


“This creates a climate where people don’t trust us to be part of the solution,” Jasser said. “People say that if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem, which creates more fear and distrust.”

Neither Jasser nor the AIFD, which advocates for “liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state,” were invited to the White House meeting. Also shut out were Jasser’s colleagues in the new Muslim Reform Movement, whose members “reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam” and stand “for secular governance, democracy and liberty. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.”

The White House did not reply to a request for comment about Jasser’s characterization of these groups; however, it previously said it engaged CAIR because of “their work on civil rights issues” despite the group’s Hamas ties.

Former FBI Associate Deputy Director Buck Revell also finds the White House’s choice of Muslim groups troubling.

“It’s a very confusing time and circumstance when you have the White House dealing with people who have fronted for the Muslim Brotherhood and are the spokespeople for Hamas in the United States and you bring them in for a conference at the White House and say they are supposed to speak for the Muslim community in America,” Revell said. “It’s unhelpful to have the White House essentially fronting for groups that want to make it harder to reach the jihadists in our society and in effect flush them out.”

Khera’s group Muslim Advocates has a pending lawsuit against the New York Police Department regarding its surveillance of mosques and other Islamic institutions using undercover police officers and informants.

“One of our key priorities at Muslim Advocates is ending racial and religious profiling by law enforcement,” Khera says in a YouTube video supporting the suit. “We’ve done work to combat profiling by the FBI, by Customs and Border Protection and now more recently we’ve had concerns about the way the New York Police Department – the nation’s largest police department – has been conducting itself.”

Like CAIR, Khera has called the FBI’s sting operations and informants against potential jihadists “entrapment operations” that rope in individuals who might otherwise never engage in terrorist activity.

CAIR’s Shibly also used the entrapment narrative in a June 2014 blog post in which he argued that the “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny. Many other CAIR representatives, such as Michigan director Dawud Walid, previously alleged the FBI has “recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.”

AAI stops short of embracing the entrapment narrative but labels surveillance programs by the NYPD and other government agencies “unconstitutional, ineffective, and counterproductive.” New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio disbanded the NYPD unit responsible for infiltrating the city’s mosques and Muslim gathering places looking for potential terrorists in April 2014 under pressure from Muslim groups.

Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which countsMagid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”

However, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which formerly accused the FBI of entrapment, conceded in 2013 that informants can be useful detecting terror cells and keeping them off balance.

“To be fair, informants at times can be effective in counterterrorism investigations even against cellular structures. Because terrorist groups are concerned about their operational security, fear of informants can create and increase tensions within a terrorist cell. As a result, it may generate enough paranoia that a cell may abandon a planned operation,” MPAC said in its 2013 report “Building Bridges to Strengthen America.”

Looking for jihadis before they strike is a bit like looking for a “needle in a haystack,” so sting operations are useful in finding them before it’s too late, according to Revell.  He says such operations can be useful in preventing the next San Bernardino.

“If you don’t find them when they are talking jihad and you have to wait until they take an action then it’s too late to be able to prevent casualties and ensure that the public is safe,” Revell said. “There certainly is knowledge among those looking to do any type of jihadi activity that there is a force out there that is countering them and that they need to try to cover their activities to the greatest extent possible.”

In the past year, the Islamic State (ISIS) has published at least two documents instructing its jihadis how to evade being lured into stings by the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies.  The ISIS manual “Safety and Security guidelines of the Lone Wolf Mujahideen” devotes a chapter to evading FBI stings by testing the weapons they receive prior to using them in an attack.

Khera’s organization stood front and center in 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive.  She complained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter that counterterrorism materials then being used to train FBI agents about Islam used “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims.” Such allegedly misinformed statements included characterizing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat” and that “Accommodation and compromise between [Islam and the West] are impermissible and fighting [for Muslims] is obligatory.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators, including from the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” published with editorial assistance from IIIT, says that zakat can be usedamong other things to help “(4) those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Top Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi similarly states in his book,Fiqh of Jihad, that zakat may be spent to finance “the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of the unbelievers,” particularly against Israel and India in Kashmir.

Numerous Islamic charities have been cited or closed down in connection with terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks. Qaradawi’s actions back up his words. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Union of Good, a network of charities headed by Qaradawi, for Hamas fundraising. That same year a federal court jury convicted the founders of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for illegally financing Hamas.

“The government’s policy has inflicted considerable harm,” MPAC’s Salam al-Marayatiwrote in 2001 after federal authorities closed the Benevolence International Fund (BIF). “By effectively shutting down these charities, it has given Americans the false impression that American Muslims are supporting terrorists. It has also given the Muslim world a similarly false impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority.”

Representatives of MPAC, CAIR and Muslim Advocates each condemned the HLF prosecution or its subsequent verdict.

In the end, the White House’s decision to empower these groups sends a mixed message to the American people that it isn’t fully interested in rooting out the causes of jihadist terror and preventing future attacks.

Humor | Can New Gun Laws Guard Muslims from Temptation, Win the True Jihad?

December 16, 2015

Can New Gun Laws Guard Muslims from Temptation, Win the True Jihad? Scott Ott at PJ Media via You Tube, December 15, 2015


The San Bernardino Terrorists Weren’t Radicals — They Were Mainstream

December 15, 2015

The San Bernardino Terrorists Weren’t Radicals — They Were Maintream, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, December 15, 2015

(Please see also, Islam — Radical, Extremist and Mainstream. — DM)


[W]hat if Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never “radicalized”? What if neither of them “influenced” the other? What if both were exactly what they appear to be, devout Muslims who hated America and believed that it was their religious duty to kill Americans? What if this attitude did not show up last week or last year? What if it was the way that their culture and religion taught them to live?


After Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook killed 14 Americans in their corner of the Jihad over in San Bernardino, the media began its long laborious search for their moment of “radicalization”.

The assumption that the intersection of terrorism and Islam can only be an aberration lead to the conviction that there was some moment in time at which Malik and Farook became “radical extremists”. Initial reports pegged that moment of “radicalization” as having happened at some point during the twenty minutes after Farook left the party. When the amount of firepower and preparation made the idea of a twenty minute radicalization massacre seem silly, the media tried to stretch it back for weeks.

Now they’ve had to give in and pull back that dreadful moment of radicalization for years.

But what if Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never “radicalized”? What if neither of them “influenced” the other? What if both were exactly what they appear to be, devout Muslims who hated America and believed that it was their religious duty to kill Americans? What if this attitude did not show up last week or last year? What if it was the way that their culture and religion taught them to live?

There are some easy ways to test that theory.

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were Pakistani Muslims. Farook was a second-generation Pakistani immigrant who was born here, but when it came time for him to marry, he picked a Pakistani Muslim girl who shared his commitment to Islam and contempt for America. And that’s not unusual.

A fifth of Pakistanis want to leave their country, but they don’t like America. In a Gallup poll three years ago, 92% of Pakistanis disapproved of us. More significantly, 55% believed that more interaction between Muslim countries and the West posed a threat. In a Gallup poll, 62% of Pakistanis disliked us.

While officially Pakistan is our ally, it’s a fairly thin line between ISIS and the ordinary Pakistani.

83% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers, 80% support cutting the hands off thieves and 78% want to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Looking at numbers like these, we have to ask when the 4 out of 5 Pakistanis, or 144 million people were radicalized? That’s certainly a huge tiny minority of extremists.

A majority of Pakistanis grieved for Osama bin Laden and 44% believed that the dead terrorist leader was a martyr.

Pakistan carefully hid Osama bin Laden. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been accused of meeting with the Al Qaeda leader by former officers of its ISI intelligence agency. Documents show that his brother attempted to negotiate with Al Qaeda and “reestablish normal relations” with the terror group.

The politics of Pakistan might seem far away to us, but Tashfeen Malik’s uncle is an important political figure with Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party. The family is described as having connections to “militant Islam”, but then again so does the entire Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party.

Its antecedents were in the Muslim League which committed horrifying atrocities in India to carve out an Islamic State. The atrocities committed by the Muslim League’s Islamic butchers might have even turned the stomach of ISIS. Long before ISIS, the Muslim League created its “impossible dream” of a Muslim Pakistan through mass murder, mass rape and terror aimed at Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims. Horrors such as the Noakhali genocide and Direct Action Day were worse than ISIS.

They are also the reason why Pakistan exists. The current ruling party in Pakistan is the political stepchild of those abominations and atrocities. It’s also a quite popular political party.

Was it really Tashfeen Malik who was “radicalized” or was it Pakistan?

Around a quarter of Pakistanis support terrorist attacks on civilians in the United States. Under a third support attacks on American civilians working in Muslim countries. Around half supported attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That’s a minority, but it still means that as many as 45 million Pakistanis support Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States. And Pakistani Muslims are one of the fastest growing groups in the United States.

The problem is obvious and we can’t make it go away with gun control and wishful thinking.

Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook weren’t radical, they were mainstream. Most Pakistanis don’t run around killing people. But their country was made possible by genocide and it exists because of its repression of non-Muslim minorities at home and its sponsorship of terror against Hindus in India.

Over 40% of Pakistanis support Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic terror group responsible for the Mumbai Massacre. It’s a Jihadist organization which declares that, “Jihad will continue until the Jews and Hindus throughout the globe meet their worst end”. Throughout the globe is a lot more expansive than India.

One of the worst Muslim terror plots in North America was a plan to kill thousands of Hindus in Toronto by Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terror group of black converts to Islam. It’s also responsible for a number of other attacks in the United States.

The ugly truth is that Malik and Farook weren’t radicals or extremists. Their attitudes and beliefs are mainstream in Pakistan. It’s only compared to the beliefs and attitudes of the average American that they appear deranged. But that’s a moral and cultural difference. It doesn’t mean that Farook and Malik were aberrant by Pakistani Muslim standards, only that they appear aberrant by our higher standards.

And attacking our standards is a big part of what Islamic terrorism is about.

We are not fighting radicals or extremists, but people who have a fundamentally different view of the world than we do. In their world, Muslims should rule over non-Muslims, leaving Islam should be met with murder and free speech should be illegal. These are values that the vast majority of Pakistani Muslims agree on.

Not all of them have considered how these values must be imposed, but most Germans didn’t think too hard about how Hitler would keep his promises and most Russians didn’t ponder too closely just how Lenin intended to fulfill his plans. Historically people who want a totalitarian result end up accepting the totalitarian means of bringing it about. The “radicals” just think harder about the means. The “moderates” accept the ends and don’t want to think about the means of achieving those ends.

But when the moderates are forced to choose whether they are willing to accept the means to preserve the ends, they shout “Heil Hitler”, they inform on their neighbors and dispatch them to gulags, they shout “Allahu Akbar” and celebrate the murder of Americans by the “radical extremists”.

Malik and Farook wanted an Islamic State where infidels would be kept down, Islam would be the law of the land and brutal Islamic punishments would be dispensed. That is what most Pakistani Muslims want.

The San Bernardino terrorist attack wasn’t caused by some phantom virus of “internet radicalization”, but by the toxic attitudes and values that permeate Pakistani Muslim society and have made it such a warm and willing host for Islamic terrorist groups. It’s not the internet that is a threat. It’s immigration.

High numbers of Pakistani Muslims support many of the same ideas and beliefs as ISIS. As the size of the Pakistani Muslim population in the United States grew, it was only a matter of time until a successful attack on this scale would happen. We may be able to stop the next attack, but only if we are willing to accept the hard truths about who are our enemies are and what they believe.

They aren’t radicals. They aren’t extremists. They’re the enemy.

Obama’s crazy visa policy makes Trump look like a Prophet

December 14, 2015

Obama’s crazy visa policy makes Trump look like a Prophet, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, December 14, 2015

Today on Good Morning America, John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and now a national security consultant for ABC News, dropped a bombshell: over the objections of security-minded DHS personnel, the Obama administration secretly barred DHS from looking at postings on social media by visa applicants like Tashfeen Malik:

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said. …

Former DHS under-secretary Cohen said he and others pressed hard for just such a policy change in 2014 that would allow a review of publicly-posted social media messages as terror group followers increasingly used Twitter and Facebook to show their allegiance to a variety of jihadist groups.

Cohen said officials from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) both pressed for a change in policy.

“Immigration, security, law enforcement officials recognized at the time that it was important to more extensively review public social media postings because they offered potential insights into whether somebody was an extremist or potentially connected to a terrorist organization or a supporter of the movement,” said Cohen, who left DHS in June 2014.

Cohen said the issue reached a head at a heated 2014 meeting chaired by Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, other top deputies and representatives of the DHS Office of Civil Liberties and the Office of Privacy.

“The primary concern was that it would be viewed negatively if it was disclosed publicly and there were concerns that it would be embarrassing,” Cohen said in an interview broadcast on “Good Morning America” today.

No doubt the policy will now be changed, but it is too late for the 14 people who were murdered by Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook.

As is so often the case with the Obama administration, one is confronted with a policy of such towering stupidity that one wonders whether it can be accidental. If you wanted more terrorists to enter the United States, what would you do differently?

US intelligence missed the first ISIS terror attack in the United States

December 5, 2015

US intelligence missed the first ISIS terror attack in the United States, DEBKAfile, December 4, 2015, 11:36 PM, IDT.

(For interesting speculation on what the FBI is trying to accomplish now, please see this article. — DM)


Step by step, US federal agencies are being forced to admit that Wednesday, Dec. 2, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik perpetrated the first Islamic State terror attack in America. They shot 14 people dead and injured 21 at the San Bernardino social center in California, before dying themselves in a shootout with the police.

Straight after the attack, on Dec. 3, when the two shooters were still unidentified and on the run, DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources inferred from the comment by an anonymous  federal officer that “one of the shooters is an American citizen whose identity is known” that US intelligence had been onto Farook.

Another comment made at the time – “Links to international terrorism are still on the table as the assailants could have been encouraged by a foreign terror group,” also betrayed official knowledge of the suspects’ background and motives.

However, it was only on Friday, Dec. 4, that a number of “revelations” came spilling out.

David Bowdich, Assistant Director of the FBI Los Angeles field office, confirmed for the first time that the bureau was investigating the San Bernardino attack as an “act of terrorism.”

Tashfeen Malik using an alias was also found to have pledged loyalty to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi on Facebook.

It was not disclosed how she came to be identified by the investigators.

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that the use of a false name for messages on the social media may fool the regular user, but not intelligence and anti-terrorist agencies, which are able to uncover a real identity in no time.

Phone calls from a blocked number are traced with equal ease. The couple was reported to have tried to destroy the phones and hard drives of their computers, indicating they knew that they were “blown.”

The “revelation” by the FBI of Malik’s pledge to the ISIS leader by Facebook was in fact a bit of misdirection to conceal the fact that her husband and partner Farook had been on the radar of US anti-terror agencies before their murderous rampage at San Bernadino, and not just after the fact through his “soft connections.”

Another comment by an FBI official was also indicative.

He said: “investigators are exploring Farook’s communications with at least one person who was being investigated for possible terror connections… Some were by phone, some on social media.”

How and when were those communications discovered? And who is this person? The only answer given to those questions from reporters was that this individual is in America.

It stands to reason that the reference is to a secret terrorist cell operating in America whose leader was most likely Farouk’s controller. His communications would have marked him for inclusion on the list of Americans with known terrorist contacts – not just the wider circle of suspects, but the short list of activists placed under 24/7 watch as a preventive measure.

The most suggestive comment by the FBI official Friday night was this: “Farouk’s last communications with the contacts was months ago.”

This comment may be interpreted in three ways:

1. The intelligence watch over his movements was discontinued during the months that the shooter was not in communication with his “terrorist contact.”

2.  Farouk and Malik used those months of freedom from surveillance to amass a war arsenal of guns, rifles, tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, at least 15 pipe bombs and materials for building additional devices including road bombs.

3.  This was not discovered because it did not occur to the counter-terror agencies that Farouk and his presumed controller had decided to break of contact in the months leading up to the attack in order in to lower Farouk’s profile and catch the surveillance off guard.