In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims

On June 23, 2015 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the results of a survey of 600 American Muslims entitled Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.  Three days later, the Bridge Initiative released a response to the CSP study entitled New Poll on American Muslims Is Grounded in Bias, Riddled with Flaws.  Two weeks later (July 07, 2015), the Bridge Initiative article was re-posted in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, under the title Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims.

According to the Bridge Initiative, the findings of the CSP survey, which ‘cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country,’ included the following three takeaway points:

  1. “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
  2. “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
  3. “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

In addition, the Bridge Initiative article asserted that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously,’ while citing the following four critiques:

  1. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and
  2. Was administered using an unreliable methodology.
  3. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and
  4. Falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this article is to objectively evaluate whether the three takeaway points in the 2015 CSP survey are accurate (or not).

Note: It follows that if such an objective evaluation provides adequate proof that the three takeaway points in the CSP survey are accurate, then the Bridge Initiative’s assertions that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously’ must be considered invalid (irrelevant).

Analysis Methodology

To accomplish this, I followed the premise that the most reliable approach would be to compare the findings in the 2015 CSP survey with the results of as many other similar independent surveys (and/or statistical reviews) as possible. Thus, a comprehensive search for such surveys provided the following dates and titles (all URL’s accessed July 17, 2015):

February 19, 2006       Poll Reveals 40% Of Muslims Want Shariah Law In UK

August 14, 2006          Many British Muslims Put Islam First

March 16, 2008           Why Shariah?

July 07, 2008               Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

May 25, 2009              Public Opinion In The Islamic World On Terrorism, Al Qaeda & US Policies

August 13, 2009          New Poll Shows 78% of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

December 02, 2010     Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

December 22, 2010     1 In 3 British Muslim Students Back Killing For Islam & 40% Want Sharia Law

August 30, 2011          Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

November 02, 2011     62% Of Muslims In Canada Want Some Form Of Sharia

October 30, 3012         Guess Who U.S. Muslims Are Voting For?

April 30, 2013             The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

May 01, 2013              Seventy-Two Percent of Indonesian Muslims Favor Shariah Law

September 10, 2013     Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups

December 13, 2013     Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

April 07, 2014             The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

October 14, 2014         Arab Public Opinion & The Fight Against ISIS

November 12, 2014     The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant

November 28, 2014     Support For ISIS Stronger In Arabic Social Media In Europe Than In Syria

March 04, 2015            Public Opinion Towards Terrorist Organizations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen & Libya

June 28, 2015               ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Results

After a careful review and comparison of these 21 published surveys with the 2015 CSP survey’s three takeaway points, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1.  “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Overall, an average of at least 64% of Muslims in more than 50 countries worldwide would prefer to be governed by shariah law.  At 51%, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

2.  “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”

Overall, more than 20% of Muslims around the world support the use of violence to defend Islam from its enemies. In some parts of the Islamic world, this number is consistently higher than 20%.  However, as with Point [1], the American Muslim community falls well within the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

3.  “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

The use of violence [Jihad] to make shariah the law of the land is the stated goal of groups such as Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, & etc., as well as the Quran itself (i.e., see 2.191-193 & 8.59-60).  Support for these Islamist groups varies from a low of 13% to a high of 52%, depending on the particular group and/or country in question.  Once again, as with the two points above, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

Conclusion

An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.  Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.  In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.

Rather than habitually recycling ad hominem attacks against their opponents, while emphatically asserting that the results of the 2015 CSP survey were ‘riddled with flaws,’ the Bridge Initiative should:

  1. Provide an acceptable working definition of Shariah law (which dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life),
  2. Conduct their own statistically valid survey, based on this acceptable working definition, and then
  3. Publish the results for the world to see.

Perhaps then, we could begin to build trust, and reduce some of the ‘generalizations about American Muslims ricocheting across the Internet and social media.’  Perhaps then, we could also begin dispelling some of the ‘misunderstanding of Islam’ among the poorly informed and non-equipped general public…that we hear about, so often, and so loudly.

Meanwhile, rather than ignoring an extensive 10-year archive of surveys documenting historical trends within the global Islamic community – trends that fully support the results of the 2015 CSP survey – it seems reasonable that we should expect a much higher level of scholastic integrity from such a prominent and well-endowed institution as the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  As per its stated purpose, an improvement in professional integrity would be a much more effective way to build bridges, ‘improve relations’ and ‘enhance understanding of Muslims in the West.’

Obama: Opening the Pandora’s Box of Nuclear Proliferation?

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, former Ambassador to the U.S., was a target of a failed bombing plot by the Iran’s Quds force at a Washington restaurant. He was at the State Department yesterday in preparation for a meeting with President Obama today regarding the Kingdom’s concerns about the announced nuclear pact with Iran.

The White House committed a faux pas on announcement of the Iran nuclear deal when it first suggested that the Quds force commander, General Qassem Suleymani, was not on a list of 700 Iranians whose travel bans and asset restrictions were lifted. General Suleymani had been deemed responsible for hundreds of U.S. Service personnel casualties during the Iraq War and now is involved with advising Iraqi Shiite militias fighting ISIS.  The Iran FARS news agency and ABC News both confirmed that the legendary head of the Quds Force was indeed on the list. We trust that President Obama will apologize when he meets with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir today. A Wall Street Journal report set the stage for today’s meeting:

Saudi Arabia is the largest of the Arab states that have been deeply skeptical of Mr. Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran.

The Saudis have been deeply worried about the Iran agreement; both because of fears it won’t stop the Iranian nuclear program and because of broader concerns that it will allow Iran to grow as a regional power when it receives the financial windfall from the end of sanctions under the accord.

The Sunni Saudi government already is locked in a proxy battle with Iranian allies in neighboring Yemen. The Iran-backed Houthi rebels overran Yemen’s capital earlier this year and were targeted by a Saudi airstrike campaign backed by the U.S. In addition, Shiite-led Iran is the most important backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; Saudi Arabia is committed to his removal.

However, there is the overarching issue of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East Sunni countries opting to secure their own nuclear infrastructure and weapons.  A  WSJ  op ed in today’s edition  by Karen Elliot House, former publisher and Pulitzer Prize winner for her coverage of the Middle East, addressed what many observers belief is a potential nuclear Pandora’s Box, “Obama Pours Gas on the Mideast Fire”:

The short subdued statement this week by Riyadh’s embassy in Washington again calling for “strict sustainable” inspections speaks volumes about the kingdom’s precarious position and the lack of good options.

[…]

A final option open to the Saudis: Get a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Prince Turki al Faisal, the kingdom’s former head of intelligence vowed in the spring that “whatever the Iranians have, we will have.”

[…]

The nuclear deal with Iran will stoke more Sunni-Shiite violence, and the Saudis may go shopping for nukes.

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015, a Middle East Roundtable discussion was convened by Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio 1330 AM WEBY’s co-hosts  of “Your Turn,” Mike Bates and this writer. Our panelists were Omri Ceren, Managing Director for Press and Strategy of The Israel Project (TIP) and Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center.  Bryen was calling in from Washington, D.C.  Ceren was calling in from Vienna, Austria where he had spent 19 days working with journalists covering the final deliberations of the nuclear pact with Iran. Ceren had also been in Lausanne, Switzerland covering the April 2nd announcement of a framework for a final JPOA.  The following is an excerpt from a forthcoming August 2015 New English Review article on the Iran nuclear agreement based on the radio panel discussion. This excerpt reveals the dangers that could result should nuclear proliferation spread in the Middle East, beginning with Saudi Arabia. The arguments presented here are the opinions of Ceren and not necessarily those of TIP.

Omri Ceren(1)

Omri Ceren, Managing Director at the Israel Project.

Jerry Gordon:   What is the risk in this region that non-proliferation ends and the opposite occurs?  Is this the opening of a Pandora’s Box?

Omri Ceren:  Not just the obvious, but the well nigh undeniable. We talked earlier of what a lot is dangerous about this Administration’s communications with American lawmakers and the American public is that they just don’t tell the truth.  They make excuses for Iranian cheating. But another aspect that has been widely remarked upon is they say insulting things in order to defend their policies. One great example is their answers to the potential that Saudi Arabia will respond to a bad deal by going nuclear.  Let’s be clear, Saudi Arabia will respond to a bad deal by going nuclear. They have not been bashful and have told us in as many words that they will not wait to gain their own nuclear capabilities till the Iranians get a nuclear bomb. They’ve said that they will respond with their own infrastructure when they believe that it is now inevitable that they will get a nuclear bomb.  And they have said that this deal makes it inevitable that Iran gets its nuclear bomb, which is correct. You then have these very clear declarations from a traditional American ally that sits in the center of the world’s energy markets that they intend to go nuclear in response to this deal. If they go nuclear then the entire deal is trashed because there is no chance that the Iranian military will permit the Sunnis to get a bomb without their having a nuclear bomb.  They will respond by backing out of the deal. Now obviously this is a worst case scenario for the White House.  Yesterday, you were in a world where you had no deal and no Iranian bomb. Now you have a deal and you may have an Iranian bomb. What have been their responses? I don’t want to overemphasize this but it is difficult not notice that we have a scenario that will trash everything that the Administration has hoped to create, all costs and no benefits.  What is their answer? They say two things about the Saudis. One is that the Saudis lack the resources  to go nuclear which is insane given the example of North Korea and given what we know about Saudi Arabia’s GDP and how they allocate their resources. The second is what one of the top hands at the NSC wrote in a pamphlet was that the Saudis will never go nuclear because they are afraid of an international oil embargo. I’m sorry but that is not a sophisticated argument. The entire success of the deal and the potential that the deal will fail could leave an entire nuclear Middle East in its wake.

RELATED ARTICLE: UN Set to Adopt Iran Nuke Deal Monday in Obama Blitzkrieg

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Iran: A Bad Deal

Over the years that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran were going on, the US government often attempted to quell the concerns of its citizens by claiming that it recognised that no deal was better than a bad deal. This week they went back on that logic, signing up to a bad deal.

Britain, of course, is equally culpable. The UK government has also signed up to the Vienna agreement. But it is America’s signature and the current US administration’s push to make a deal – any deal – that was the driving force behind this agreement and the US administration which must take responsibility for this terrible deal.

It is a remarkable fact that it was the American government which was the one pushing this deal from the outset. In fact throughout the negotiations it was clear – and clear to the Iranian partners to the negotiations – that America seemed to want a deal more than Iran did. This is striking not least because when Iran came to the negotiating table, it did so from a position of weakness. The American-led sanctions against Iran were hurting the regime. On the streets, the Iranian people were beginning to become bolder in their opposition to the regime which had caused such sanctions to be imposed upon them. But throughout the negotiations it has not been Iran which has looked like the country desperate to make the deal. The country that looked desperate to make the deal was the United States.

How else can one explain the inclusion in the final agreement signed this week of details which were not on the table at the outset? This deal does not only give the Iranians what they wanted in regards to the lifting of sanctions which were hurting their economy. It also lifts the long-imposed sanctions on Iran buying and selling conventional arms. There are, of course, very good reasons for those sanctions. The Iranian government is noteworthy for the use to which it puts conventional weaponry. For it does not only use such weapons to bolster its terrorist proxies including Hezbollah; it uses them on its populations at home whenever they dare to express significant dissatisfaction with the way in which they are ruled.

And the agreement signed this week does not only lift sanctions which affect the Iranian people. They lift sanctions – including on Iran’s acquisitions of missile technology – which have the capacity to affect everybody. There is a presumption – erroneous but prevalent – that Iranian aggression is principally a problem for Israel and that this problem is in some ways containable. Let us ignore for a moment what Iran might be aiming to do with the $150 billion cash bonanza it will be acquiring straight away. Let us pretend that none of it will go to any of its terror proxies. Why then is Iran seeking inter-continental ballistic missile technology? It does not need such missiles to reach Israel.

The US administration is currently spinning that without this deal there would be no way of holding Iran back from developing a nuclear bomb. This is wholly incorrect. What this deal does is legitimise an illegitimate regime, giving it almost everything it wants and trusting that regime will never go back on its word in relation to what it wants next. There is no question that this isn’t a good deal for Iran. But it is a terrible deal for the rest of the world.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

This week, I would like to highlight the work of our university campus programme, Student Rights, in analysing the hostile reaction of some students opposed to the UK government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme in its new report:  Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On Campus.

That there remains a problem of extremism on campuses is obvious. Student Rights logged 132 extremist events in 2012, 145 in 2013, and 123 in 2014. The speakers featured suggested that there was a Western war against Islam, supported individuals convicted of terrorism offences, expressed intolerance of non-believers and/or minorities, and espoused religious law as a method of socio-political governance. The report also highlights how a number of those convicted of terrorist offences have passed through Britain’s higher education institutions.

Despite this evidence, student activists have claimed Prevent is a racist policy, that lecturers spy on students, that vulnerable people will be stigmatised, and that the expression of controversial ideas will be suppressed unless the programme is opposed.

Part of the reason for this widespread disdain is the malign influence exercised by the narrative of extremist groups targeted by the policy, with over 40 student union leaders signing an open letter attacking Prevent organised by the pro-terrorist group CAGE on 11 July for example.

But part stems from the ignorance of students about the reasons Prevent is required and what the programme’s goals are. This reflects a failure of government and university authorities in articulating these adequately.

The way forward is therefore clear. In order to generate better buy-in for its policies in this area, government needs to be loud and proud about the need for them and that civil society actors who seek to challenge extremist influence on our campuses are supported.

However, government needs partners on campus to assist with message articulation and it is here that campus authorities must do more. University administrations and even student unions have responsibilities for the health and welfare of those of their charges vulnerable to radicalisation. They need to be reminded of these with carrots – or sticks if necessary – and encouraged to play their part in ensuring that our campuses remain places of enlightenment and exploration, rather than of ignorance and fear.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

J Street Launches Ad Campaign Promoting Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal [+Video]

You probably have seen our panel discussion on the J street Challenge and comments about the pro-Iranian lobby group NIAC board members, “J Street Challenge documentary and Informed Panel Discussion in Pensacola.“ We noted:

Former deputy Chief of Mission at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Lenny Ben David, revealed forensic analysis of the IRS tax filings of J Street. He noted the questionable funding by known enemies of Israeli both in the U.S. and the Middle East. Jeremy Ben Ami is exposed by Ben David apologizing for why he hid major funding for J Street from George Soros, who is fervently anti-Israel. A J Street board member, Genevieve Lynch, also sits on the board of Iran’s chief lobbying arm in Washington, the National Iranian American Council. Ben David also raised the question of why a Filipino woman living in Hong Kong underwrites almost a third of J Street’s budget.

In an earlier Iconoclast post we referenced a Breitbart News report on a former NIAC employee, Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who was now an NSC staffer in the Obama White House:

Breitbart News in a March 31st, 2015 dossier article on Ms. Nowrouzzadeh reported:

Found that a person with the same name has previously written several publications on behalf of NIAC. According to what appears to be her LinkedIn account, Nowrouzzadeh became an analyst for the Department of Defense in 2005 before moving her way up to the National Security Council in 2014.

A NIAC profile from 2007 reveals that Sahar Nowrouzzadeh appears to be the same person as the one who is currently the NSC Director for Iran. The profiles indicate that she had the same double major and attended the same university (George Washington).

Critics have alleged that NIAC is a lobby for the current Iranian dictatorship under Ayatollah Khamenei. A dissident journalist revealed recently that NIAC’s president and founder, Trita Parsi, has maintained a years-long relationship with Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif.

NIAC was established in 1999, when founder Trita Parsi attended a conference in Cyprus that was held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi reportedly laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to allegedly counteract the influence of America’s pro-Israel and anti-Tehran regime advocacy groups.

NIAC has been investing heavily in attempts to influence the talks in favor of an agreement with the state sponsor of terror. In recent days, its director, Trita Parsi, has been spotted having amiable conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s brother.

With the announcement of P5+1 nuclear agreement by President  Obama on Monday, July 14th, like night follows day, J Street is launching a multi-million dollar video campaign supporting the deal.  All while all  Israelis , many members of Congress and Americans support Prime Minister Netanyahu’s view that the pact is a dangerous  “historic mistake.” They have been joined by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates castigating the deal with Iran posing an existential threat in the Middle East and some suggest here in the US, as well.

The Algemeiner reported on this latest example of J Street revealing its promotion of the President’s outreach to a nuclear Iran:

The left-wing Jewish lobby J Street said Wednesday that it is building support for the Iran nuclear deal through a “multimillion dollar national campaign.”

“J Street wants Congress to know that, despite some loud opposition to the deal coming from Jewish organizational leaders, our polling suggests that a clear majority of Jewish Americans agrees with us and backs the deal,” J Street said in its announcement of a campaign “to make the case to lawmakers that the agreement reached yesterday advances both US and Israeli security interests.”

The campaign, according to J Street, “will launch with a 30-second advertisement highlighting the unprecedented inspections and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear and military sites under the agreement.

Algemeiner noted the comments of Lori Lowenthal Marcus, national correspondent for The Jewish Press and  Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic, a frequent interviewer of President Obama.

Marcus said:

While every other Jewish group which praised the negotiators who reached the agreement “did so for their (the negotiators’) efforts,” only J Street praised the actual content of the deal. On Tuesday, J Street called the deal “a major step forward that will make the world appreciably safer.”

Goldberg tweeted:

“If Israel’s elected leader, and the head of the opposition, oppose the Iran deal, can J Street support it and still call itself pro-Israel?”

Maybe that’s why MK Isaac  Herzog Israeli opposition leader of the Leftist  Zionist Union (Labor) Party said he would work with Prime Minister  Netanyahu’s coalition  to stop the Iran deal.  We wonder which Iranian  conduit funneled the money to underwrite the launch of the J Street video ad with the Orwellian title: “Good for America/Good for Israel”.

Watch the J Street ad on this You Tube video:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Chattanooga, TN: Kuwait-Born Muslim Behind Slaughter of 4 U.S. Marines

Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez

Muhammed Youssef Abdulazeez

The Chattanooga Free Times Press (TCFTP) reported on the background of the perpetrator of the shooting at a Chattanooga, Tennessee Naval and Marine Reserve Center this morning that took the lives of 4 marines, injuring a police officer.

The perpetrator who was killed by a police SWAT team has been identified as 24 year old Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 2012 University of Tennessee engineering graduate.

Watch this ABC News special report on the attack in Chattanooga:

The TCFTP  wrote on  “What we know about the Chattanooga shooter”:

The gunman in the Chattanooga military installation shooting has been identified as 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

He was believed to have been born in Kuwait, and it was unclear whether he was a U.S. or Kuwaiti citizen. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing, sensitive investigation. It was not immediately clear whether the gunman’s first name was spelled Muhammad or Mohammad.

A man named Youssuf Abdulazeez attended UTC, spokesman Chuck Cantrell said, and graduated in 2012 with a degree in engineering.

Abdulazeez is from Hixson, Tennessee, which is just a few miles across the river from Chattanooga. He was booked for a DUI in April 2015.

Police in Hixson kicked a reporter out of the neighborhood that contained a house apparently owned by Abdulazeez. The reporter saw a SWAT team and FBI agents staging at a nearby strip mall. The house, which Hamilton County records is owned by Youssuf S. Abdulazeez, is appraised at $206,100 by the Hamilton County Assessor of Property.

Abdulazeez allegedly killed four Marines and shot one police officer in the attack at Amnicola Highway. A soldier and a police officer were wounded in the attack, according to the Associated Press. Dennis Pedigo, a Chattanooga police officer, is in stable condition.

Abdulazeez’s father, Youssuf Abdullazeez, was appointed as a “special policeman” for Chattanooga’s Department of Public Works in March 2005.

A woman who attended Red Bank High School with Abdulazeez said he was a quiet kid, but well-liked.

“He was friendly, funny, kind,” said Kagan Wagner. “I never would have thought it would be him.”

She added that their whole family seemed normal.

“They were your average Chattanooga family,” she said.

The attacks this morning at an Army Recruiting Center and at Naval and Marine Reserve Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee took the lives of 4 Marines and ultimately the shooter were  all too eerily familiar. They were like the June 1, 2009 attack on a Little Rock Army Recruitment Center by another lone gunman, Carlos Bledsoe aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Was this another case of ‘workplace violence’ like the Little Rock attack or the Fort Hood  November 2009 Massacres by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan? Bledsoe/Muhammad you may recall killed Pvt. William “Andy” Long and severely injured Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula at the Little Rock mall Army recruiting center. That was an AQAP ‘inspired’ event. Was the  Chattanooga attacker ‘inspired’ by ISIS?

From news reports he was not under surveillance by the FBI.  He was apparently an unknown lone wolf? Knowing the problems with the JTTF in Tennessee and liaison with local MB groups, can we expect more incidents like this to occur in the Volunteer State?  Not lost on us is the role played by US Attorney William Killian announcing that the FBI was taking today’s Chattanooga  episode as a domestic terrorism incident. Killian was a prominent speaker in a controversial Muslim  Brotherhood affiliate sponsored event in Coffee, Tennessee that spawned massive protests on June 4, 2013. See our report of the incident.

This incident comes  in the wake of four  arrests of suspected terrorists.  One arrest  in Adams, Massachusetts  was of a Muslim convert  ISIS aspirant caught in an FBI sting operation, the son of a respective Boston PD commander. These arrests  followed  warnings by FBI Director James Comey about an outbreak of ISIS inspired terror events slated originally for the July Fourth holiday.  In the aftermath of this lone Jihadist terrorist attack in Chattanooga what will FBI Director Comey and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter do to provide protection for U.S. Armed Forces recruitment and reserve centers across the country?

Counterterrorism expert US Army Lt. Col. (ret.) Joseph Myers, whom we interviewed on 1330 AM WEBY on these national security issues, said we can expect more such attacks as occurred in Chattanooga.

The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center reported this afternoon “no apparent nexus to terrorism has been uncovered in the investigation of the fatal shootings in Tennessee, but intelligence officials are monitoring the investigation closely.” However, the AP noted:

Even though the report says there was no connection uncovered so far to terrorism, it described efforts by the Islamic State group to revitalize homegrown extremists to conduct physical attacks inside the United States.

Late this afternoon, President Obama issued this statement on the Chattanooga attack:

I just received a briefing from FBI Director Comey, as well as my White House team, about the tragic shooting that took place in Chattanooga today. We don’t know yet all the details. We know that what appears to be a lone gunman carried out these attacks. We’ve identified a name. And at this point, a full investigation is taking place. The FBI will be in the lead, working closely with local law enforcement.

We’ve also been in contact with the Department of Defense to make sure that all our Defense facilities are properly attentive and vigilant as we sort through exactly what happened. And as details of the investigation proceed, we’ll make sure that the FBI, as well as local law enforcement are providing the public with all the information that’s involved.

My main message right now is, obviously, the deepest sympathies of the American people to the four Marines that have been killed. It is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion.

[…]

We take all shootings very seriously. Obviously, when you have an attack on a U.S. military facility, then we have to make sure that we have all the information necessary to make an assessment in terms of how this attack took place, and what further precautions we can take in the future. And as we have more information, we’ll let the public know.

But in the meantime, I’d ask all Americans to pray for the families who are grief-stricken at this point. And I want everybody to understand that we will be thorough and prompt in figuring out exactly what happened.

If President Obama had his way the Chattanooga event would be attributable to those damnably seductive social media spread by undisclosed extremely violent groups. Once again,with  this statement there is not a hint that he  recognizes Islamic jihad terrorism as the leading national and homeland security cause behind this and other ISIS-inspired attacks in the U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of of Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez (back row, center) with his family. We honor the names of the fallen:

Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, from Springfield, Mass.
Lance Cpl. Skip “Squire” Wells, of Marietta, Ga.
Sgt. Carson Holmquist, of Grantsburg Wisc.
Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, of Chattanooga.

Can Muslims be Loyal to Anything other than Allah?

A great example of the unlikely mix of Islam and civility and the conflict of allegiances is Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s decision to blast away at his fellow military mates at fort Hood Texas in November 2009.  He chose to kill over a dozen people, because they were not Muslim. While blowing hs victims away, he yelped the Islamic slogan, “Allahu Akbar!” (“god is great”).  For a soldier to viciously turn on his fellow soldiers in arms is incomprehensible enough, especially when one considers that in order to receive his commission as an officer in the Army, Major Hasan had to sign his name to an oath requiring his name to an oath requiring him to swear allegiance to defend the Constitution.  The oath also called for Major Hasan to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.

Nevertheless, despite swearing an oath to protect the United States and to remain loyal to his compatriots, Major Hasan, most certainly displayed glaring conflicting loyalties.  According to one of his former classmates, Major Hasan would not support the effort to defend against terrorism because he viewed such an effort as a direct war against Islam.  In a way Hasan had a point. After all even if somehow all Islamists are not terrorists, all of today’s terrorists are Islamists.  Oh well!  In fact, Hasan had energetically advocated for a conscientious-objector clause for Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The tug of war between his alleged allegiance to Islam and his so-called loyalty to the United States came to a snapping point, and Major Hasan went to nutsville and followed through on the murderous tradition of Islam and obeyed the tenets of his religion.  Hasan, gleefully killed twelve of his fellow soldiers, with the permission of Allah, of course.

Do you remember the Times Square bomber?  He is another sterling example of the transcendence of loyalty to Islam over loyalty to anything American.  Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born Muslim, became a naturalized United States citizen in April 2009, about one year before he attempted to detonate a bomb in the middle of New York City.  Indeed, the dialogue at trial between the presiding judge and Shahzad demonstrates this completely:

Judge: “Didn’t you swear allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”

Shahzad: I did swear, but I did not mean it.”

Judge:  “You took a false oath?”

Shahzad:  “Yes”

Examples like these demonstrates that, to many Muslims, Islam demands single-minded loyalty from its adherents that can admit no other allegiances.  The driving force behind Islamic unity will inevitably seek to eliminate all other contenders for allegiance and will not let the demands of American citizenship stand in its way.

One of the most obvious methods used by Muslims to demonstrate their loyalty to nothing but Islam or Allah is Jihad.  Jihad is commonly described as “to war against non-Muslims.”  The term jihad derives from the word mujahada, which signifies the use of warfare to establish religion.  Those in support of Islam claim that there are three distinct forms of jihad.  The first form is the “greater jihad” of battling against the inner-self to attain private holiness and devotion to the path of Allah.  The second form of jihad is da ’wah, or the invitation to non-Muslims to convert voluntarily to follow Islam and to follow Shari’ ah.  The third, most well-known form of jihad is the violent use of the sword in physical conflict with non-Muslims (“unbelievers” or “infidels”).  The ultimate objective of the three forms of jihad, collectively, is to convert all unbelievers to Islam (either voluntarily or forcibly) and to subject all non-Muslim territories to Islamic rule and government, i.e. shari ‘ah.

All three forms of jihad are mandated by shai ‘ah.  While violent shari ‘ah is the most commonly known form of jihad, political jihad (a type of da ‘wah) is currently the most significant threat facing Americans because it is latent and because it is imminent.  Da ‘wah literally means “call,” invitation,” or propaganda.”  It is a prerequisite to violent jihad because the Qur ‘ran states that Allah does not punish anyone until one has received the invitation to believe and an introduction to Allah’s law (shari ‘ah).   After the call or invitation to believe is extended, non-Muslims have three choices:  convert to Islam, submit to the Islamic ruler and pay a massive tax (jizyah) or fight and die.

My fellow Americans, the threat of Islam against us and our way of life is ever present.  The question is, will we be able to hold on until the imam is finally gone from the White House?  We can ill afford, nor should we tolerate any threat to our republic, including Islam, shari ‘ah, jihad, or whatever those women abusing Christian murdering gumps come up with.  Politically correct butt kissing of Muslims only strengthens their wicked resolve to kill, steal from and destroy any and every non-Muslim they can get away with harming in some way.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their worthy contributions to this column.

May God Bless America an May America Bless God.

REPORT: Student Opposition Undermines UK Counter-Radicalisation Policy

A new report reveals the extent of extremism on UK university campuses.

Across British universities, the government’s counter-radicalisation strategy, Prevent, is being prevented from functioning effectively due to widespread student opposition, reveals Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy On Campus. This is in part influenced by the narrative of extremist groups targeted by the policy, with over 40 student union leaders signing an open letter attacking Prevent organised by the pro-terrorist group CAGE on 11 July.

Recording over 100 on-campus events hosting speakers with extreme views or a history of involvement with extremist organisations each year since 2012, Student Rights’ latest report shows the alarming reach of extremism on UK campuses. The report also highlights how a number of those convicted of terrorist offences have passed through Britain’s higher education institutions.

By providing an in-depth analysis of Prevent and the criticisms levelled against it, the publication shows that the strategy is frequently misunderstood by those who oppose it and in fact uses a range of targeted and accountable measures that could effectively curb the influence afforded to extremists in the UK.

Further findings include:

  • Student Rights logged 132 events in 2012, 145 in 2013, and 123 in 2014. The speakers featured have suggested that there is a Western war against Islam; supported individuals convicted of terrorism offences; expressed intolerance of non-believers and/or minorities; and espoused religious law as a method of socio-political governance – opposing democracy in the process.
  • Despite this evidence, student activists have claimed Prevent is a racist policy; that lecturers spy on students; that vulnerable people will be stigmatised; and that the expression of controversial ideas will be suppressed.

The report also seeks to provide policy makers and practitioners with a set of recommendations which can ensure that civil society actors who seek to challenge extremist influence on our campuses are supported, and that universities and student unions are aware of their responsibilities to those vulnerable to radicalisation.

Rupert Sutton, Student Rights Director, commented:

“The evidence presented in this report shows that extremism on university campuses remains a serious issue while the dominant narrative is one which draws on extremist campaigning to undermine attempts to challenge the problem.

As such, it is vital that the government works to increase support for those challenging extremist narratives about Prevent, and that any guidance for university staff addresses fears driven by these narratives.

Universities should be the best place to challenge extremist ideas, yet at present this is simply not happening – something that must change if we are to successfully oppose on-campus radicalisation”.

Preventing Prevent? Challenges to Counter-Radicalisation Policy on Campus is available to download here

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a protester with her face painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag chants during a pro-Gaza demonstration outside the Israeli embassy in London. Photo credit:REUTERS.

VIDEO: Nuke Deal Threatens Israel’s Existence

The incomparable Dr. Andrew Bostom joins us today. He gives his analysis of the horrific P5+1 nuclear “deal” with Iran, with a little history on traditional Shia anti-Semitism.

We discuss the worthlessness of the verification process, Iran’s continued capabilities, what this means to the world and Israel specifically. Where else do you get to see one of the world’s foremost authorities on Islamic anti-Semitism speak candidly for 45 minutes?

Join us!

U.S. will Help Iran Stop Israeli Threats to its Nuclear Program

“The United States and other world powers will help to teach Iran how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program” — and where could those threats come from except from Israel and possibly the Saudis?

This agreement is an unfolding disaster, and it is almost certainly going to get even worse once it is fully implemented.

“U.S. Will Teach Iran to Thwart Nuke Threats,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, July 14, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The United States and other world powers will help to teach Iran how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program, according to the parameters of a deal reached Tuesday to rein in Iran’s contested nuclear program.

Under the terms of a deal that provides Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief, Iran and global powers will cooperate to help teach Iran how to manage its nuclear infrastructure, which will largely remain in tact under the deal.

Senior Iranian officials, including the country’s president, celebrated the deal as a victory for the country. Iran’s state controlled media quoted President Hassan Rouhani as saying that the deal will “remove all sanctions while maintaining [Tehran’s] nuclear program and nuclear progress.”

In what is being viewed as a new development, European countries and potentially the United States agreed to “cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices,” according to a copy of the agreement furnished by both the Russians and Iranians.

This will include “training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems,” according to the text.

Additional “training and workshops” would work to “strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems,” the text states.

The language was viewed as disturbing by analysts and experts who said such cooperation could help protect Iran against efforts by the Israelis or other countries to sabotage the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in the future.

“The United States and its partners have just become the international protectors of the Iranian nuclear program. Instead of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, we’re now legally obligated to help the Iranians build it up and protect it,” said one Western source present in Vienna and who is apprised of the details of the deal.

In addition to teaching Iran how to protect its nuclear infrastructure, world powers pledge in the agreement to help Iran construct next-generation centrifuges—the machines that enrich uranium—at its once-secret nuclear site in Fordow, where Iran has been suspected of housing a weapons program.

Fordow is an underground and fortified military site that is largely immune from air strikes by those seeking to eradicate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

While Iran will not be permitted to enrich nuclear material with these centrifuges, the know-how gained from operating these advanced centrifuges could help it advance clandestine nuclear weapons work, experts say.

The Obama administration had once vowed that Iran would have to fully dismantle its centrifuge program. However, this demand was walked back as the Iranians demanded greater concessions over the past months.

“Now the international community will be actively sponsoring the development of Iranian nuclear technology,” Omri Ceren, an analyst from the Israel Project (TIP), wrote in an email to reporters. “And since the work will be overseen by a great power, it will be off-limits to the kind of sabotage that has kept the Iranian nuclear program in check until now.”

Meanwhile, Iranian President Rouhani celebrated the deal in a speech that detailed how the country received everything it was looking for from the United States.

This includes the full rollback on sanctions on Iran’s financial, energy, and banking sectors, as well as others, and the suspension of international resolutions banning the sale of arms to Tehran.

Iran will also move forward with work on its advanced centrifuges and also “continue its nuclear research and development,” according to Rouhani’s comments. “All our goals materialized under the deal,” Rouhani said, according to Fars….

Rouhani went on to say that Iran “will scrutinize implementation of the agreement” to ensure that the United States and other world powers uphold their end of the bargain.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iran Deal, Explained

Netanyahu: “Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?”

Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” holds knife to tourist’s neck at Rome’s Colosseum

With Odds ‘Rigged’ Against Them, Skeptical U.S. Lawmakers Hope Americans Turn Against Iran Deal

VIDEO: How Islam is Conquering Europe

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Ingrid Carlqvist, Editor-in-Chief of Dispatch International, and Nima Gholam Ali Pour, a Sweden Democrat Politician. They discussed How Islam is Conquering Europe, telling the uncensored truth about why Sharia is devouring a civilization.

Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions and LIKE Jamie’s Fan Page on Facebook.

Netanyahu: “Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?”

“We think this is not only a threat to us. We think this is a threat to you as well.” Indeed.

“Benjamin Netanyahu to Lester Holt: Iran Nuclear Deal Poses Threat to U.S., Israel,” by Elizabeth Chuck, NBC News, July 15, 2015:

The landmark Iran nuclear deal poses a threat to both Israel and the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told NBC News’ Lester Holt on Wednesday.

“We think this is not only a threat to us. We think this is a threat to you as well,” Netanyahu said, a day after Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., reached the historic agreement. “Iran has killed more Americans than anyone other than al Qaeda.”

“They’re going to get hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military machine,” he added.

The pact between Iran and world powers ends a decade-long dispute, and grants Tehran some relief from tough economic sanctions in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. President Obama said the accord ensures that “every pathway to a nuclear weapon” has been cut off.

But Netanyahu said Wednesday that he and Obama have a “real disagreement.”

“Iran is different. It’s a zealot country,” he said. “It’s killed a lot of Americans. It’s killing everybody in sight in the Middle East.”

Netanyahu contends Iran — long suspected of harboring enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon — cannot be trusted with any sort of nuclear program.

“I think Iran has two paths to the bomb: One if they keep the deal, the other if they cheat on the deal,” he said.

According to the terms of the agreement, United Nations inspectors will be able to check any suspicious facility in Iran within a period of up to 24 days.

“Can you imagine giving a drug dealer 24 days’ notice before you inspect the premises?” Netanyahu said. “That’s a lot of time to flush a lot of meth down the toilet.”

Israel, a strong U.S. ally, has been vocally opposed to any deal. In March, Netanyahu delivered an address to Congress blasting the negotiations as a way to empower Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,” he warned. “For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iran Deal, Explained

Netanyahu: “Iran has two paths to the bomb: One if they keep the deal, the other if they cheat on the deal”

France say jihad terror plot against military bases foiled earlier this week

U.S. will help Iran stop Israeli threats to its nuclear program

PODCAST: Why the P5+1 Deal is Dangerous for the U.S. and Israel

User comments

Mike Bates (L) with Jerry Gordon.

You have heard statements by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry announcing an “historical breakthrough” with  the P5+1 Joint Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program suggesting that it will be cut off from achieving a one year breakout to produce a weapon. He threatened Congress with a possible Veto should they reject the deal under the 60 day review requirements of the Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015.

All the while Iran’s infrastructure to produce a bomb remains in place and sanctions against acquiring conventional weapons including possible nuclear tipped ICBMs will be removed. Moreover, Iran will not be subject to the anytime intrusive inspections by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Notwithstanding, you have also heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who denounced the deal as an “historic mistake”.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham called the Iran nuclear deal akin to a “declaration of War” on Israel. President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic went on Iranian TV allegedly calling the proposed pact a “win-win” that would eliminate mutual distrust for this state sponsor of terrorism. Not lost on many Americans is that the US did not obtain the release of three citizens imprisoned in Iran; a pastor, an ex-Marine and a journalist, as well as, an ex-FBI agent missing for over eight years.  Then there is the embarrassment over Al Quds IRGC commander Gen. Qassem Sulyemani being lifted from the terrorism persons of interest list. This for a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; possibly Libya, as well.

To find what are the real implications of today’s historic announcement we convened a panel of experts for another in our periodic 1330 AM WEBY Middle East Round Table Discussions July 14, 2015. The panel discussion on “Your Turn” included  guests Omri Ceren of The Israel Project, Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center  and co –hosts Mike Bates and Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review. An article based on the panel discussion will appear in the New English Review.

Download and Listen to the panel discussion, here.

Our panelists were:

Omri Ceren

Omri Ceren, Managing Director for Press and Strategy at  The Israel Project.

sbryen-804443500

Shoshana Bryen, senior director, The Jewish Policy Center.

EDITORS NOTE: This podcast on 1330 AM WEBY radio originally appeared in the New English Review.

Obamadeal: Iran to gain $100 billion

That can finance a great deal of genocidal hatred.

“Historic nuclear deal: Iran set to gain $100 billion,” Reuters, July 14, 2015:

VIENNA: Iran would get access to more than $100 billion in frozen assets when the Iran nuclear agreement is implemented, which depends on when Tehran has curbed its nuclear program and the UN nuclear watchdog has certified this, US officials said on Tuesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement of the deal, said that UN Security Council sanctions could be reimposed on Iran within 65 days in the event of Iranian noncompliance with the deal.

The accord includes a provision under which Iran can be required to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with access to suspected nuclear sites, including military sites, or with other means to address their concerns, within 24 days if a majority of a panel overseeing the deal insists….

If Iran refused to comply, one US official said that the major powers could then move to “snapback” or reinstate UN Security Council sanctions against Iran, a process that itself can take place within 65 days.

That’s one thing we can be sure will never happen.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran’s Supremo posts photo of himself trampling Israeli flag

Netanyahu: Iran nuclear agreement a “bad mistake of historic proportions”

A Day that will Live in Infamy: Iran Celebrates Getting Nuclear Bomb

The P5+1 and the Iranians have agreed to a deal that ensures Iran has nuclear weapons capabilities and lifts economic sanctions on the terror supporting Islamic regime. President Obama stood in front of the camera this morning and lied to the entire world. Click here to read the full transcript of his statement on the Iranian nuclear deal.

One truth in Obama’s statement is, “Iran currently has a stockpile that can produce up to 10 nuclear weapons.”

Benjamin Netanyahu stood in front of a camera and warned the entire free world of the consequences of this toothless deal.

In the terror enclave known as Boston, the son of a police captain was arrested and charged with terrorist activity.

An finally, and most disturbing of all, the Islamic State blows up a baby while training it’s members the fine art of booby-trapping!

Join us, sit back and get aggravated!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Here’s the Truth About 6 of Obama’s Iran Deal Claims

23 Tweets Responding to the Iran Nuclear Deal

What 2016ers Say About Obama’s Nuke Deal With Iran

New York City ‘Pissed Away’ by Mayor Ed ‘the Red’ De Blasio

Pissed-AwayJoin us for a Tom-less episode of Enemies of The State. We cover the recently escaped Mexican drug lord El Chapo Guzman, and why his best bet might be to go to San Francisco.

New York City Mayor Ed “The Red” De Blasio’s policies of allowing crimes to go unpunished, and the devastating affects they have on life in the Big Apple.

More examples of the Islamic State acting like real Muslims should, like killing dozens for not fasting during Ramadan.

And finally we take a look back at Friday’s show and the infamous “Doctor” Kevin Barrett and his Jew-hating potty mouth! Join us, you won’t regret it!