Posts

Heartbreaking: Photos of Drowned Yezidi Refugee Children

As Canada and other countries make their claims that they are helping refugees, there are those who have lost their lives who remain unseen, unreported and forgotten.

The plights of Yezidis have been forgotten and ignored by the United States, the United Nations, the Liberal government of Canada, the Main Stream Media and the rest of the free world when Alan Kurdi’s photos went viral to help the Liberal government of Canada win the election by landslide which prompted the acceptance of over 50.000 Sunni Muslim Syrians to this country which according to experts vetting would be impossible.

Please see the photos below provided by Khaled Khalaf​, a Yezidi activist. WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES:

Shabnam Assadollahi's photo.
Shabnam Assadollahi's photo.
Shabnam Assadollahi's photo.

Mr. Khalaf told us: “These are all Yezidi children who were drowned but no media gave any attention to them because they were from the Yezidi faith.”

Khalaf continues: “These picture were taken a couple weeks ago. These kids and their family were fleeing from Turkey to Greece for a safer, better and more promising life but no media has given any publicity to this horrifying news..”

The Kurds, Christians and Yizidis are facing massacres and yet are being ignored. Did the Liberals and their media including the Islamic State had an agenda showing Alan Kurdi, the drowned Syrian boy?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada mainly accepting Sunni and not Izidi (Yizidi) refugees – Jerusalem online

Workshop on converting non-Muslims held at the University of Calgary

RELATED VIDEO: The genocide of Yizidis in broad daylight:

A Victory In Lawfare

This has not been a good year.  From the start of January when gunmen walked into the offices of Charlie Hebdo to last month when suicide bombers walked into a concert hall in the same city, the terror and bloodshed may have returned to France but in the meantime it circled the entire globe.  From California to Tunisia and Texas to Mosul this year has been one of atrocities and barbarism of a scale almost too appalling to consider.

At the same time our politicians have struggled to even get some consensus on what to do about the human tide which has flowed across the continent and begun a process of change which will take decades to play out.  In the Middle East we have prevaricated and then patted ourselves on the back for doing little and late.  In the international arena we have seen Vladimir Putin begin to look like a world leader, while the President of the United States has been reduced to something like a global commentator. Everywhere the world looks more unstable and uncertain and the future more troubling than it has at any year’s end for a long time.

In such a situation one has to look for points of light.  One such point came this week in a small but important victory in the UK.  It is a year and a half since David Cameron ordered a review into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK.  Since the conclusion of that report’s findings and its writing-up earlier this year the Brotherhood has three times tried to stop the report’s findings from being released.  They have attempted injunctions in March, in the summer and then again this week, just one day before the publication of the findings, though not the full report.

That such an organisation can even think of being able to use the British courts to silence the British government says much about why the global battle against Islamic extremism is going backwards.  But the UK government won out and its findings are immensely helpful to pushing back the tide of extremism at home.  While deciding that the Brotherhood does not meet the level of violence required to justify outright proscription it does find that the group is one that possibly leads to extremism and that new measures should therefore be put in place to tackle those groups and individuals associated with the movement.

When the review began a team of our top researchers at HJS were invited in to give evidence about the activities of the Brotherhood in the UK and in Europe.  It was a great pleasure and honour to do so and to be able to name some of those who have been named and identified in the final report’s conclusions.  This makes the fight against the group’s affiliates in the UK very significantly easier.  Much of the challenge in this area in recent years has been fighting to ensure that extremist groups are identified as such by the authorities so that it cannot be lowered to a ‘he-says, she-say’ debate between non-governmental organisations.

Much more will be needed to turn events around globally, but keeping our own stable clean in the UK and Europe is a very important part of changing around that global tide.  This is a very long conflict, and although the set-backs can be swift, progress is always arduous.  Nevertheless, some progress there is and for that we can at least reflect on a year which has ended with a modest victory.


mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK  

This week, yet another bit of hope in the world was extinguished by the Obama Administration. In this case, that the USA would attempt to stick by some principles – as well as sound strategic sense – in its decision making over Syria.

Speaking in Moscow following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Secretary of State John Kerry uttered the fatal words that “The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change” in Syria. In short, that the Butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, could stay in power after all, and despite both destroying his country and occasioning the rise of Islamic State through his murderous behaviour.

This is disappointing, but not surprising. The Obama Administration has after all flunked pretty much every foreign policy test thrown at it, ranging from Russia in Ukraine to the Iranian nuclear agreement.

But it is also a decision that will have serious consequences going forwards. If our declared intention is to defeat Islamic State by bringing the remaining non-jihadist forces together in a political settlement, then keeping Mr Assad will make that harder, not easier to achieve. Syrian rebels who have spent the past few years seeking his removal on account of his dictatorship will not now suddenly rush to embrace him, although they could have been persuaded to ally with Assad’s regime minus a few figureheads. Instead, they will continue their struggle, even if it looks ever more forlorn.

Assad has become a symbol of oppression. And in acquiescing to that symbol’s survival, the US has betrayed its principles as a bastion of liberty in the world. You can be certain that Islamic State will use this declaration to pump propaganda material out to its Muslim targets in the West, entreating them to join its jihad because the Western powers have shown they are happy to tolerate repression.

But the true victors from this policy shift will be the Iranian revolutionary regime. Assad’s dependency on Iran is well-established. If his regime wins, then so does Iran. And if Iran wins in Syria, it will be able to extend its push for dominance in the region through territorial control linking Lebanon to Iran through a direct land corridor that will take in Syria and a Shia dominated Iraqi state. Which will be bad for Western allies in the region, and ultimately for the West itself.

Congratulations therefore to President Obama and Mr Kerry. It is a rare feat to be both strategically shortsighted and morally bereft. But they have managed it and in some style.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Muslim National Guard soldier planned Paris-style slaughter in U.S., tried to join the Islamic State

He was in the National Guard. He converted to Islam and plotted to massacre 150 non-Muslims and join the Islamic State. Authorities remain uncurious, however, about the process of converting to Islam and how Islamic texts and teachings may incite converts to commit acts of violence.

Hasan Edmonds

Hasan Edmonds

“National Guard soldier ‘who planned Paris-style attack on US soil’ to kill 150 people facing 30 years in prison and a $500,000 fine after pleading guilty to trying to join ISIS,” by Darren Boyle, Mail Online, December 15, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A National Guard soldier who conspired with is cousin to join ISIS and massacre up to 150 people at his military base is facing up to 30 years in prison after pleading guilty to providing support to a terrorist organisation.

Hasan Edmonds, 23, of Aurora, Illinois, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and one count of attempting to provide material support to the same organisation.

His cousin Jonas Edmonds, 30, also admitted the conspiracy charge as well as one count of making a false statement to authorities regarding international terrorism. He is facing a maximum jail term of 23 years when he reappears in court for sentence next year.

Hasan Edmonds, made contact with an undercover FBI agent whom he believed was an ISIS terrorist in Libya.

He requested advice on ‘how to fight and defeat the US military’. At the time, Hasan Edmonds was serving with the Illinois National Guard in Joliet. He told undercover agents were willing to attack the United States.

Both cousins later met with another undercover agent in March who pretended to help the younger Edmonds travel to Mosul in Iraq to join ISIS.

They also discussed a plan for Jonas Edmonds, 30, to use his cousin’s military uniforms to attack the base in Joliet, Illinois where Hasan Edmonds was assigned.

Jonas said he wanted the undercover agent to help him achieve a ‘body count’ of 100 to 150 people.

Hasan Edmonds took his cousin and the undercover agent to the base on March 24 to conduct surveillance and retrieve a training schedule in order to pick the best time to attack, the plea agreement said.

Hasan Edmonds and his cousin Jonas Edmonds spoke to undercover federal agents about their plan to attack the Illinois National Guard Armory in Joliet, pictured, where Hasan served as a soldier.

Jonas Edmonds drove his cousin to the airport the next day, but Hasan Edmonds was arrested before he could board the flight to Egypt. Jonas Edmonds drove from the airport to his cousin’s house but was arrested before he could retrieve the uniforms…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State caliph al-Baghdadi: “Jews, soon you shall hear from us in Palestine which will become your grave”

UK Muslims provide less than 10% of terror tips, boycott anti-radicalization program

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Hasan Edmonds (left), a National Guard specialist, and his cousin, Jonas Edmonds who are charged with a conspiracy in which Hasan would travel overseas to join ISIS, while Jonas would coordinate an attack on the National Guard facility where Hasan had trained. Photos supplied to CBS News.

‘The People Will Waken and Listen To Hear’ by Michael Devolin

“In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoofbeats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.”

– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

The best thing about Donald Trump’s message, in my opinion, is that its promotion of old fashioned prudence has awakened the American people, and especially those Americans who have been driven to lethargy by political correctness; whose voices, until now, have been obfuscated and ignored by politicians—both Republican and Democrat—more interested in selling their party than they are in taking back their country. Neighbours north of the border—those also driven to lethargy by political correctness, whose newly elected prime minister and his caucus and their proposed policies indicate that they are more attuned to the Muslim Middle East than they are to Canada—are listening with grateful fascination. We applaud Donald Trump for his clarity on issues close to our hearts also. Imagine our disappointment, therefore, when hearing of his unprovoked excoriation of Pamela Geller and her defence of freedom of speech, an attack unseemly for anyone professing to be an American patriot, and especially discomposing for those who are even now trying to picture Donald Trump as the next president of the United States of America. Pamela Geller says it best: “If you don’t support free speech, you are not qualified to be president.”

However, and in spite of this one wobbling wheel, the Trump bandwagon is attracting a growing support. Sort of like Socrates’ description of the power of Homer’s poetry: “This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their power of suspension from the original stone.” Donald Trump is the “original stone,” the real American, and he has inspired in those of consanguineous heart the determination that America, the America envisioned by her founding fathers, is not about to go down without a fight. As Riddick Bowe, one of the greatest American heavyweight boxers of all time, once said to Britain’s Lennox Lewis, “You ain’t gonna knock nothin’ out, bum.”

It is very revealing how some of the Republican candidates are denigrating Donald Trump’s message. Steve Holland and Emily Stephenson of the Associated Press, in their coverage of a CNN moderated security debate, reported that Jeb Bush ‘…assailed Trump for a lack of depth and seriousness and called him a “chaos candidate” who was adept at one-liners but naive on policy issues.’ And again, attacking Mr. Trump’s practical approach to America’s present security issues, “Donald, you’re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency.” Mr. Trump, ever focused, responded, “We’re not talking about isolation; we’re talking about security. We’re not talking about religion; we’re talking about security. Our country is out of control.”

Donald Trump notices what the improvidence of the other Republican candidates seems to have obscured from their political horizons: the stark reality that many Western democracies (United States and Canada included) are being internally decimated simultaneously by both a lack of leadership and an unassuming populace whose primarily Christian traditions are being aggressively transmogrified by Islam’s political activists, many of whom have publicly professed Islamist sympathies. The Polling Company CSP Poll revealed this year (2015) that 29% of Muslim-Americans support violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran. Only 61% of those Muslim-Americans questioned agreed that such violence is unacceptable. Adherents.com reports that there are presently 2.8 million Muslim-Americans living in the United States. Do the math.

Saul Friedlander referred to the history of the Holocaust as “…an integral part of the ‘age of ideology’ and, more precisely and decisively, of its late phase: the crisis of liberalism in continental Europe.” Mr. Friedlander goes on to say that, “…without the obsessive anti-Semitism and the personal impact of Adolf Hitler, first in the framework of his movement, then on the national scene after January 1933, the widespread German anti-Semitism of those years would probably not have coalesced into anti-Jewish political action and certainly not into its sequels.” Those ideologies back then were “…revolutionary socialism (which was to become Bolshevism in Russia and communism throughout the world), and by a revolutionary right that…turned into fascism in Italy and elsewhere, and into Nazism in Germany.” It could be said of our day that we live in an “age of ideology” also, but of one ideology only, and that ideology is Islam. Regardless of which strains of this imperialistic and expansionist ideology are insalubrious and which are not, which are dangerous and which are not, the undeniable fact remains that the religion of Islam is their locus and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian hatred is, in varying degrees, a common thread in all.

Our problem, and it’s becoming a self-destructive problem, is that Western democracies are conciliating an Islam entire—which includes all these strains—without thoroughly and opportunely discriminating between the good and the bad. Donald Trump intends to remedy this problem at a time when all other politicians, Democrat and Republican both, have made it a habit of looking the other way whenever it rears its ugly head. The reason for his rising popularity can be found in the fact that a vast majority of Americans—those Americans whose concerns about the religion of Islam have been ignored—feel nothing now but repugnance when hearing the same old excuses and the same old worn out clichés from the same old politicians. When they listen to Donald Trump, they hear a politician whose concerns are consistent with those Americans who still love their country. Donald Trump has evoked an American patriotism the rest of the world had previously assumed was dead or dying, because (not excusing his trepid rendering of the 1st Amendment) he knows that, “In the hour of darkness and peril and need, the people will waken and listen to hear…”

RELATED ARTICLE: Publishers Weekly apparently totally cool with beheading Americans, Jewish genocide, removing girls’ clitorises

U.S. Navy: Chattanooga Slaughter Inspired by Foreign Muslim Terrorists

Another setback for the Obama Ministry of Islamophilia, which recently was stunned by the Army ignoring the recommendations of its investigating officer and deciding that Bowe Bergdahl will face a general court martial for desertion and “misbehavior before the enemy”.

The deserter Bergdahl, you will recall, was declared by the Obama administration to have “served the United States with honor and distinction.” But there was something greater at play in the Bergdhal case, something great enough to inspire President Obama to hold a special ceremony in the Rose Garden. Mark Steyn asks some hard questions about one of the strangest, darkest episodes of the Obama presidency:

The deserter may get his just deserts, but what of the man who made the “deal” for him and then honored the deserter with a Rose Garden photo-op with his Taliban-supporting dad… The President of the United States embracing a Taliban sympathizer at the White House. There was no need to hold such an intimate photo-op. Yet Obama chose to do it. Why?

Given what the United States Government knew about Bergdahl at the time of that ceremony, ignorance of who he was is not a plausible explanation. So my question a year and a half ago remains unanswered: why did he do it? […]

There are three dishonorable men in that short photo-op: a deserter who broke his oath, a father who sympathizes publicly with the enemy …and a president lying before the nation, to make them complicit in that dishonor…

The Army at least has decided it will not be made complicit in that dishonor. If there were a real press in this country, someone would ask Obama how it is that he became the first president to host a Rose Garden celebration for a deserter.

Now the Navy also seems to be waking up after seven years of Obamasleep. This is an especially stunning reversal, as just a month ago, FBI Director James Comey had indicated details on the Chattanooga investigation might never be kept secret, stating,  “We don’t want to smear people.”

As Robert Spencer wrote on November 15, 2015:

Abdulazeez’s motivations aren’t really in doubt. He viewed material by jihad leader Anwar Awlaki online, and spoke about Islamic martyrdom. He wrote in his diary about “becoming a martyr.” He texted a hadith to a friend before he began his attack. Abulazeez’s motive is only unclear to the terminally blinkered and willfully ignorant.

And Comey does know more than he is telling: “Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret.” Fair enough, but then he adds this curious statement: “That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people.” How could he possibly smear anyone by releasing information about Abdulazeez’s motivations? Is there a jihadi mastermind behind this attack, still loose in Chattanooga? Or does Comey mean that he doesn’t want to talk about Abdulazeez’s motivations because to do so would smear Islam, i.e., cast it in a bad light?

Now the Navy is awarding five Purple Hearts, and the Chattanooga jihad murders are admitted to be, in Comey’s most recent statement, “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

Signs of hope? Perhaps, but dhimmitude is always just one jizya payment — or Rose Garden photo op — away.

“Navy Concludes Chattanooga Shooting Was Inspired by Foreign Terrorists,” Breitbart News, December 16, 2015:

Chattanooga Jihad Killer Muhammad Abdulazeez, with his devout, and now shocked, shocked!, family.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — After determining a shooting at a Chattanooga reserve center this summer was inspired by foreign terrorists, the Navy will award the Purple Heart to the four Marines and one sailor who were killed and the one Marine who was injured there.

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the decision Wednesday in a news release. He said the finding that the shooting was terrorist-inspired came after an extensive investigation by the FBI and Naval Criminal Investigation Service.

“This determination allows the Department of the Navy to move forward immediately with the award of the Purple Heart to the families of the five heroes who were victims of this terrorist attack, as well as to the surviving hero, Sgt. Cheeley,” Mabus’ statement reads.

The FBI earlier labeled shooter Muhammad Abdulazeez, a naturalized U.S. citizen, a homegrown violent extremist but declined to say what might have motivated him. His family said he had problems with drugs and depression that prevented him from holding on to a job. He was also in debt, and considering bankruptcy at 24.

But investigators also found writings from Abdulazeez that reference Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who encouraged and inspired attacks on the homeland and was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

Earlier Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey told reporters the July 16 attack was “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

That statement came after some had questioned why the Dec. 2 attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, California, was quickly labeled terrorism but months passed without a determination in the Chattanooga attack.

Abdulazeez first fired shots from his car into a military recruiting center in a Chattanooga strip mall before driving about 7 miles to a Navy-Marine reserve center where he killed four Marines and a sailor and wounded a fifth Marine before Chattanooga police killed him.

Those killed were Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, and Marines Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, Sgt. Carson Holmquist, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan and Lance Cpt. Squire “Skip” Wells. Sgt. DeMonte Cheeley was injured.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is from Chattanooga, praised the decision in a statement, saying those killed and wounded “exemplify the very best that America has to offer.”

“Our commander-in-chief has classified the heartbreaking events that took place that day as an act of terror, and I have been pressing the FBI to provide answers to both the families of the fallen and our community,” said the Tennessee Republican. “I appreciate the efforts of all involved as they work tirelessly to piece together this puzzle so we can better protect ourselves in the future.”

Smith’s grandmother, Linda Wallace, said in a telephone interview that she was frustrated it took months to determine the shooting was inspired by foreign terrorists. But she was pleased to hear of the award.

“He definitely deserved it,” she said. “He gave his life for those other guys.”

RELATED ARTICLE: SB jihadi’s mid-massacre message released: “We pledge allegiance to Khalifa”

CEO of the DNC: Responce to the GOP Presidential Debate in Las Vegas

I received an email from Democratic National Committee CEO Amy K. Dacey about the GOP debate in Las Vegas. Amy writes:

Amy K. Dacey

DNC CEO Amy K. Dacey

Here’s what happened last night: We watched as Republican presidential hopefuls stumbled their way through basic questions about national security, without one of them providing a serious plan for keeping our country safe.

Instead, they spent almost four hours discussing the agenda that their frontrunner, Donald Trump, has set for the Republican Party. Everything from where to bomb, which refugees to ban, and how big a wall we should build.

The choice in this election could not be more clear. We can elect a Democrat who will fight for equality, who won’t use offensive rhetoric that compromises our national security and puts us in harm’s way, who will fight every single day for folks like you and me, Richard — or we can end up with one of these Republicans as our next president.

What may be wrong with Amy’s view of the debate?

Amy must follow the Democratic Party narrative when it comes to dealing with national security and the existential threat to the United States and the free world – Islam. The narrative is summed up by Amy’s statement that Democrats, “[W]on’t use offensive rhetoric that compromises our national security and puts us in harm’s way.”

In other words the Democratic Party will not say or do anything to offend Islam. 

Why? Because President Obama truly believes that Islam is not the problem but is the solution. The final solution, for Jews, Christians, non-Muslims, if you will. You see any criticism of Islam, called Fitna in Arabic, is forbidden.

Quran versus 2: 191-193, reads:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

Islam requires the killing, expelling and fighting disbelievers where ever they are found. Fitna (resistance) “is worse than killing.” A Muslim will kill because disturbing the peace and order of the Ummah (the Muslim community) is worse than the slaughter of innocents, such as the 5,000 annual honor killings by Muslims of their family members.

In the Democratic Party there is a “socio-political narrative” which sees the loss of diversity and/or the risk of offending Muslims as a much greater concern than the actual threat posed by the global Islamic movement, forced imposition of shariah laws and the slaughter of innocent  people by Muslims, as happened in San Bernardino, California.

Democrats consider any opposition to Islam (Fitna) to be worse than the global slaughter, which leads to more slaughter.

Amy is afraid to offend. Democrats are afraid to confront evil. They are Islamic Democrats or put another way the Democratic Party of Islam.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The trouble with ‘moderate Muslims’

DHS Whistleblower’s Open Letter to Congress: No Confidence in Administration’s Vetting Process

Anyone saying ‘Islam is a Religion Of Peace’ needs to read this

Multiculturalism Kills

EDITORS NOTE: Click here to learn more about Fitna.

Anyone saying ‘Islam is a Religion Of Peace’ needs to read this

“One may well ask how ‘the religion of peace’ became a brand of Islam, for the phrase cannot be found in the Qur’an, nor in the teachings of Muhammad.”

“Anyone Using The Phrase ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Peace’ Needs To Read This”,  by Mark DurieIndependent JournalDecember 17, 2015:

Days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, President Obama’s address to the nation concerning the threat of ISIS missed the mark. In fact, President Obama seemed at times to be more concerned with Americans ostracizing Muslim communities through “suspicion and hate,” than he was with protecting innocent American civilians from murder in the name of radical Islam.

It is high time for western political leaders to stop responding to terrorism by naming Islam as ‘the religion of peace’. It is time to have a hard conversation about Islam.

The West is in the throes of acute cognitive dissonance over Islam, whose brands are at war with each other. On the one hand we are told that Islam is the Religion of Peace. On the other hand we are confronted with an unending sequence of acts of terror committed in the name of the faith.

There is a depressing connection between the two brands: the louder one brand becomes, the more the volume is turned up on the other.

The slogan ‘Religion of Peace’ has been steadily promoted by western leaders in response to terrorism: George Bush Jr and Jacques Chirac after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7, David Cameron after drummer Lee Rigby was beheaded and after British tourists were slaughtered in Tunisia, and François Hollande after the Charlie Hebdo killings. After the beheading of 21 Copts on a Libyan beach Barak Obama called upon the world to “continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam.”

One may well ask how ‘the religion of peace’ became a brand of Islam, for the phrase cannot be found in the Qur’an, nor in the teachings of Muhammad.

Islam was first called ‘the religion of peace’ as late as 1930, in the title of a book published in India by Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi. The phrase was slow to take off, but by the 1970s it was appearing more and more frequently in the writings of Muslims for western audiences.

What does “religion of peace” actually mean?

Words for ‘peace’ in European languages imply the absence of war, and freedom from disturbance. It is no coincidence that the German words Friede ‘peace’ and frei ‘free’ sound similar, because they come from the same root.

While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, andIslam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety.

The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare.

Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity. It was Muhammad himself who said to his non-Muslim neighbors aslim taslam ‘surrender (i.e. convert to Islam) and you will be safe’….

Sheikh Ramadan Al-Buti of Syria was one of the most widely respected traditionalist Sunni scholars before he was killed in 2013 by a suicide bomber. The year before he had been listed as number 27 in the ‘The Muslim 500’, an annual inventory of the most influential Muslims in the world. According to Al-Buti, the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion was a ‘falsehood’ imposed upon Muslims by westerners to render Islam weak. He argued in The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography that when non-Muslims fear Islamic jihad, their initial inclination is to accuse the religion of being violent. However they then change tack, and craftily feed to Muslims the idea that Islam is peaceful, in order to make it so. He laments the gullibility of ‘simple-minded Muslims’, who:

“… readily accept this ‘defense’ as valid and begin bringing forth one piece of evidence after another to demonstrate that Islam is, indeed, a peaceable, conciliatory religion which has no reason to interfere in others’ affairs. … The aim … is to erase the notion of jihad from the minds of all Muslims.”

There does seem to be something to Al-Buti’s theory, for it has invariably been after acts of violence done in the name of Islam that western leaders have seen fit to make theological pronouncements about Islam’s peacefulness. Who are they trying to convince?

In the long run this cannot be a fruitful strategy. It invites mockery, such as Palestinian cleric Abu Qatada’s riposte to George Bush’s declaration that ‘Islam is peace’. Abu Qatada asked: ‘Is he some kind of Islamic scholar?’

We do need to have a difficult conversation about Islam. This is only just beginning, and it will take a long time. The process will not be helped by the knee-jerk tendency of western leaders to pop up after every tragedy trying to have the last word on Islam. This strategy has failed, and it is time to go deeper.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pakistan: Two Ahmadiyya Muslims arrested for calling themselves Muslim

Hiding Malik’s Face: To be or Not to be a Muslim — that is the Question

“You ain’t no Muslim, bruv!” As you may know, this statement was uttered by a bystander after a non-Muslim Muslim™ slit the throat of a man in the Leytonstone subway station in east London last weekend. It was, apparently, a logical spontaneous reaction because, as we all understand, a Muslim ceases to be a Muslim upon committing a terrorist act. It’s not yet known if the transformation turns him into a Christian, an atheist, a Hindu, a Jew or a Zoroastrian, but some magical de-Islamizing process occurs.

Speaking of which, the man shouting “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv!” ain’t no Muslim himself, contrary to initial suspicions. Rather, he’s a 39-year-old security guard from north London identified only as “John”; you know, the kind of guy Archie Bunker might call “a regula’ Englishman there.” But let us just call him No-Muslim-Jihadi John.

Now, John is apparently an authority on Islam. As such, the Obama administration might want to consult with him on a certain matter: the public display of San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik’s photograph. Note that while fellow terrorist Syed Farook’s photo was published almost immediately, his bride Malik’s didn’t appear for days. And according to ex-Muslim and author of The Devil We Don’t Know, Nonie Darwish, this was to appease Muslims.

Appearing on a special Monday edition of “The Glazov Gang” (video below), she says she can think of only one reason why Farook’s photo was immediately shown while Malik’s was withheld. As she put it, “[A]s a former Muslim myself, I know that Islamic law prohibits posting the photos of veiled Muslim women in public.” Darwish goes on to say she suspects “the [Obama] administration was pressured by Muslim groups to not show the female terrorist’s photo to the public.” And, of course, we know that Muslims and leftists were enraged when Malik’s photo finally was released.

But then Darwish made an excellent, excellent point. Said she, “There’s an obvious contradiction here; it’s a contradiction for moderate Muslims and even President Obama, who constantly claim, and constantly lecture us, that terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.”

Bingo. If Malik wasn’t really Muslim, she couldn’t have been a Muslim woman. And then the Islamic prohibition against showing veiled Muslim women’s images in public doesn’t apply, right? So why was everyone so upset?

Oh, I get it: when her picture was taken, she was still Muslim because the magical, de-Islamizing process induced via commission of a terrorist act hadn’t yet occurred. But when she pulled the trigger, her Muslim status went up in smoke along with some gunpowder.

As for No-Muslim-Jihadi John, Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch spoke about the surreal nature of his reaction, writing “The fact that this man [John] is a non-Muslim makes the whole scene grotesquely absurd. Here is a man lying on the ground bleeding from stab wounds, with his attacker standing right there with his bloody knife, and the first thing this onlooker can think to do is to say something to try to protect the image of Islam. As the last jihadi slits the last non-Muslim Briton’s throat, the victim will probably be gurgling out as his life slips away, “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv.”

So No-Muslim-Jihadi John appears to know as much about Islam as he does about grammar. Then again, maybe he’s more clever than we think. Perhaps in using his double-negative, he was really sending the message, “You are a Muslim, bruv!” This may explain why, fearing violence by suddenly transformed non-Muslim Muslims™, his identity isn’t being released.

It’s more likely, though, that he just wouldn’t want to be responsible for a man losing his faith.

EDITORS NOTE: Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Five Different Government Agencies Vetted San Bernardino Muslim Female Slaughterer

It just keeps getting worse. At first we were told that she had been vetted by two agencies. Apparently Obama Administration officials were hoping to cover up the magnitude of this failure. In any case, Tashfeen Malik stands as a witness to the impossibility of vetting for jihadis.

Tashfeen-Malik

Tashfeen Malik

“U.S. missed ‘red flags’ with San Bernardino shooter,” CBS News, December 14, 2015:

As investigators focus on what or who motivated San Bernardino shooters Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, to open fire at the Inland Regional Center, a report about Malik’s comments on social media before she moved to the U.S. is raising questions about how thoroughly she was vetted.

Law enforcement sources confirmed to CBS News that Malik made radical postings on Facebook as far back as 2012 — the year before she married Farook and moved to the U.S., reports CBS News correspondent Carter Evans. According to a report in the New York Times, Malik spoke openly on social media about her support for violent jihad and said she wanted to be a part of it. But none of these postings were discovered when Malik applied for a U.S. K-1 fiancé visa.

“If you’re going to start doing a deeper dive into somebody and looking at their social media postings or other things, you really want to focus your effort on the high-risk traveler, the person that you’re really worried about being a threat to the United States,” said James Carafano, national security expert and vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. “The question is, how do you identify them?”

Malik was not identified as a threat despite being interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and vetted by five different government agencies that checked her name and picture against a terror watch list and ran her fingerprints against two databases.

RELATED VIDEO: Pamela Geller with Charles Payne on Fox Business on San Bernardino Catastrophic Intel Failure:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three House Panels to Investigate Islamic State Intelligence Scandal to Make it Appear that President Obama is Winning the War Against ISIS

DHS chief extended policy preventing scrutiny of visa applicants’ social media

100s of migrants in Norway had photos of executions and severed heads

Massachusetts judge orders landlord to learn about Islam after dispute with Muslim tenant

Islamic State letters give government 3 days to convert to Islam or be decapitated

A report by RT Arabic published on December 12, the “Swedish government is in a state of panic after dozens of its citizens received threatening letters signed by ISIS and offering them three choices, either conversion to Islam, payment of jizya, or decapitation.”

The letters warned their recipients that they had three days to decide.

Written in the Swedish language, the letters appeared yesterday on dozens of homes in different cities at the same time.  Police are reportedly taking the threat “very seriously.”  Among other regions, letters appeared in the cities of Ronneba, Sigtuna, Vstroes and the capital Stockholm.

Along with threatening those who refuse to convert to Islam or pay the jizya with death, some letters also threatened their recipients with “the bombing of theirs roofs above their heads.”  The letters further warned that the police will not save recipients of the letters and that “death would extend to all.”  Click here for image of one of the letters and an English translation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Maryland Muslim charged with supporting the Islamic State

Muslim ex-Illinois Guardsman pleads guilty in Islamic State plot

The Continuing Failure to Confront Radical Islam

There seems to be growing tolerance for agendas that conflict with Jewish sovereignty and national claims.  At the same time, Islamic operatives enlist liberal support for their anti-liberal goals.

After a recent trip to Israel, former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann reportedly called upon Christians to step up efforts to convert the Jews.  Her pronouncement was met with indignation from across the Jewish political spectrum – and deservedly so, as it displayed a patronizing and flawed understanding of Jewish scripture and history.  But as misguided as it certainly was, it was not a call to pogrom or massacre; and while Jews have every right to be offended, such comments are benign, albeit insulting, and pose no threat to Jewish life, limb, or belief.

Ironically, few of those who criticized Bachmann would ever chastise those Muslims who preach doctrinal supremacism or reject the very concept of a Jewish state.  Nor would they denounce leftist ideologues who defend progressive anti-Semitism as political speech or delegitimize Israel.  The question, then, is how they can reconcile assertive condemnations of Christian missionary zeal with apologetic attitudes towards radical Islam and a refusal to acknowledge the religious basis for much of today’s terrorism.

As suggested by ongoing dialogue between the nontraditional movements and dubious Muslim advocacy organizations, and by liberal support for progressive groups like the New Israel Fund, there seems to be growing tolerance for agendas that conflict with Jewish sovereignty and national claims.  There is also a tendency to express admiration for Islamic values while ignoring troubling dogmas that discourage free speech and demonize Jews.

Jewish progressives are quick to praise Islamic culture as peaceful and tolerant, yet few have actually read the Quran, Hadith, Sira, or classical legal commentaries.  Fewer still have any concept of the stringent nature of Sharia or how “infidels” are treated thereunder.  They overlook the history of Jews in Islamic lands, where subjugation, massacres, segregation, pogroms, and forced conversions were the rule, not the exception; and they rationalize Muslim Jew-hatred as a modern consequence of the Arab-Israel conflict.

In denying the existence of traditional anti-Semitism in Islamic society, these sophists also claim that the Quran and Hadith are no different from the Torah and Talmud.  But Jewish law does not command the subjugation of Gentiles and has no jihad-like tradition of holy war.  Whereas Halakha applies to Jews, Sharia purports to bind non-Muslims, whom it regards as infidels to be conquered, taxed and converted.

These issues were discussed at a recent program in Massachusetts entitled, “Western Media and Sharia Law: A Fundamental Misunderstanding,” featuring Daniel Akbari, an ex-Muslim and former Sharia lawyer from Iran, and Lt. Col. Roy White, a retired U.S. Air Force combat pilot and Gulf war veteran.

Before renouncing Islam and converting to Christianity, Mr. Akbari defended clients accused of capital offenses in Sharia courts.  He was jailed and tortured for apostasy before coming to the United States, and is the author of many articles and two books, “Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources,” and “New Jihadists and Islam.”

Lt. Col. White served in various Air Force command positions for twenty years and now heads the San Antonio, Texas chapter of “ACT! for America,” which is at the forefront of the counter-jihad movement.  Through the “Truth in Texas Textbooks Coalition” he spearheaded a review of books being considered by the Texas State Board of Education for use in its public schools, which exposed more than 1,500 errors regarding, among other things, Jewish history, Christianity, and the historical use of violence against non-Muslims.  As a result, hundreds of errors were corrected or deleted, and many of the textbooks were rejected altogether.

One strategy of civilizational jihadists is to infiltrate societal institutions and pursue their goals from within.

Mr. Akbari and Col. White discussed the spread of Islamism in the West, which they see as a consequence of doctrinal supremacism combined with a western failure to discuss it or acknowledge its existence.  They explained that jihad can be violent or nonviolent, and that in the absence of sufficient power to dominate infidel society by force, it is permissible to advance the faith bytaqiyya (deception).

Propagating the faith covertly is the modus operandi of many extremists posing as moderates in the West.  The principles of “civilizational jihad” were articulated in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” reportedly written for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was entered in evidence by federal prosecutors in U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a terror financing trial in 2009.  One strategy of civilizational jihadists is to infiltrate societal institutions and pursue their goals from within. They commonly use political correctness to portray themselves as a minority (despite a global Muslim population of approximately 1.6 billion) and to characterize their opponents as bigots.

According to Mr. Akbari, the term “Islamophobia” was created to chill discourse by equating critical discussion of Islam or Sharia with unwarranted prejudice, adopting the strategy of gay rights activists who coined the term “homophobia” to describe opposition to their cause.  Stealth Islamists understood how quickly the term “homophobic” became synonymous with “bigot,” and endeavored to manipulate language to similar effect.  The irony is that in so doing they emulated the strategy of a group that suffers greatly in Sharia states.

It’s equally ironic that their operatives in the West have enlisted progressive support to advance an agenda that contravenes liberal principles.  According to Akbari, they have beguiled western progressives by claiming only to be protecting a minority culture while downplaying supremacist religious doctrine.  He believes the distinction between culture and religion is artificial, however, and that in evaluating the long-term goals of civilizational jihad it is necessary to determine those of Sharia.

In assessing the nature of Sharia, Akbari said one must analyze its rules and determine whether harsh applications can be militated by interpretation.  Informed by his experiences growing up in Iran and practicing law in Sharia courts, he opined that punishments such as crucifixion, beheading and amputation reflect a body of law that is anti-western.  Moreover, the prevalence of honor killings of women and girls who adopt western manners or refuse arranged marriages cannot be ignored.  These killings have occurred in North America and Europe without comment from apologists who so freely characterize critics of Sharia as racists and bigots.

Mr. Akbari believes that many Muslims who came to the US and Europe a generation ago were nominally religious and had little understanding of Sharia law and doctrine.  Indeed, many were fleeing persecution and had no interest in forcing their beliefs on others.  But as first generation children began to assimilate, their parents often encouraged them to attend Islamic centers run by fundamentalist clerics, or student groups under the aegis of such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is in fundamentalist environments where youths from acculturated homes become radicalized and learn the use of dissimulation.  Mr. Akbari noted that a sure sign of taqiyya is the claim that the word jihad does not mean war, but instead means “fighting evil temptation,” a definition that he said is not found in Islamic scripture.  According to Akbari, this interpretation requires a suspension of orthodox belief, which itself could be considered heretical.  There is nothing heretical, however, in claiming to be moderate to advance jihadist goals.  And no expense is spared promoting such efforts, particularly in public schools and on college campuses.

Both Akbari and White expressed concern about the prevalence of Islamist propaganda in American schools.  White’s work in vetting textbooks is a response to the proliferation of educational materials from questionable sources that seek to indoctrinate schoolchildren.  At a time when organized prayer and moments of reflective silence are banned in American public schools, many districts are using materials that teach Islamic principles, and parents who complain are often branded “Islamophobic.”  Sometimes it takes interventions by activists like Col. White to force schools to reassess their counterintuitive – and perhaps unconstitutional – use of such materials.

The problem is especially acute on college campuses, where groups with ties to organizations like the Brotherhood are accorded respect and credibility, and where anti-Semitism is pervasive, Israel is vilified, and free speech is denied those who disagree with the agenda.  Universities boasting anti-hate speech codes only seem to enforce them when progressive or Muslim sensibilities are offended, not when Jewish students are abused or conservative students are penalized for voicing their opinions.

The divide between western enablers and critics of radical Islam is reflected in the debate over Syrian refugees.  The left advocates relaxing immigration restrictions and admitting refugees with little scrutiny, while the majority calls for a cautious approach in light of the skewed demographic profile of the refugee population, seventy to eighty percent of which consists of single men of fighting age.  Furthermore, many are non-Syrians with fake passports or are suspected of having terrorist sympathies or affiliations.  This is especially troubling in light of reports that at least one of those responsible for the recent carnage in Paris entered France as a refugee.

Through it all, progressives refuse to identify the problem, and their critics tend to limit the danger to extremist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda.  But western society would be better served by recognizing the dogmas that motivate extremism and the existence of civilizational jihad.  If Americans and Europeans are to prevail against today’s terrorism, they will need to discard their stupefying political correctness, acknowledge the doctrines that sanctify violence, and assert those values that are under attack.  Falling short will only facilitate submission and defeat.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:

  • Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner puts it very well:

The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.

It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch’s release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee’s decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch’s supposed “rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers.” Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration – so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.

The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren’t deployed, specifically “a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain.” The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration’s dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.

All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch’s independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

Judicial Watch recognizes that local cities’ and states’ “sanctuary policies” for illegal alien criminals are deadly and unlawful – so much so that we’re willing to go to court to try to stop them.

You will be pleased to know that JW just filed a taxpayer lawsuit in San Francisco County, California Superior Court to end a March 2015 expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance that prohibits San Francisco Sheriff’s Department personnel from exchanging information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the citizenship or immigration status of inmates in the Sheriff Department’s custody. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco taxpayer Cynthia Cerletti (Cynthia Cerletti v. Ross Mirkarimi (No. CGC -15-54250)). We’re pleased to be working with Robert Patrick Sticht, a Los Angeles-based attorney, who is serving as lead counsel in the Cerletti litigation.

On March 13, 2015, current San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi put in place a new policy directive, entitled “Immigration & Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications,” mandating that “absent a court issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access . . . SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives: Citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.”

Mirkarimi’s new policy directive, which goes even further than San Francisco’s infamous sanctuary ordinance, runs directly contrary to federal law, which states, “[A] Federal, State, or local government entity or officials may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from [ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. § 1373).

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department receives over $200 million in taxpayer support annually to fund its operations, a portion of which is being spent to carry out the new policy directive and train personnel on its requirements. As California grants its taxpayers the right to sue government officials to prevent expenditures of taxpayer funds on unlawful activities, Judicial Watch filed suit against Mirkarimi, in his official capacity, on behalf of Cerletti. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department from expending any taxpayer funds on the policy directive and a judgment declaring the policy directive to be illegal.

Sheriff-Elect Vicki Hennessy, who defeated Mirkarimi in a November 3, 2015 election, has promised changes to Mirkarimi’s policy directive. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks to ensure that Hennessy makes good on her promise when she takes office.

San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance gained national attention on July 1, 2015, when Kathryn Steinle was gunned down at one the of city’s most popular tourist spots, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been released from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department despite a request from ICE that he be detained for possible deportation. The Sheriff’s Department not only ignored ICE’s detainer request, but also failed to notify ICE when it released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, 2015, little more than a month after Mirkarimi issued the new policy directive.

Sheriff Mirkarimi’s expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is dangerous and violates federal law. It needs to end. Our new lawsuit should encourage Sheriff-Elect Hennessy to repeal Sheriff Mirkarimi’s policy directive in its entirety – thereby protecting public safety, and surely saving innocent lives.

As the result of earlier Judicial Watch litigation, the San Francisco Police Department was required in 2011 to comply with a California law requiring federal officials be notified whenever an alien is arrested on certain drug offenses. Our team is separately investigating whether the release of Steinle’s alleged killer violated this court order, so stand by for further developments.

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

The Clintons have a demonstrated record of selling their public office, often to foreign interests and governments who would harm our nation’s security. They did it with the Chinese during Bill Clinton’s administration and now they seem to have done it repeatedly during the Obama administration. That’s why we filed a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to gain access to documents involving a uranium deal approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton that is tied to major Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra and Russian-state issues. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:15-cv-01776)).

We filed the lawsuit after the Treasury Department of the “most transparent administration in history” ignored a FOIA request sent on May 29, 2015. Judicial Watch’s request seeks emails between key Treasury agencies and Hillary Clinton non-governmental email accounts:

Our investigative focus is on a controversial 2010 deal involving Uranium One, the Canadian company currently at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals and ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, which recently took a 51 percent controlling interest in Uranium One. The lawsuit seeks information about the approval of this deal and whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ignored the mandatory 75-day review approval process, approving the deal in just 52 days. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was a member of CFIUS.

Peter Scheweizer’s book Clinton Cash first raised questions about the Uranium One deal, which benefited many donors to the Clinton Foundation. One of these donors was Frank Giustra, who, among other dealings, helped set up a Clinton Foundation entity in Canada that had the effect of hiding donations from foreign governments and others from public disclosure, despite promises of disclosure by Hillary Clinton and the Foundation.

As the New York Times reported on April 23, the Clinton Foundation hid many of the beneficiaries of the deal approved by Mrs. Clinton and CFIUS:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The documents we are trying to force from Treasury should shed light on the apparent conflict of interest between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the expedited approval process. Under United States law, uranium is a strategic asset; therefore, a committee of U.S. government officials must approve any such deal. The CFIUS board, which reviews all foreign acquisitions of American national security assets, consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury.

In 2010, Jose W. Fernandez represented the State Department on the CFIUS board, and the documents sought by Judicial Watch lawsuit could clarify whether Clinton failed to disclose to Fernandez that several executives at Uranium One made millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately before and after CFIUS reviewed and approved the ARMZ-Uranium One deal.

This latest conflict of interest is part of a wider investigation into the Clinton cash machine and the related corruption of the Obama administration.

Separate Judicial Watch FOIA litigation forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflicts-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others. The August 13, 2014, investigative report that first disclosed the Clinton financial dealings, “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions,” is available here.

The approval of the uranium deal seemingly resulted in millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., and made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers.

Hillary Clinton’s cash and secrecy on this Russian uranium deal looks corrupt and criminal. And now that his Treasury Department violated FOIA to cover-up yet another Clinton scandal, there is no daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this scandal that placed our nation’s security at risk.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

 

Catholic University locked down after “Middle Eastern” man makes “terroristic threats”

The “shelter in place” order has been lifted now, and D.C. police have “located the suspicious person.” Now no doubt there is a long line of Catholic priests lining up to engage in “dialogue” with the poor dear, hoping to explain to him how Islam, at its core, is a religion of peace that has been tragically misunderstood. They will fix this problem up tout suite.

“D.C. police locate a ‘suspicious person’ at Catholic University,” by Martin Weil, Washington Post, December 8, 2015:

Catholic University students were advised Tuesday night for the second time in less than 24 hours to shelter in place while authorities investigated a report of a possible armed person on campus.

Just before 9 p.m., the D.C. police said they had “located the suspicious person.” About an hour later, the university said it had lifted the shelter in place order. It also said that the person who prompted Tuesday night’s alert was not the same person who was sought during the alert that began early Tuesday.

The Tuesday night alert was sent about 8:30 p.m. and advised members of the university community to shelter in place while D.C. police and the university’s public safety department investigated a report of a possible armed man.

A similar alert was issued about 1 a.m. Tuesday. Authorities said that they searched but that no one was found.

The university said the earlier alert was initiated after a custodial worker reported being approached Monday night by a man with a weapon.

The man reportedly approached the worker at Pangborn Hall about 10:30 p.m. Monday, and asked directions to the administration building.

In a message posted Tuesday on the university’s Facebook site, the university’s president, John Garvey, offered an explanation of the overnight response. He said the person had “made claims that sounded to our custodian like terroristic threats.”

A description provided on a university social media site said the individual had a Middle Eastern appearance….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Both San Bernardino jihad murderers pledged allegiance to the Islamic State

BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie, desperate to defame Trump, libel Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.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 this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy

In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.

One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.

Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.

“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”

Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.

We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”

In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.

It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”

This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”

Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”

The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider

The current administration’s engagement of extremists in the Islamic world has also been reflected through America’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and at home.

However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.

All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.

The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”

In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Consulate in Turkey Under ‘Imminent Security Threat’

France Shuts Down Three Radical Mosques

California Shooting: The Debate Starts Here

Al-Aqsa Mosque Preacher: West Carried Out Paris Attacks

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of mourners praying at a makeshift memorial for the victims of the California terrorist attack. (Photo: © Reuters)