Trump: ‘People are pouring in from the Middle East. We have no idea who they are…we’re going to stop that dead’

The question is simple: allow in more Muslim migrants, among whom will inevitably be an unknowable number of jihad terrorists, or stop that migration at the risk of being called “racist.” In reality, it is not a racial issue, it is a national security issue.

“Trump vows to ‘stop dead’ Mideast immigration: ‘We have no idea who they are,’” Times of Israel, December 2, 2016:

President-elect Donald Trump vowed to “keep America safe” by cracking down on immigration from the Middle East and favoring “stability” in foreign policy.

Speaking to a raucous audience of thousands of supporters in Cincinnati, Ohio at the start of what his staff have billed as a “Thank you” tour of the American Midwest, Trump seemed to double down on key campaign promises about Muslim immigration and a wall on the Mexican border.

“The job of the president is to keep America safe, and that will always be my highest priority,” Trump said.

“We will do everything in our power to keep the scourge of terrorism out of our country. People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they’re thinking. And we’re going to stop that dead, cold, flat,” he said.

“People coming into the country have to have the potential to love us, not to hate us,” he said.

He added: “We will stop looking to topple regimes. Our goal is stability, not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country. It’s time.”

Trump also used the address to take a stance against hatreds: “We condemn bigotry and prejudice in all of its forms,” he said. “We denounce all of the hatred and we forcefully reject the language of exclusion and separation. We have no choice. We have to, and it’s better.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Express Solidarity with Islamic Extremists in Wake of Election by John Rossomando – IPT News

America’s Success Story: From Hamilton to Trump

First two months of FY2017, 98% of Syrians entering the U.S. are Muslims

Refugee Industry lobbyists want to talk to Trump transition team

UK: 96% of Muslims do not believe al Qaeda was behind 9/11 jihad attacks

Video: Christine Williams on the ignoring of the genocide of Christians in the Middle East

Keith Ellison: Israel controls U.S. foreign policy

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), whose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are well known, has managed to climb the ranks of the Democratic Party and now seeks to be its leader, which is itself proof of the widening gap between those who value human rights and democratic freedoms and those who are willing to hand such values over to Islamic supremacists without a fight.

Ellison has “unfriendly” intentions toward the state of Israel, threatening (and promising, in essence) to reduce American friendship with Israel and enhance ties with neighboring Islamic states. He revealed these intentions some time ago at a fundraiser that was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society who had to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel when the Investigative Project busted him with a videotape that showed him “praising Palestinians for choosing the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Now it’s Ellison’s turn:

Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

keith-ellison-end-the-occupation-podium“IPT Exclusive: In Private Fundraiser, Ellison Blasted Israeli Influence Over U.S. Policy”, Steven Emerson, IPT News, November 29, 2016:

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s announcement earlier this month that he wants to be the Democratic National Committee’s next chairman drew quick support from several key lawmakers, including Jewish senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders.

Ellison backers also have defended him against claims he may hold anti-Semitic views in addition to being anti-Israel. A column in Israel’s liberal daily Haaretz quotes two rabbis praising Ellison, D-Minn., as “the best of our constitutional democracy and the best of America” and “an extraordinary leader. Anyone who would associate him with any kind of hatred hasn’t met him and certainly hasn’t worked with him.”

A 2010 audio of Ellison speaking at a private fundraiser obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism calls such praise into question. In a fairly intimate setting, Ellison lashed out at what he sees as Israel’s disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. That will change, he promised, as more Muslims gained political influence:

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

The fundraiser for Ellison’s re-election campaign was hosted by Esam Omeish, a past president of the Muslim American Society (MAS) who was forced to resign from a Virginia state immigration panel in 2007 after an exclusive IPT videotape showed him praising Palestinians for choosing the “the jihad way … to liberate your land.” Omeish was a candidate for Virginia’s general assembly the previous year, and Ellison spoke at a fundraiser for that losing effort.

In his 2010 remarks, he described Omeish as “my beloved brother and I love you and you are the best and your family is so beautiful and again, you know, you put it out there. You ran. And I hope you run again.”

Also present at the fundraiser was Nihad Awad, a co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and a member of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America known as the Palestine Committee.

Ellison’s comments about Israeli political influence do not appear to be a poor choice of words. A year earlier, as conflict raged between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Ellison told Al Jazeera that “the people who have a strong sympathy for the Israeli position dominate the conversation. It is really not politically safe to say there have been two sides to this.”

A month later, Ellison told the BBC that outreach to Hamas was not feasible for a member of Congress – not because it is a terrorist organization with an anti-Semitic charter demanding Israel’s destruction – but because it is too politically risky.

“What I can tell you now is that the constellation of political forces in the United States at this moment would make a member of Congress who has reached out directly to Hamas spend all their time defending that decision and would not be able to deal with other critical issues that need to be focused on. So for example if I were to make a move like that I wouldn’t be able to focus my attention on the humanitarian issue. I’d have to defend myself to my colleagues why I reached out to a terrorist organization. It would absorb all of my time. I would spend a lot of time fighting off personal attack and would not be able to achieve goals that I have.”

Just after the 2009 Gaza war, Ellison was among 22 House members to vote “present” rather than take a stand on a nonbinding House resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Ellison claimed he was “torn” on the issue because it “barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Ellison long has demanded that Israel open its borders to Gaza, arguing that economic aid and development would help ease tensions and resulting violence. In 2010, he authored a letter signed by 53 House colleagues which called on President Obama to pressure Israel into opening the border.

Ellison described the blockade as “collective punishment” on Gaza residents.

He re-upped the argument in a 2014 Washington Post oped which was written during new conflict between Israel and Hamas. Hamas terrorists provoked the war by kidnapping and murdering three teenagers and by launching thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian areas.

But Ellison argued that peace would come with economic relief in Gaza and said an end to the blockade should be part of any ceasefire.

“The status quo for ordinary Gazans is a continuation of no jobs and no freedom,” he wrote. “This is not an attractive future. Gazans want and deserve the dignity of economic opportunity and freedom to move.”

The restrictions on imports to Gaza were aimed at curbing the flow of materials sent to Hamas to build rockets, bombs and other tools for terrorism. Israel allows humanitarian aid into the territory. But Hamas continues to divert millions of dollars in aid and supplies which could be used to improve daily life in order to dig more attack tunnels and restock its terrorist arsenal.

While he also said that “Hamas must give up its rockets and other weapons” to achieve peace, Ellison was one of only eight House members to vote against increasing funding for Israel to provide added funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense program. Even though it successfully intercepted dozens of Hamas rockets, especially those aimed at population centers, Ellison said the proposal was no good because “the US government needs to be prioritizing a ceasefire between the two sides.”

These statements and countless others should concern DNC officials before choosing a leader early next year. Any chairperson’s job will include efforts to preserve and maintain the party’s support from American Jews. Exit polling indicates an estimated 71 percent of Jewish voters supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Jewish leaders either don’t know the extent of Ellison’s relationship with Islamist groups like CAIR, or of his consistent criticism of Israeli actions, especially in response to Hamas terror, or they do not care. Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League’s chief executive, issued a statement last week saying Ellison “is a man of good character” and “an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.”

As we have shown, he’s also a man who believes Jewish interests disproportionately influence American foreign policy.

During last summer’s national convention, Ellison and other delegates supporting Sanders wanted the Democratic Party platform to delete a description of Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” and wanted to gut language opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement targeting the Jewish state.

Those efforts were pushed back, but should have a far stronger position under an Ellison-run DNC.

In addition to seeing Israel as controlling government policy, Ellison has supported prominent Islamists targeted for their direct support for Palestinian terrorist organizations.

During a 2008 radio interview, Ellison praised Sami Al-Arian. Years earlier, evidence admitted into a federal court showed Al-Arian served on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Shura council, in essence, its board of directors. Despite that fact, Ellison said he wished “that Dr. Al-Arian and his family have peace, have justice, and are able to secure a greater quality of justice for their case,” saying he found “some things about his case that I think raise legitimate questions.”

Similarly, Ellison expressed frustration at the 2007 terrorist financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five former officials. The charity, shut down by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2001, funneled millions of dollars to Hamas through a network of Palestinian charities the terrorist group controlled.

But after a trial ended with a hung jury on most counts, Ellison blasted the case as “persecution” during remarks at a CAIR fundraising banquet in Anaheim. CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, in part due to internal Palestine Committee documents showing CAIR was part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. network from the moment of its 1994 inception.

“And the worst of it was not that these people’s lives were disrupted, their reputations were tarnished,” Ellison said. “The worst of it was that [300] other organizations were tossed in to the mix of it all as they were listed as unindicted co-conspirators. No evidence to be found that they had done anything. So here is what we have today. 300 reputable civil rights organizations, including CAIR, put on a list they never should have been put on in a case where they had been thoroughly exonerated. It’s time to call an end to wasting taxpayer money in this manner. There have been other prosecutions for Muslim charities and we’ve come up with nothing at all when it comes to convictions in these cases. It’s time for us to call a stop to this selective prosecution. It’s time to say that our justice system and our prosecutors and our police officers are here to investigate crime for the sake of public safety, not to pursue a political agenda.”

The Holy Land defendants were retried in 2008, with jurors convicting the defendants on all counts. Ellison did not comment.

In 2009, Ellison made the pilgrimage to Mecca known as the Hajj. His travels were financed by the Muslim American Society (MAS), which insiders have acknowledged is the Muslim Brotherhood’s overt arm in the United States….

RELATED ARTICLES:

ANALYSIS: DNC frontrunner Keith Ellison has extensive ties with radical Muslim groups

European Commission top dog: “We must distinguish between Islam and terrorism”

UK: Muslim teacher condones Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre in classroom

The Betrayal of Lawful Immigrants by Open Borders Anarchists

The goal of open borders anarchists is to eliminate the distinction between those who enter the country illegally and those who come legally.

Aliens may be admitted into the United States as immigrants or as nonimmigrants, depending on whether they have been granted lawful immigrant status. Lawful immigrants, in entering the U.S., hope to become a part of the magnificent tapestry that is America, to begin their lives anew to build their futures and, consequently, the future of our nation. Their U.S. presence is sanctioned by our immigration laws.

Illegal aliens, on the other hand, are aliens who enter the U.S. without inspection and aliens who enter legally but violate the terms of their admission and are thus subject to removal (deportation) because their presence violates our immigration laws.

There is a clear distinction, and one that must not be blurred, between aliens who are legally present and aliens who are illegally present.

Illegal aliens have become emboldened to demand “their rights” to receive in-state tuition and a host of other costly government-sponsored programs and services, often through raucous and even violent demonstrations. They demand work in the U.S., driver’s licenses and, in general, treatment the same as, or perhaps even better than, true immigrants who entered the country legally.

Many journalists fuel this lunacy. Those who insist that the federal government secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws are labeled by the media as “anti-immigrant,” a pejorative. Those who oppose measures to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws are “pro-immigrant.”

So-called sanctuary cities shield illegal aliens from detection by the federal government and often even refuse to honor ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detainers filed with prison authorities to enable ICE to take illegal aliens into custody after they serve prison sentences for committing felonies.

Mayors of these cities have decided that politics and narrow political agendas trump national security and public safety. This was the premise behind my recent article, “‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs. National Security and Public Safety.”

Most news coverage of these issues has ignored the impact this has on U.S. citizens. Another group of people also has been left out of the discussion and debates. That is lawful immigrants. Many of these people have waited for years to be issued their visas and have spent significant funds to file their applications for those visas. Those who blur the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have blithely ignored how this impacts these lawful immigrants who must truly feel foolish and betrayed.

To provide a bit of clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and burglar. Sanctuary city mayors have ignored the fact too that frequently the victims of transnational criminals are the immigrants who reside in those same ethnic immigrant communities where the transnational criminals live and ply their “trades.”

Additionally, huge numbers of Americans have become resentful of failures of the federal government to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the U.S. Part of that failure translates directly to jobs. Americans, in increasing numbers, have lost their once middle-class jobs to foreign workers who have been lawfully admitted with H-1B visas and other visas.

It is understandable that Americans who reside in sanctuary cities resent the sanctuary policies that have cost many innocent people their lives and permit violent transnational gangs to set up shop in towns across the country, peddling heroin and other narcotics in unprecedented quantities.

The Obama administration has facilitated the human tsunami of illegal aliens in violation of our immigration laws that are fundamental to the protection of the lives and jobs of Americans. The upset victory of Donald Trump in the Presidential election was the manifestation of American anger and resentment from a broad political and ethnic spectrum.

Because journalists insist that all aliens be identified as “immigrants,” lawful immigrants all too often are lumped into the same category as illegal aliens and may face frustration and resentment of Americans because of the Orwellian use of terminology begun by Jimmy Carter during his administration.

Presuming the incoming administration lives up to campaign promises, one of the first groups of people likely to feel the most immediate benefit will be the beleaguered lawful immigrants who have suffered terribly under the madness foisted on the U.S. by the Obama administration and the open borders anarchists.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Californians for Population Stabilization website.

The U.S. Government’s Proof that CAIR is HAMAS

Washington, D.C. – Since its founding in 1993, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  From that time to this, however, the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

Evidence of CAIR’s true character as a U.S.-based instrument for political warfare and fundraising for Hamas – and the federal government’s certain knowledge of the truth – did not come to light until the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.  In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself.  Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed

Annotated highlights of the CAIR transcripts are now available for the first time, complete with relevant excerpts from Agent Burns’ testimony, in the latest product of the Center for Security Policy’s “Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series”: CAIR Is Hamas: How the U.S. Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism. As with the first two publications in this series – “An Explanatory Memorandum”: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words, this new product from CSP Press is making accessible original source material together with professional analysis concerning the inner workings of the network the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in America for more than fifty years for the stated purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within.”[1]

Upon the release of CAIR is Hamas, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:

The production of this proof of CAIR’s jihadist nature is especially timely as legislatures in states around the country are considering resolutions seeking to discourage their agencies from interacting with this Hamas front and as the U.S. Congress considers legislation calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. CAIR is Hamas should be required reading for lawmakers, other officials at every level of government, the press and ordinary Americans misperceiving CAIR’s true jihadist and subversive nature.

CAIR is Hamas is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all editions of the Archival Series, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org

[1] From the Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America (see “An Explanatory Memorandum,” p. 16, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/05/25/an-explanatory-memorandum-from-the-archives-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

Socialist Alternative: A Key Force Behind the Anti-Trump Protests

Inspired by the example of the United Kingdom-based group known as Militant Tendency, Socialist Alternative (SA) is a Trotskyist revolutionary political party that first emerged in the U.S. as “Labor Militant” in 1986. A decentralized entity with branches of varying sizes and levels of activity in almost 50 American cities, SA proudly claims to be “in political solidarity” with the Committee for a Workers’ International, which is a worldwide socialist organization with a presence in nearly four dozen countries. On the premise that “the global capitalist system” is “the root cause” of “poverty,” “discrimination,” “war,” “inequality,” and “environmental destruction,” SA aims to promote the creation of “a socialist United States and a socialist world.” Asserting that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” SA instead advocates a form of “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over [their] daily lives.”

In the late 1990s, SA tried to help the now-defunct U.S. Labor Party to advocate for electoral opposition to Democratic Party politicians, whom SA viewed as being too moderate.

SA was particularly active in the anti-globalization movement from 1998-2002, and it continues to speak out against free trade and capitalism today.

In 2004, SA members initiated Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR), a project that sought to persuade high-school students to resist military recruitment efforts and oppose the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beginning in September 2011, SA supported the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Early the following month, SA issued a statement of solidarity with OWS.

In the fall of 2011 as well, SA endorsed a national “Jobs Not Cuts” campaign in response to proposed congressional budget cuts. This initiative was endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, Jill Stein, Veterans for Peace, the American Federation of Teachers, Students for a Democratic Society, and the International Socialist Organization, among others.

On the premise that “the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business” and are thus unworthy of holding political power, SA seeks to “build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.” In 2013, SA for the first time ran, on its own ticket, two openly socialist candidates – Ty Moore and Kshama Sawant – in carefully selected political races. The results were encouraging for SA: Moore lost his bid for a Minneapolis city council seat to Democrat Alondra Cano by a mere 229 votes, while Sawant won a seat in the Seattle city council by defeating longtime Democratic incumbent Richard Conlin by more than 1,000 votes. Two years later, Ms. Sawant was re-elected.

In the wake of Republican Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election of November 2016, SA helped organize massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests in cities across the United States. Other notable organizers of these disruptions included the ANSWER Coalition, the Occupy Movement, and MoveOn.org.

Professing an uncompromising commitment to “fighting for the 99%,” SA supports measures that would: raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour “as a step toward a living wage for all”; provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; ensure “free … health care for all” in a system of “fully socialized medicine”; forbid any “budget cuts to education and social services”; impose “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business”; ensure “a minimum guaranteed weekly income of $600/week for the unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, and others unable to work”; “shorten the workweek with no loss in pay and benefits”; and institute “public ownership” of “bankrupt and failing companies” as well as “the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy.”

To promote “environmental sustainability,” SA demands that America’s federal and state governments “fight climate change” by minimizing the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with human industrial activity. Toward that end, the organization recommends “massive public investment in renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies to rapidly replace fossil fuels”; “a major expansion of public transportation”; and “democratic public ownership of the big energy companies, retooling them for socially necessary green production.”

In its “Equal Rights for All” initiative, SA supports the Black Lives Matter effort to “build a mass movement against police brutality and the institutional racism of the criminal justice system.” Further, SA favors massive “invest[ment] in rehabilitation, job-training, and living-wage jobs, not prisons”; the abolition of the death penalty; the “immediate, unconditional legalization and equal rights for all undocumented immigrants”; “free reproductive services, including… abortions”; “at least 12 weeks of paid family leave for all”; and “universal … publicly run child care.”

With regard to national security and defense issues, SA demands that the federal government “slash the military budget” of the United States, shut down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and repeal the PATRIOT Act.

To help promote and disseminate its ideological precepts and political agendas as effectively as possible, SA publishes a newspaper out of its New York City location.

SA supported the presidential campaigns of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2012 the organization supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and in 2016 it backed Bernie Sanders.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Understanding “Black Lives Matter”

Kellogg Foundation Provided Nearly $1 Million to Support Black Lives Matter

Freedom First International: Promoting Social Change Through Liberation Theology

The International Development Exchange: Partnering with “Black Lives Matter”

Ten Reasons to Criminalize Islam

Ten Reasons to Criminalize Islam:

  1. Islam is not a religion. Islam is a political, economic, and military ideology that uses religion as a tool to covertly spread Islam and sharia law throughout the world.
  2. Islam advocates child marriages. Prophet Mohammed is the pure example of Islam to all Muslims and he married an innocent six year old girl and raped her repeatedly while she was a child.
  3. Islam dictates that no man made law is above Sharia law. Islamic scholars routinely teach young Muslim children to hate America and the U.S. Constitution.
  4. Islam scholars demand Muslims show no allegiance to any country, specifically America and Israel. Muslim children in America are taught to not stand for the American flag.
  5. Physical jihad is advocated toward all non Muslims and non Muslim countries.
  6. Islamic scholars distribute materials through their mosques and Islamic book stores advocating the overthrow of America and the total destruction of Israel.
  7. There are Islamic organizations in America that advocate Muslims to kill Jews and Christians (and apostates of Islam) wherever they find them, and specifically in America.
  8. Mosques are safe havens for Islamic terrorists and their materials for war. We saw this in Iraq and it is being conducted in America.
  9. Numerous mosques distribute manuals to their worshippers advocating killing U.S. Law enforcement officers and how to go underground to escape apprehension. This manual is originated in Brooklyn, NY, and placed in mosques throughout America.
  10. There are Islamic terrorist supporters throughout our government at all levels, there are Islamic terrorist supporters in our liberal media, law enforcement, and military.

We must understand the goal of Islam is to dominate the entire world and place all countries under shariah law

Protect our children by advocating the criminalization of Islam in America. Instead of designating various Islamic groups as terrorist organization, designate Islam as the enemy and a criminal organization.

The people who run Islam are part of the organized crime unit known as the Muslim Mafia.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany Submits to Sharia Law

Muslim-Americans Support Trump Against Terror

EDITORS NOTE: If you are interested in helping Dave investigate Islamic based terrorism in America please go to www.WeAreNotAfraid.blogspot.com and donate.

Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense: A General Mattis Christmas Story

A couple of months ago, when I told General Krulak the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, now the chair of the Naval Academy Board of Visitors, that we were having General Mattis speak this evening, he said, “Let me tell you a Jim Mattis story.” General Krulak said, when he was Commandant of the Marine Corps, every year, starting about a week before Christmas, he and his wife would bake hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Christmas cookies. They would package them in small bundles

Then on Christmas day, he would load his vehicle. At about 4:00 a.m., General Krulak would drive himself to every Marine guard post in the Washington-Annapolis-Baltimore area and deliver a small package of Christmas cookies to whatever Marines were pulling guard duty that day. He said that one year, he had gone down to Quantico as one of his stops to deliver Christmas cookies to the Marines on guard duty. He went to the command center and gave a package to the lance corporal who was on duty.

He asked, “Who’s the officer of the day?” The lance corporal said, “Sir, it’s Brigadier General Mattis.”

And General Krulak said, “No, no, no. I know who General Mattis is. I mean, who’s the officer of the day today, Christmas day?”

The lance corporal, feeling a little anxious, said, “Sir, it is Brigadier General Mattis.”

General Krulak said that, about that time, he spotted in the back room a cot, or a daybed. He said, “No, Lance Corporal. Who slept in that bed last night?”

The lance corporal said, “Sir, it was Brigadier General Mattis.”

About that time, General Krulak said that General Mattis came in, in a duty uniform with a sword, and General Krulak said, “Jim, what are you doing here on Christmas day? Why do you have duty?”

General Mattis told him that the young officer who was scheduled to have duty on Christmas day had a family, and General Mattis decided it was better for the young officer to spend Christmas Day with his family, and so he chose to have duty on Christmas Day.

General Krulak said, “That’s the kind of officer that Jim Mattis is.”

RELATED ARTICLE: I Served With James Mattis. Here’s What I Learned From Him

EDITORS NOTE: The story above was told by Dr. Albert C. Pierce, the Director of the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics at The United States Naval Academy. He was introducing General James Mattis, who gave a lecture on Ethical Challenges in Contemporary Conflict in the spring of 2006. This was taken from the transcript of that lecture.

DHS falsely training its agents that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’

It is becoming clear that the Trump administration will look at the threat of radical Islam much differently than the Obama administration.

One of the first slogans to go is the false notion that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

The Islamic supremacy organization CAIR is upset that Katharine Gorka has been selected to be part of the DHS “landing team” that will meet with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to manage the transition.

Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security and president of the Threat Knowledge Group.

In 2014, Gorka wrote, “Presidents Bush and Obama both publicly declared Islam to be a religion of peace,” it “struck a sour chord for many,” and that “American and Western leaders have preemptively shut down any debate within Islam by declaring that Islam is the religion of peace.”

enhancedAdditionally, President-elect Donald Trump named K.T. McFarland as his pick for deputy national security adviser, joining retired Gen. Michael Flynn on Trump’s White House national security team. Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is an American former government official and national security analyst.

McFarland has called for the use of enhanced interrogation to prevent a catastrophic attacks against the United States and its allies.

In the below video Brian Kilmeade interviews Dr. James Mitchell author of the new book “Enhanced Interrogation.”

At the end of the interview one of the terrorists being interrogated asked Dr. Mitchell to use waterboarding on his fellow Muslim brothers.

Clearly there’s a new sheriff in town and a serious dialogue about Islam and the followers of Mohammed will take place. Words like radical Islam, jihad and the holy war being conducted by Muslims against America and its allies will now be front and center and top of mind with agencies such as DHS, FBI and CIA.

The shackles are coming off.

The DHS, FBI and CIA will go from an Obama civil liberty model to Trump administration law enforcement and national security model to defeat America’s enemies, one of the most pressing being radical Islam.

Let the debate begin within the ummah (the Muslim community), in America and globally about Islam in general and radical Islam in detail.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Getting Inside the Head of the Ohio Attacker

Young, Radicalized Man From North Carolina Planned Mass Casualty Attack

German Intel Agent Arrested for Planning ISIS Terror Attack

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

RELATED VIDEO: KiDS: Inside the Terror Factory — Make this film a reality. Expose the incitement of children and youth to extremism, hatred and violence.

In Defense of Trump Foreign Policy Adviser, Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares is American of Lebanese origins, a noted scholar and author with a clear vision of the dynamics of the Middle East. He is also a friend of Israel of longstanding. Earlier today we posted on an emerging jihad in the Sudan that Dr. Phares had spoken of in his capacity as a Middle East Advisor to President-elect Trump. In 2012, he was a foreign policy advisor to Republican candidate former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, currently under consideration by the Trump transition team as a possible nominee for Secretary of State in the new Administration. Dr. Phares by my own acquaintance is a Lebanese patriot and opponent of Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah involvement that has plagued the unique political structure of the confessional politics of his homeland.

Following the Trump victory in early November, the long knives were out from Iranian and leftist sources in both the US and Israel publishing defamations of Dr. Phares’ character that were patently false. The object was to smear his reputation and discredit him from holding a significant advisory role in the Trump transition and Administration focused on the Middle East.  The leftist Mother Jones published a hit piece by Andrew Serwer, a supporter of the Iran nuclear pact that was quickly piled on by provocateurs in social media.

Perhaps  one of the most vitriolic of the later was a piece published by Ben Lynnfield in The Jerusalem Post on November 16, 2016,  “Who is Walid Phares, Trump’s Mideast Adviser”.  It was a farrago of untruths.

On November 20, 2016, Sarah Stern of EMET-Endowment for Middle East Truth in Washington, DC published a rebuttal of the Mother’s Jones allegations, “Villyfying Walid Phares, “in which she called Phares, “a living national treasure” for his scholarship and astute observations and advices on how we should make sense of the troubling Middle East in the thrall of barbaric Islamist doctrine.   A doctrine aimed at the destruction of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim minorities in the region.

It was left to Israeli Col. Yair Ravid to author a devastating rebuttal to the leftist attackers on Dr. Phares endeavoring to impugn his character.  The Jerusalem Post published it on November 28, 2016 appropriately titled, “In Praise of Professor Phares.” Ravid is in a unique position to author this rebuttal. He was a long serving Israeli intelligence officer who held the Beirut operational post for Mossad and knew intimately the confessional political system, dynamics of Lebanon and the facts on the ground during the long Israeli withdrawal culminating in the seeming pell mell leave-taking in May 2000. Some of that is described in a book published in May 2016, Window to the Backyard: The History of Israel-Lebanon Relations – Facts & Illusions.

Here are some of the facts that Ravid marshals to destroy the lies of the leftist enemies of Dr. Phares.

Accusation by Serwer of Mother Jones: Phares was an “ideologue of Lebanese militiamen during the civil war in the 1980s.”

Ravid:  One of the quoted persons, Toni Nisei, has himself slammed the far-left media for lying about him: “Regrettably Mother Jones selected three sentences from an almost four-hour… conversation with Serwer about the Lebanese resistance against Syrian occupation. Serwer maliciously distorted the form and core of what was discussed in a cheap and repulsive attempt to attack Professor Walid Phares and create an absurd and ludicrous connection between Professor Phares’ academic, political and intellectual roles [as a] contribution to educate the high cadres of the Lebanese Christian resistance [is] deplorable and unacceptable.”

Accusation: “Phares advocated that Lebanon’s Christians work toward creating a separate, independent Christian enclave.”

Ravid:  This of a man who has published books since 1979 while he was at law school, and hundreds of articles, all focusing on a federal solution to the crisis in Lebanon.

Accusation:  Lynnfield quoted far-left Mother Jones stating “that he was a close adviser of Samir Geagea, a Lebanese- Christian warlord.”

Ravid:   Tunic Hindi, a Lebanese politician today, has already crippled this charge in an interview where he wondered why Phares’ critics insist on this falsehood since Hindi himself was the adviser to Geagea, not Phares.

Accusation:  The Post piece goes on to claim that in the 1990s, Phares tried “to lobby the Israeli government to carve out a state for Christians in the security zone Israel maintained in southern Lebanon, despite the fact that Israel had been burned badly when it allied with Lebanese Christians in 1982, that most of zone’s inhabitants were Shi’ite Muslims and that Israel already had its hands full dealing with an insurgency by Hezbollah.”

Ravid:  This is utterly false. At the time Phares, along with his NGO colleagues, lodged a demand at the United Nations Security Council in New York to issue a resolution to establish international protection for a “free zone” in south Lebanon, to replace the Israeli military. The plan was that Christians, Muslims and Druze together would control their own destinies under a federal system. They wanted to see local police stations and municipalities act as a functioning local government until Syria had withdrawn and Hezbollah had been disarmed.

Accusation:  Former Mossad director Efraim Halevy opines on Phares’ mischaracterized position: “To think in 1997 of creating a Christian enclave in the South, an area of preponderant Shi’ite presence, is esoteric bordering on the ridiculous.” Yossi Alpher, former director of the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies (now the Institute for National Security Studies), wrote: “Even in Israeli terms, he represents an attempt to subvert our good intentions and exploit us militarily so that we spill our blood for the Maronites. This ended very badly and he is a reminder of this.”

Ravid: None of that was found in Phares’ arguments at the time. Precisely the opposite: the Lebanese-American scholar argued that Israeli forces should withdraw but surrender the area not to Hezbollah and Assad, but to local municipalities’ forces protected by the UN. In fact his plans then are the same as what is being discussed today for areas in Iraq and Syria.

Accusation:  Alpher continues: “His association with the Lebanese Forces is very problematic… He was a prominent ideologue indoctrinating people who went out and murdered people and he has never accounted for that.”

Ravid:  Alpher’s ignorance is abysmal. Walid Phares was never a combatant and never headed a Lebanese Forces military command. He wrote books and articles and offered lectures. Sadly, Hezbollah propaganda has now been able to manipulate Israeli expertise.

Accusation:  anti-Israel Abed Ayoub, the national legal and policy director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, libeling Phares: “If you look at his history, he was a warmonger and he shouldn’t be near the White House. He was part of a militia that committed war crimes and, if anything, he should be tried for war crimes.”

Ayoub partially quotes Phares as saying, “The only military strategic option remaining to the Jewish state in the medium and long term, if it is to maintain its balance of power with the northern threat, is obviously the nuclear deterrent. But Lebanese and Israelis alike know all too well the consequences of a blast anywhere in Lebanon….”

Ravid:  These were parts of conversations that anyone in the field of defense and military studies has had, but to use a discussion about Iran’s military advance in the region, select half a sentence and paint Phares as developing a nuclear doctrine is not just silly, but low. No one knows the Arab world and Lebanon better than Phares. When he and others were part of conversations about establishing a so-called mini-entity alongside Israel, like the Kurds actually did in northern Iraq and in Syria, they wanted to express their belief at the time that minorities in the region could count on each other.

Ravid concludes his rebuttal observing:

What concerns me in The Jerusalem Post piece is historical veracity. We cannot as Israelis rewrite the history of our northern neighbor to please the terrorist network that dominates it at this point in time. Phares is a public figure in the US with most of his adult life dedicated to public service. His work during his 20s in his ancestral homeland is to be praised, not condemned, and above all described accurately. For demonizing is a prelude to ostracizing and we in this country know exactly what that means. It is unfortunate that a segment of our own academic and media elite has fallen for the games of Iranian and Islamist propagandists.

What we know and what we saw are very different from the vapid and erroneous writing of critics and the comments they quoted. When it comes to history let’s be serious and not reproduce chimeric tales concocted by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood in order to meddle in US politics.

Middle East Issues Facing the Trump Administration

The Trump Administration faces compelling issues in the roiling Middle East upon inauguration on January 21, 2017.  Many of these involve allies in the region like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf emirates. They are compounded by Putin’s actions in Syria, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict. In addition there is the Houthi rebellion in Yemen and the war against the Islamic State mired in campaigns to reconquer Mosul in Iraq and the administrative capital of Raqaa in Syria. Then there is Turkey’s Islamist President Erdogan’s role in both the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and reconciliation with Putin’s Russia making its role in NATO problematic.

The conundrum about the Kurdish aspirations for autonomy in a federalized Syria and possible independence in Iraq are also problematic. The Kurds have provided the “best boots on the ground” in the war against ISIS. Syria’s Bashar Assad, now on the verge of conquering Aleppo with Russian air support, has rejected that possibility, even as Putin has met with Kurdish delegations. Putin’s aim is to perfect Russia’s economic interests in the eastern Mediterranean.

There is also the over arching matter of what to do about the Iran nuclear pact under the JCPOA. Its behavior since adoption of the nuclear pact is tantamount to imposing regional hegemony from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea and ultimately the Mediterranean endeavoring to create a long sought “Shi’ite Crescent.”

Israel is increasingly concerned about threats to its northern border from Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy. Then there is the threat from ISIS affiliates the Israel Defense Force is fighting on the Golan frontier. A new form of Palestinian terror has arisen. A “fire Intifada” was set ablaze by Palestinian terrorists from the disputed territories that ravaged communities in central Israel, in Haifa and near Jerusalem. The arson perpetrated by these terrorists destroyed Israeli communities forcing temporary evacuation of tens of thousands of its citizens

During the 2016 electoral campaign, President-elect Trump threatened to ‘tear up’ the nuclear pact with Iran, which some consider useful to monitor Tehran’s violations and behavior. His Israel advisors issued a statement that indicated his support for moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, authorized under a law passed by Congress in 1995, but waived periodically by the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations. Moreover, the Trump campaign issued a statement suggesting that it did not consider Israeli settlement building, in areas permitted under the Oslo Accords, as a barrier to a possible peace settlement. The reality is that a two state solution no longer looks viable. Moreover, Palestinians are internally focused on protesting the corrupt rule by PA Chairman Abbas serving in the 12th year of a four year elected term.

Against this background we held a discussion on these Middle East policy issues with Shoshana Bryen. Bryen is senior director of the Washington, DC, Jewish Policy Center and managing editor of its quarterly journal, InFocus. He incisive views on Middle East and US policies in the region have previously been published in articles in the New English Review. She has also been interviewed on the periodic Middle East Round Table discussion on WEBY1330AM, Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio, as well as the former Lisa Benson Radio Show Programs aired on Salem media outlet in Phoenix, KKNT960The Patriot.

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Shoshana welcome back for this timely discussion.

Shoshana Bryen:  Thank you for inviting me.

Gordon:  How would you prioritize the foreign policy initiatives for the Trump Administrative to address in the first 100 Days of the Administration?

shoshana%20bryen2

Shoshana Bryen

Shoshana Bryen:  There is a temptation to make a list of “priorities” by simply citing a series of problems and assuming they can be resolved. If they could have been, they would have been. It would be useful instead to consider priorities for American behavior – political, economic and military. First, there are four questions to be asked:

  • What should the United States do to ensure that allies feel secure and adversaries don’t?
  • How can the U.S. encourage countries that are neither allies nor adversaries to cooperate on issues of importance?
  • How can the U.S. encourage countries to want to be “more like us” (politically and economically free with more transparent government) and “less like them” (totalitarian, communist, jihadist, and less transparent)?
  • What if they choose to be “more like them”? What are the limits of American encouragement or coercive capabilities?

The administration must reassure our allies, many of whom really aren’t sure where they stand: Israel, of course, but also Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Japan, and the smaller of the European and post-communist states. Bulgaria and Moldova had elections last month – that no one paid attention to – and the pro-Russian candidate won in both cases. This is an indication that vulnerable countries are seeking accommodation with Russia rather than trusting us. Bulgaria had a great record on Israel and was helpful in terms of intelligence on Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Estonia and Lithuania are worried. The administration has to give them reassurance.

Second would be to enunciate some foreign policy goals, including, perhaps an “outcome based strategy.” The U.S. should decide what it wants to achieve in various parts of the world and then decide – with the help of military and diplomatic professionals – how to achieve its goals. This is the difference between “doing something” and having something done. Then you open the door to messaging strategy – a much overlooked, but very important, part of American diplomacy abroad.

Gordon:  Given the evidence of Iran’s violation of the JCPOA signed by the Obama Administration, how might a Trump Administration replace and/or modify its provisions?

Bryen:  The JCPOA is not a treaty and not even an Executive Agreement. There is no signature to revoke on either side. Rather than “modifying” it, the Administration should put it in perspective. The fact is that the current set of violations by Iran is fairly small – and the violations are likely to remain fairly small. That is because Iran’s short-term goals have to do with regional hegemony, not nuclear weapons. After 8-10 years, Iran can legitimately become a nuclear breakout state – and 8-10 years is a very short period of time.

In the meantime, without comment from the Obama administration, Iran is occupying whole swaths of Iraq and fielding a sizable foreign army inside Syria. They are harassing American ships in the Persian Gulf – hoping to get us to leave the area. They are supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen.  If you look at a map, Iran controls the Persian Gulf to the east of Saudi Arabia, and Yemen at the heel of the boot of Saudi Arabia on the Red Sea.  To the West of Saudi Arabia – only a few miles from Djibouti on the African coast – Iran is close to controlling both access routes for Saudi (and other) oil from the region to the oceans. Most recently, Iran announced it would be accompanying ships sailing through the Bab el Mandeb Strait at the bottom of the Red Sea. This should make Israel – and anyone who remembers the 1967 Six Day War – nervous.

One way to make the point that the U.S. should want to make is to begin holding up the evidence of Iran’s violations. For each violation, there should be a cost. It could be in trade, banking, visas, or whatever, but there should be some cost to Iran – beginning with being called on the violations. Iran claims it will withdraw from the JCPOA if we don’t do what it wants, but that’s fine. Let Iran withdraw.

Gordon:  How might a Trump Administration complete the U.S. led coalition campaign to defeat ISIS?

Bryen:  This is both a military and a diplomatic problem. It is clear that the U.S. has been short on the “public diplomacy” end. It should be stressing what made/makes America what it has been and should be: individual freedom within constitutional Bill of Rights order. That includes rights to property and to profit from one’s creativity and work. It should reflect limited government of checks-and-balances, rule of law, not men. It should campaign against special privileges for any special interest; opportunity for all resulting in (at least relative) prosperity for most.

It should not be confused with “democracy promotion” – a failed concept. The U.S. should promote and advance specific human rights and freedoms for citizens without trying to determine the nature of the political system of any country mostly because it doesn’t work.

Messaging would involve reconstitution of Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty types of broadcasting – particularly engaging countries in which free information is limited. The successes of the Cold War period and the early days of assistance to Poland’s Solidarity Movement should be replicated, not discarded, and updated with newer social media. Where direct assistance is not possible, the U.S. can use media, including social media, to inform citizens of those countries that: a) they are not forgotten (taking a page from the Ronald Reagan/George Shultz playbook on Soviet Jewry), and b) ensure that they have accurate information about what is happening in the world they are not permitted to access by their governments.

Gordon:  Russia has staked out its interests in the Middle East with its intervention in Syria.  How might a Trump Administration adjust our foreign policy interests in the region?

Bryen:  The U.S. holds two contradictory positions vis a vis Syria. On the one hand, we seem to agree that Assad is the legitimate ruler of Syria. We have said he should leave under some agreed-upon plan, but we have not said he has forfeited his position. On the other hand, we arm, train and fund the opposition that wants to kill him.

This is where “outcome based” planning becomes important. The U.S. needs to decide what outcome we seek in Syria and then whether and how we can get the Russians on the same page. It was possible early on, but may be more difficult now.

It isn’t only Syria, by the way. We are involved in a shooting war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya – and we’re not at war with any of them.

What are we doing and to what end?

Gordon:  Russian Premier Medvedev met with Israeli PM Netanyahu following the US presidential elections to discuss trade, red lines with Iran, the conflict in Syria and possible renewal of Palestinian Israeli peace negotiations.  What support for Israel’s positions might a Trump Administration provide?

Bryen:  President-elect Trump appears aware that there is no hope of a negotiated “two state solution” right now or in the foreseeable future. That is fine, but most of the time, when people say that, they want to continue U.S. aid to the Palestinians. They want Israel to stop building houses even in the “settlement blocs” that the US has agreed will remain Israeli. They also want Israel to refrain from retaliatory action when there is terrorism inside Israel.  Moreover, they and don’t seem to care that the Palestinians are ratcheting up the pressure on Israel’s legitimacy and are violating the terms of Oslo Accord by confronting Israel in multilateral institutions such as the UN.

The U.S. should be prepared to reduce or terminate aid to the Palestinian Authority if it continues to violate its Oslo commitments. It should agree that Israel can build inside settlement blocks – though not outside. And the incoming administration should press the Palestinians for civil society and democratic reforms that will benefit the Palestinian people and perhaps sow some seeds of moderation. Palestinian Authority ruler Abu Mazen’s biggest problem right now is that Palestinians are demonstrating against him and his rule. The U.S. should be clear that time doesn’t stand still.  If the Palestinians are unable to build the governing institutions they need, the economy they need and the political maturity to come to terms with Israel as a legitimate and permanent country in the region, we can’t prevent others from moving ahead with their national interests.

Gordon:  Russia is heavily involved with Iran in bolstering the Assad Regime in Syria. Yet, it recently floated the possibility of recognizing Kurdish aspirations for regional autonomy in the context of a federalization option to end the six-year civil war in Syria. What are your views on that possibility?

Bryen:  Russia has run into some glitches in its Syria policy and may be looking for a way out. The dispatch of a naval flotilla including the Russian aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov to the Syrian front and the fact that it lost a MiG fighter was not what Putin had in mind. He was trying to stay hands-off.

It was Russia’s intention simply to support Bashar Assad as he put down the uprising.  Its objective was to reinforce its bases in Tartus and Latakia – making the Russians important in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, it did not work that way. Assad is more war criminal than partner. The rebels didn’t surrender.  In fact, the first is the cause of the second.  Assad’s cruelty is the single strongest driving force in ISIS and rebel recruitment. Sunnis trying to escape Assad or find a way to take revenge on the Syrian army have made the war longer and bloodier than it otherwise might have been.

As to the Russian position, the war continues and Assad’s supporters have been taking casualties; Iran and Hezbollah as well as Russia itself. Putin is very sensitive to Russian casualties abroad. He is aware that it was casualties that caused an uprising in Russia during the Afghan war and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Casualties in Ukraine were tolerated at home because Ukraine is seen as part of Russia, so it was like fighting for the homeland. Casualties in Syria are not the same.

Putin invited the Kurds to Moscow to take part in a meeting leading some to think he was going to go in that direction. However, Assad put his foot down and said there would be no Kurdish autonomy. Putin made an agreement with the Turks for Turkish help instead, partly by promising that there would be no Syrian Kurdish autonomy. It is not a very principled position, but Putin does not have much choice at the moment. It’s not a quagmire yet, but the sand is very soft and squishy.

Gordon:  Shoshana, thank you for this insightful discussion.

Bryen:  It was my pleasure.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Also see Jerry Gordon’s collection of interviews, The West Speaks.

American Islamist Group Preps for Jihad Against Trump

Multiple confidential sources in the powerful jihadi group say they have been told to arm them-selves in anticipation of raids by a Trump Admin.

Multiple confidential sources inside of a powerful jihadist group within the United States have informed the Christian Action Network and the Clarion Project that members have been told to arm themselves in anticipation of raids by the Trump Administration.

The Pakistan-based spiritual leader of Muslims of America (MOA), Sheikh Gilani, told top MOA officials (known as “khalifas”) to order all unarmed members to obtain firearms, licenses and hunting permits in order to resist raids on the group’s approximately 22 compounds that they expect to happen under the Trump Administration. Additional “security” was also called up and assault rifles have been mentioned as desirable.

The group now expects the FBI “to reopen its cases against them as a homegrown terrorist organization,” one of the confidential sources told Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network and Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project.

The sources independently stated that members across the country were told of instructions from Sheikh Gilani to “be prepared to fight.” The message reportedly relayed to members was to “hear and obey,” using language identical to the oath of allegiance members sign when they join the group. He predicted, “You will be tested.”

The members believe that President-elect Trump is part of a satanic-Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam, and that he is fulfilling apocalyptic End Times prophecies. Any action taken against MOA is seen as part of a war on Islam, a situation that permits violent jihad.

The preparations for armed confrontation are described as “self-defense measures,” but one source cautioned that the group could decide to take “offensive” action if it believes armed conflict is imminent.

MOA, previously known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, refers to its compounds as “Islamic villages,” with its headquarters in New York known as “Islamberg.” Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro obtained footage of women getting guerilla training at the site, which was filmed in or around 2002. The group has a history of terrorist and criminal activity.

MOA members have a long history of terrorism, extremism and criminal activity including weapons trafficking. A 2007 FBI report obtained by Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project states:

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the US Government.”

It warned that MOA “possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns within the U.S. and overseas.”

Orders were also issued for members released on parole to stay off the compounds and to minimize associations with other MOA members that live on the lands. Many members are on parole for crimes like distributing drugs, running illegal guns, fraud and counterfeiting.

Because parole officers can enter homes or come onto properties without a search warrant, MOA officials are concerned that the presence of a parolee on their land could be used for intelligence-gathering and to find a pretext for a raid.

Multiple independent sources emphasized that MOA membership is not confined to the camps and reported a peculiar scattering of members into areas of the U.S. that previously had no MOA presence.

The sources warned that some MOA members have been in violent drug gangs, sometimes in a covert capacity where the gangs are not informed of their MOA ties. They express concern that non-MOA criminals could be utilized so as to minimize traces to the group.

A public statement by Sheikh Gilani published on November 14 appears peaceful, but these sources say that the wording has frightening implications that outsiders would fail to detect.

“I foretold the disastrous results should this man be elected as the American President. He has come as a test and trial for the faithful adherents of the holy books. There is no reason to cry, weep or despair over this current difficulty,” it reads.

Gilani is referring to his prophecies that a “tyrant” would take control of the White House during the End Times, shortly before an apocalyptic battle happens that ushers in final victory for Islam (as he interprets it).

MOA believes that this “Doomsday” will happen under the reign of Gilani’s successor, known as the 7th Sultan. Gilani is understood by members to be on the cusp of death. Sources reported last monththat Gilani has transferred his title of “imam of MOA” to his son in the U.S., Sultan Ahmed Gilani, who may be separate from the prophetic 7th Sultan.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1”.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1” within the group for his top ranking as an original founder, is said to be a key supervisor of these preparations for armed conflict.

The sources urged Mawyer and Mauro to be on alert, as MOA members believe they are responsible for the forthcoming crackdown. Law enforcement has been informed of the danger and should consider MOA the immediate suspect if any harm is done to them.

The Christian Action Network and Clarion Project challenge Sheikh Gilani to prove his alleged commitment to non-violence by publishing an unequivocal forbiddance of any violent action against Mawyer and Mauro by any MOA supporter under any circumstances.

ABOUT MARTIN MAWYER

Martin Mawyer is the founded the Christian Action Network (CAN). Mawyer has directed three documentary films and has appeared on top television and radio programs in the U.S. His four books include:  Silent Shame: The Shocking Story of Child Sexual Abuse in America; Pathways to Success: First Steps for Becoming a Christian in Action; Defending the American Family and Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamic Terrorist Training Camps Inside America.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO
Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young, Radicalized Man From NC Planned Mass Casualty Attack

Four Simple Reasons Not to Trust Iran

Ohio State Stabbing: Playing Into ISIS’ Hands

What If Your Holiday Parade Was a Terror Target?

What do nine bloody attacks in 18 months have in common?

Just now I posted some of the news generated by the Ohio State Somali slasher attack two days ago. But, I still have three other news reports that are connected with the Islam-inspired attack that I want to say more about.

This is the first…..

Don’t miss Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily where he tells us there is a connection between nine violent attacks carried out on American soil in the last 18 months.

Law enforcement, from the local level on up to the FBI, said they did not know what could have motivated the young Muslim student to act in such a premeditated, violent way against his fellow students on a chilly Tuesday morning in Columbus.

Artan, an 18-year-old freshman at OSU, had immigrated from his native Somalia through Pakistan, arriving in Columbus at the invitation of the U.S. government, which considered him a “refugee.”

But the media failed to connect any of the dots with a host of similar attacks on U.S. soil, let alone the even larger number of strikingly similar attacks in Europe committed by migrants from Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Go to World Net Daily where Hohmann connects the dots and see the list of nine violent attacks in the U.S.!  What do they have in common?

An aside: Every time one of the Islam-inspired killers goes on a rampage (showing Islam’s violent propensities), I wonder if the Islamists who are working day and night to take us over through immigration, through the Hijra (detailed in Hohmann’s new book), are furious at the punk with no patience.

RELATED ARTICLES:

News roundup: More Somali Slasher news

Security Expert: Ohio State Attack Further Evidence Jihadis Worldwide Mimic Palestinian Terror Tactics

How many white refugees did we take from South Africa last month?

Laugh of the day: see what Soros is spending money on to help refugees

EDITORS NOTE: Mr. Hohmann’s new book will be available in January 2017. Please click here to order an advanced copy of Stealth Invasion.

Catholic Charities helped OSU Muslim jihadist migrate to U.S.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for the U.S. to take in 100,000 more Syrian refugees. Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is, as Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch points out, “NOT advocating to save the persecuted Christians of Syria through this program.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops received $79,590,512 in 2014 alone – that’s right, nearly 80 million dollars — from the federal government for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund.

And now this corrupt, authoritarian fraternity has blood on its hands.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

osu-attack

“Ohio State Suspect Had Tie to Dallas,” by Noelle Walker, NBCDFW.com, November 29, 2016 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

It was June 5, 2014 when a young teenager named Abul [sic] Razak Ali Artan arrived in Dallas with his mother and six siblings.

A little more than two years before he was the suspect in a violent knife attack on the Ohio State campus.

“We gave them aid and comfort and some shelter as part of the government resettlement program,” explained Catholic Charities C.E.O. Dave Woodyard.

The Somali immigrants arrived from Pakistan at D/FW International Airport via JFK International Airport.

Catholic Charities says someone from the organization likely picked the family up from the airport when they arrived.

According to Catholic Charities of Dallas records, the family was in temporary housing in Dallas for 23 days, leaving June 28, 2014.

“Then they emigrated. Left, and moved onto Columbus, Ohio,” Woodyard said. “And that’s when we closed our file.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ohio Somali slasher said he was angry because Buddhists in Burma mistreated Rohingya Muslims

Islamic State claims responsibility for Ohio State University jihad attack

German left planning to disarm “right-wing extremists,” “Brexiteers,” Trump supporters

State Department Nominee Must Tame The Bureaucratic Beast

The way the media is discussing the choice facing President-Elect Trump over his State Department nominee, you would think it’s a choice about stocking-stuffers. Should I give Mitt the slide whistle, the chocolate truffle, or the lump of coal?

The answer is: none of the above. And as Kellyann Conway noted on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Trump loyalists are wondering why Mitt Romney thinks he deserves to hang his stocking on our mantle to begin with.

Secretary of State is one of three key national security positions, but even more than the National Security advisor or the Secretary of Defense, this is the person who becomes America’s face and voice to seven billion people around the planet. This is the person who will personify American values, who will hold high the flag of freedom.

And most important of all, this is the person who will ensure that President Trump’s agenda actually gets carried out by an unruly, often recalcitrant bureaucracy at the Department of State, filled with partisan Democrats who have burrowed their way into career track jobs to avoid getting automatically axed come the inauguration.

Mitt Romney may be willing to recant his harsh attacks on Donald Trump’s character during the campaign, and Mr. Trump may be willing to forgive him. But the real issue – and it applies to any potential nominee – is this: can he or she ascend to the seventh floor and tame the bureaucracy?

After President Bush was elected to a second term in November 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell called a town meeting of his employees. “We live in a democracy,” he said. “As Americans, we have to respect the results of elections.” Bush had received the most votes of any president in U.S. history. Everyone in this building was constitutionally obligated to serve him, he said.

As I recounted in my 2008 book, Shadow Warriors, one of Powell’s subordinates returned to her office suite, shut the door, and held a mini town meeting of her own. After indignantly recounting Powell’s remarks to her assembled staff, she commented: “Well, Senator Kerry receive the second highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in history. If just one state had gone differently, Sen. Kerry would be President Kerry today.”

The employees of her regional bureau owed no allegiance to the president of the United States, especially not to policies they knew were wrong, she told them. If it was legal, and it would slow down the Bush juggernaut, they should do it.

I fully expect the next Secretary of State will face the same type of open insubordination from political hold-overs, many of whom weathered eight years of George W. Bush. They will use every ruse to undermine President Trump’s policies, especially where those policies conflict with their elitist, globalist agenda – which will be just about everywhere.

Want to slash the $1 billion funding to promote “climate change” initiatives? All of a sudden, that money will get buried in another budget line. Want to stop spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote an LGBT lifestyle overseas? The next secretary will get blank stares when he or she gives such an order to the bureaucrats.

And these are relatively small matters. What about moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, a policy Congress has made law and Donald Trump promoted during the campaign? I guarantee you, the shadow warriors at State will find legal excuses where none exist, and magnify the objections of regional partners who never set foot in Israel anyway.

The State Department has many talented, career professionals, who understand that their job is to promote the policies of the United States of America as defined by the President and his Secretary of State. But it also has many secret and not-so-secret partisans, who believe their duty is to act as so many Edward Snowden’s inside the belly of the beast, leaking to the media and to President Trump’s political enemies.

The next Secretary of State cannot close his eyes to this fact. He must tame the bureaucracy and, like the Swedes, not fear to send those he cannot fire to the “elephant’s churchyard” in the basement.

That’s what happened to Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission under Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, after Hicks had the temerity to testify before Congress that his superiors back in Washington had denied scores of requests for additional security in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The media will scream, and Senator Chuck Schumer will join them, calling the Secretary a vicious partisan, vindictive, or – heavens! – unfair. We need a Secretary of State who will not flinch at the slings and arrows of the president’s political adversaries, who can sweep them away with skill, good humor, and firm resolve.

Do you see Mitt Romney doing that?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the DailyCaller.com.

VIDEO: A Word to the Criminal Migrant — We’ve had enough, the tide is turning

Truth Revolt posted the latest video from Pat Condell, stating:

Commentator Pat Condell is back with another hard-hitting short video, this time about the Islamic tide sweeping the West pretending to be “refugees.” If you’ve seen Pat before, you know he pulls absolutely no punches and tells it like it is. This one is no exception.

Check out Condell’s list of related links below:

Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/…

Germany descends into lawlessness. “We are losing control of the streets”
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/92…

German police union chief: “Migrants laugh at our justice system”.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/…

Mass sexual assault in Sweden covered up by the media.
http://nyheteridag.se/exposing-major-…

See more….