DC: American Shuts Up Rampaging Saudi Wahabbi in Georgetown (Video)

MFI was campaigning against the ideology behind ISIS and the Taliban in Georgetown, Washington D.C. when a Saudi Wahhabi decided to disrupt the peace.

Watch his reaction and how a brave American steps in to put him in his place.

Why did non-coalition Pakistani officials attend the burial of Khizr Khan’s son?

Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani embassy’s ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan’s funeral at Arlington?

Humayun-Khan-Arlington

Source: August 1-2, 2016 — What the media isn’t reporting about Khizr Khan – Wayne Madsen Report

The official notification of Khan’s death stated:

“Captain Humayun S. M. Khan, 27, of Bristow, Virginia, died June 8, 2004, in Baquabah, Iraq, after a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he was inspecting soldiers on guard duty.  Khan was assigned to Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 201st Forward Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Division, Vilseck, Germany.”

Khan was actually an Army intelligence officer, fluent in Arabic, who worked with Iraqi civilians in a program called the United States-Iraq Sponsorship Program, which was actually an operation designed to recruit Iraqis to work as police and in other “capacities” for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government of Iraq. Khan’s home base of Vilseck is a center for U.S. intelligence operations involving units of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. When Khan was killed, oversight of Iraq “transition” programs, such as the U.S.-Iraq Sponsorship Program, had just come under the control of General David Petraeus, the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq.

Members of the Pakistani embassy, including deputy chief of mission (DCM) Mohammad Sadiq, attended Captain Khan’s burial at Arlington National Cemetery. The DCM of large embassies are almost always the embassy intelligence chief of station. In the case of Sadig, this would be the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). In 2008, Sadiq, who paid his respects to Captain Khan at Arlington, was defending ISI as the Pakistan Foreign Ministry’s chief spokesman. India accused the ISI of bombing its embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. The bombing killed four people, including two Indian diplomats.

It was not only India that blamed the ISI for the bombing in Kabul. CIA officials said that intercepts of communications showed ISI involvement. Pakistan was so incensed by the statements from U.S. intelligence that it summoned CIA official Stephen Kappes to Islamabad for a chewing out session.

Pakistan was not a member of the U.S. coalition in Iraq, which begs the question of why the Pakistani embassy’s ISI chief attended Captain Humayun Khan’s funeral at Arlington? Was Khan working, through his Saudi- and Pakistani-connected father with the ISI? If so, was the contact “sanctioned” by the CIA? If not, was Humayun Khan freelancing and feeding information from Iraq to the ISI, which then passed it to their close allies in the Saudi General Intelligence Department?

Khizr Khan claims he is a “legal consultant” in Charlottesville, although he is not a member of the Virginia Bar. Given the nature of Charlotteville’s status as a sanctuary city, Khan’s legal background and his work with the Muslim community in Virginia, it is likely that Khan offers help to Muslims who have overstayed their student visas in the university and sanctuary city to obtain permanent residence. It should be recalled that seven of the 9/11 hijackers obtained Virginia driver’s licenses, three of which were used as official identification to check in for flights on September 11, 2001.

More:

Khizr Khan practices law in New York and is a member of the New York Bar. Khan’s Manhattan law office is next door to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, which also happens to house the residence of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. Power’s husband is Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s former information czar who excels in the art of disinformation, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance. But more interesting is the fact that Khan and his wife are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, a home to a number of foreign Muslims, many of whom are students at the University of Virginia who wish to change their student visa status to permanent residency, or “green card” status. Charlottesville is a so-called “sanctuary city” that welcomes those who either enter the United States illegally or overstay their limited residency visas.


The war-hero son was born in UAE, not Pakistan. It seems that Khizr Khan might be a lot more connected and a lot less American than he portrayed himself at the DNC.

Now he’s run back to Pakistan where he continued interfering in a U.S. election from abroad.

khizr-pakistan

Virginia: Metro Transit Cop Arrested for Attempts to Support ISIS Terrorists

NicholasYoungHennessyCourtroomArt

Source: Fairfax Man Arrested for Attempting to Support ISIL | USAO-EDVA | Department of Justice

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Nicholas Young, 36, of Fairfax, who is employed as a police officer with the Metro Transit Police Department, was arrested today on charges of attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Young will have his initial appearance here at 2 p.m. today in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa C. Buchanan.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Young has been employed as a police officer with the Metro Transit Police Department since 2003.  Law enforcement first interviewed Young in September 2010 in connection with his acquaintance, Zachary Chesser, who one month later pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists.  Over the next several years Young had numerous interactions with undercover law enforcement officers and a cooperating witness regarding Young’s knowledge or interest of terrorist related activity, many of which were recorded. Law enforcement also interviewed Young’s family and co-workers. Several meetings Young had with an undercover law enforcement officer in 2011 included another of Young’s acquaintances, Amine El Khalifi, who later pleaded guilty to charges relating to attempting a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol Building in 2012.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Young told FBI agents that he traveled to Libya twice in 2011 and he had been with rebels attempting to overthrow the Muammar Qaddafi regime.  Baggage searches revealed that Young traveled with body armor, a kevlar helmet, and several other military-style items.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, in 2014, Young met on about 20 separate occasions with an FBI confidential human source (CHS) posing as a U.S. military reservist of Middle Eastern descent who was becoming more religious and eager to leave the U.S. military as a result of having had to fight against Muslims during his deployment to Iraq.  During these conversations Young advised CHS on how to evade law enforcement detection by utilizing specific travel methods and advised CHS to watch out for informants and not discuss his plans with others.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, in Fall 2014, CHS led Young to believe that he had successfully left the United States and had joined ISIL.  In reality, CHS had no further contact with Young.  All further communications between Young and CHS’s email account were actually communications between Young and FBI undercover personnel posing as CHS.  In June 2015, Young emailed CHS asking for advice from CHS’s commanders on how to send his money overseas. Young said, “[u]nfortunately I have enough flags on my name that I can’t even buy a plane ticket without little alerts ending up in someone’s hands, so I imagine banking transactions are automatically monitored and will flag depending on what is going on.”

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, in December 2015, the FBI interviewed Young, ostensibly in connection with an investigation into the whereabouts of CHS.  Young said that CHS had left the United States to go on a vacation tour in Turkey approximately one year ago.  Young said that he knew of no one in the United States or overseas who helped CHS cross the Turkish border into Syria.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, on July 18, 2016, Young communicated with whom he believed to be CHS regarding purchasing of gift cards for mobile messaging accounts ISIL uses in recruiting. On July 28, 2016, Young sent 22 sixteen digit gift card codes to the FBI undercover with a message that stated: “Respond to verify receipt . . . may not answer depending on when as this device will be destroyed after all are sent to prevent the data being possibly seen on this end in the case of something unfortunate.” The codes were ultimately redeemed by the FBI for $245.

Young faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison if convicted. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The Metro Transit Police Department initiated this investigation and continues to work collaboratively with the FBI Washington Field Office Joint Terrorism Task Force on the case.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:16-MJ-355.

Download young_complaint_and_affidavit_signed.pdf


As we’ve asked before, what did Young do that Hillary Clinton, or Obama, hasn’t done? Except hold down a real job. And have the FBI actually work on his arrest for six years.

Hillary Clinton has materially supported ISIS , in fact she armed Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria. She helped overthrow Qaddafi and laughed about his brutal death.

 

Hillary Clinton’s Ties with Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, 3rd form left, with Hillary Clinton

Source: EXCLUSIVE: How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi | PJ Media

By Patrick Poole

Right now, prisoner #47042-083, Abdurahman Alamoudi, sits in his cell in a federal prison in Ashland, Kentucky.

It’s a long way down from being one of Hillary Clinton’s favorite colleagues. Alamoudi organized White House events during the Bill Clinton administration. Under Hillary’s supervision, he held official positions: Alamoudi was strategically placed at the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.

That is, until he was arrested and convicted in a bizarre Libyan intelligence/al-Qaeda assassination plot to kill the Saudi crown prince.

Later, he was identified by the Treasury Department as an Al-Qaeda fundraiser who had operated inside the United States.

Hillary Clinton and Abdurahman Alamoudi were no mere acquaintances. According to an affidavit filed in court by Georgetown professor John Esposito, Alamoudi was asked by Hillary Clinton to arrange the first White House Ramadan iftar dinner in 1996:

 

Hillary - Alamoudi iftar (Esposito)

It appears that no media outlet has ever asked Hillary Clinton about her relationship to Alamoudi.

Under the Clinton administration, Alamoudi was tasked with founding and developing the Defense Department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain program. Alamoudi himself handpicked the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain corps.

As I reported in 2010, one of those chaplain trainers was al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

The State Department, during the Clinton administration, appointed Alamoudi as a goodwill ambassador and sent him on six official taxpayer-funded trips to the Middle East. Remarkably, after Alamoudi’s 2003 arrest a federal agent testified in an affidavit about a recording of Alamoudi complaining to an audience that the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania did not kill enough Americans.

Years before he was helping Hillary Clinton arrange official dinners at the White House, Alamoudi had already been known to the FBI for al-Qaeda fundraising.

Yet Alamoudi became a regular face at the White House. Here, he is pictured with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore:

After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the speechwriter for the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman told the FBI that Alamoudi had been funneling $5000 payments from Osama bin Laden to Rahman. Rahman is currently serving a life sentence on terror charges for his role in the “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.

In a July 2005 press release announcing a terror designation, the Treasury Department stated that Alamoudi “had raised money for al Qaida in the United States” and that his arrest was “a severe blow to al Qaida.”

Alamoudi’s donation to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign became an issue in October 2000. Then, Alamoudi was caught on video speaking in Lafayette Park across from the White House publicly announcing his support for Hamas and Hezbollah:

I have been labelled by the New York media as a supporter of Hamas. Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars] Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars again] Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars a third time] Here that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. Allahu Akbar.I wish they also added that I am a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [crowd roars] Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [crowd roars again] Takbir! [crowd responds, “Allahu Akhbar”]

When questioned by the New York Daily News about his statement, Alamoudi first denied making it –he said that the reporters should “check their Arabic.”

When told that he had made the statement in English, Alamoudi responded by saying: “It was in English? Oh my god, I forgot.”

Days before Alamoudi publicly pledged his allegiance to two terror organizations designated as such by President Bill Clinton, he had just returned from a State Department-funded trip to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman.


Read it all, and don’t forget this other Muslim terrorist who Clinton hired: Former Clinton Employee and Muslim Brotherhood Spokesperson Gets Life In Prison

 

When it comes to Big Lies about Islam, nothing much has changed except the administrations

But it has gotten worse and more obvious. Diana West writes:

I am struck anew by how very long this official effort to suppress the facts about Islam (not, not, not “Radicalislam”) has been going on — throughout the Obama administration, of course, but long before it began. This battle of suppression was already being waged when on September 17, 2001 President George W. Bush told the nation, “Islam is peace.” Soon he would send armies into that Islamic world of peace to do battle, wholly ignorant of Islamic war, or jihad.

Read the excerpt below from American Betrayal

Source: The Death of the Grown-Up | Home – See-No-Jihad = Homeland Insecurity

Once upon a time, about a decade ago …

… in this long-drawn-out post-9/11 era, this admiral received a lengthy, extensively documented briefing on the Islamic doctrine of jihad (Islamic war) from Maj. Stephen C. Coughlin, U.S. Army Reserves. Coughlin is an expert on the legal-religious doctrine that Islamic terrorists claim as the justification for campaigns of violence against infidels and rival Muslims.3 His briefings, which I’ve attended multiple times, are legendary in security circles in Washington and elsewhere for their comprehensive, if not overwhelming, compilation of factual, Islamic-sourced evidence, which demonstrates, for example, that Islamic terrorists are not “hijacking” Islamic law (sharia) when they engage in jihad. On the contrary, they are executing it. Nor are they “twisting” the foundational principles of Islam as codified in each and every authoritative Islamic source. They are exemplifying them.

For reasons that should become clearer over the following pages, this briefing on these basic facts of jihad doctrine is typically our top military leaders’ first exposure to what is known in Pentagon parlance as the “enemy threat doctrine.” I am not exaggerating. Years of battle—even worse, years of battle planning—have passed without our leadership having studied, or even having become acquainted with, the principles and historic facts of Islamic war doctrine. Four years into the so-called war on terror, then–Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace even pointed this out in a speech at the National Defense University on December 1, 2005.4

Notwithstanding Pace’s concern, the study and analysis of Islam and jihad remained de facto forbidden in policy-making circles inside the Bush White House, which even codified a lexicon in 2008 to help government officials discuss Islamic jihad without mentioning “Islam” or “jihad.”5 The Obama administration would carry this same see-no-Islam policy to its zealous limit, finally mounting a two-front assault on the few trainers and fact-based training materials that were sometimes (sparingly) used by law enforcement agencies and the military to educate personnel about Islam and jihad. What history should remember as the Great Jihad Purges of 2012 began at the Justice Department, affecting domestic law enforcement agencies, and spread to the Pentagon, affecting the entire U.S. military.

First, the FBI eliminated hundreds of pages of “anti-Islam” educational material from its own training programs and those of other law enforcement agencies. Several Muslim advocacy groups applauded these purge results at the briefing at the bureau on February 15, 2012, “unexpectedly” attended by FBI Director Robert Mueller himself.6 Next, on April 24, 2012, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey ordered a similar scrub, calling on the entire U.S. military to “review” its educational and training classes, files, and rosters of instructors to ensure that no members of the armed services were studying material “disrespectful of the Islamic religion.”7

What exactly does the U.S. government and its Muslim advisers consider “anti-Islam” or “disrespectful,” or, as a Pentagon spokesman put it on Al Jazeera TV, “warped views”?8 One trophy of this so-called Islamophobia that made it into Wired.com (whose reportage seems to have energized if not triggered these government purges) was a PowerPoint slide created by Stephen C. Coughlin about the “permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians and not take them as friends.”9

Pretty disrespectful and warped for sure—but only if Coughlin’s premise and supporting documentation were untrue. The statement and the documentation, however, are incontrovertible. There is a permanent command in Islam for Muslims to hate and despise Jews and Christians and not take them as friends. The slide in question includes citations of the most authoritative Islamic texts, the Koran and the hadiths (the sayings and deeds of Mohammed, which Muslims hold sacred) to document its veracity.10

Veracity is not the issue here, though. Evidence is not the issue here. Reality is not the issue here, either. The issue is a commandment from on high in government—“Islam is a religion of peace.” It is the Big Lie that is the basis of the prevailing ideology, and, above all, the Big Lie must live. No one in the leadership contradicts it “because then,” as Hans Christian Andersen tells us, he would be “unfit for his job or very stupid.”

Admiral X certainly didn’t want anyone to think that. So what did he make of his Coughlin briefing, an introduction to the central Islamic doctrine of jihad and its role in driving global jihad? How did he react to the spectacular if not shattering array of information contained in the authoritative Islamic texts and books of authentic, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence before him, which shattered the Islam-is-peace mantra?

He said, and I quote, “I’ll have to check with my imam on that.”

I was staggered when I first heard this story, and, in a way, I still am. Was the admiral kidding? Did he not have the wit to make up his own mind based on the ample, annotated, inconvenient evidence before him? Witlessness, however, wasn’t the admiral’s problem, just as witlessness wasn’t the problem in the Justice and Defense Departments. If the admiral was announcing that he would be deferring to “his imam”—in other words, to an Islamic interpreter of things Islamic—on the matter of Islamic war-making doctrine, there was a reason for this, and it had nothing to do with IQ. Similarly, if FBI Director Mueller and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey were deferring to the wishes of an array of Muslim advocacy groups—including groups designated by the U.S. government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups11—regarding education about Islam, something else had rendered them, and countless others like them in military, security, and civilian leadership, incapable of assessing facts and passing judgment.

What was it?

This is the leading question that guided the research going into this book. What, in a nutshell, throughout eight years of George W. Bush and four years of Barack Obama, caused our leadership to deny and eliminate categorically the teachings of Islam from all official analysis of the global jihad that has wracked the world for decades (for centuries), and particularly since the 9/11 attacks in 2001? This omission has created a scrupulously de-Islamized, and thus truly “warped,” record for future historians to puzzle over. What will they make, for example, of a 2007 ninety-slide briefing on “the surge” in Iraq presented by counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen that failed to mention Islam (let alone jihad war doctrine) once? Instead, the militarily, politically, and aca- demically elite audiences for whom the presentation was created were asked to “think of the [Iraqi] environment as a sort of ‘conflict ecosystem.’ ”12 How will they explain Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s 2009 “assessment” of the war against Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan, which, in sixty-six pages, contained not one discussion of Islam, jihad, or how they fit into both the Taliban struggle and the Afghan people’s antipathy for Western forces? How will they explain why “everyone” agreed to fight blind?

To be fair, there is one passing reference to Islam in the McChrystal assessment. Calling for an improved communications approach, the commander demanded that insurgents and jihadist militias be “exposed continually” for their “anti-Islamic” use of violence and terror. The report elaborates, “These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, devel- opment projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran” (emphasis added).13

It would be easy to toss off a derisive quip at this point and move on, but it’s well worth mulling over how it could be that eight years after 9/11, a West Point–trained, battle-hardened, and by all accounts capable commander fighting jihad forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan could assume the role of an apologist for Islam rather than an expert analyst of holy war as waged against his own forces. Flagrant contravention of the Koranic principles of jihad? Au contraire. Between the Koran’s teachings against befriending Christians and Jews (noted above) and its teachings that it is a “grave sin for a Muslim to shirk the battle against the unbelievers,” as the scholar and critic Ibn Warraq explains (“those who do will roast in hell”), it is also perfectly Islamic to wage jihad against any and all infidel “education, development projects,” not to mention against Muslims not actively fighting or supporting jihad.14

Don’t just take my word for it. Back in 2003, the man who used to be described as Osama bin Laden’s “spiritual guide” castigated President Bush along similar lines, and rightly so. In response to Bush’s repeated slander of the religion of jihad as the “religion of peace,” Abu Qatada said, “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?”15

If Bush, or McChrystal for that matter, ever did crack the book, he read only the “good parts”—the 124 verses of tolerance—that are rendered meaningless according to the rule of “abrogation.” The rule of abrogation is the key that Islamic scholars use to resolve contradictions within the Koran. By means of this doctrine, Koranic passages are “abrogated,” or canceled, by any subsequently “revealed” verses that convey a different meaning. In other words, when there is a contradiction (e.g., don’t kill the infidel vs. yes, kill the infidel), whatever was “revealed” to Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, more recently trumps whatever was “revealed” before it. This technique comes from Mohammed himself at the Koran’s sura 2:105: “Whatever verses we [i.e., Allah] cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.”

It’s a simple concept, unforgettable once taught—but our elected officials, our military and other security providers, our pundits and other public voices seem never to have learned it, much less explained it to the rest of us. Or worse, they are ignoring it on purpose. In this ignorant morass, then, We, the People are left on our own to make sense of misinformation and disinformation. Why? Why haven’t they sought and told the truth?

There are reasons. In his book What the Koran Really Says, Ibn Warraq explains that while abrogation resolves the abundant contradictions to be found in the Koran, it “does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the pas- sages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early) suras, and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses, are Medinan (i.e., later).” His conclusion: “‘Tolerance’ has been abro- gated by ‘intolerance.’”16 Just to be clear: Islamic tolerance in the Koran has been canceled by Islamic intolerance in the Koran.

Like Coughlin’s slides and presentations, this fact contradicts the Big Lie at the root of the prevailing ideology: “Islam is a religion of peace.” Therefore, our leaders don’t want us to know it. They also don’t want to know it themselves. So they don’t, as the Kilcullen “surge” presentation and the McChrystal Afghanistan “assessment” demonstrate. Such knowledge would collapse their deceitful balloon of “universal” values, which rises on the hot air of “Kum-bay- a”-interchangeable sameness. Such a collapse would, in turn, doom the relativism, moral and cultural, that currently drives these same utopian fantasists to undermine liberty in their quest to order or even rule our world and beyond.

Suppression of the facts, then, becomes the only way to keep this enterprise of lies buoyant, something for which there is ample precedent in our past, as the pages ahead will show. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, then, any fact-driven discussion of Islamic religious, legal, and historical imperatives to make holy war until the world is governed by Islam threatened this same enterprise and had to be, in effect, outlawed and later officially forbidden. “Cultural sensitivity” had to become the name of the game. Thus, as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote in April 2012, U.S. military programs must “exhibit the cultural sensitivity, respect for religion and intellectual balance that we should expect of our academic institutions.”17 In plain English: Whitewash Islam or else.

Why? And how did the whitewashing of Islam become the business of the United States government? This is another question that inspired this book. It is also a question which, true confession, has driven me to distraction for more than a decade. Sometimes I despair. Sometimes I play it for laughs, or at least revel a little in the absurdity. You have to. Imagine the following scenario coming across your desk: Kifah Mustapha, a known Hamas operative and unindicted coconspirator in the landmark Holy Land Foundation trial, gets invited into the top secret National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and then to the FBI’s training center at Quantico.18 The auspices were a six-week “Citizens’ Academy” hosted by the FBI in 2010 as part of the agency’s “outreach” to the Muslim community.

You look at the story and rub your eyes. A Hamas operative? An unindicted coconspirator? Must they “reach out” quite so far? Here we see the U.S. offi- cials charged with fending off the jihad that Mustapha’s activities supported (as laid out in court documents filed by federal investigators) flinging open the doors to this man on their own terror watch lists. How could this even be happening?

“The plugs had to be pulled” on the watch system just to get Mustapha in the NCTC door, Patrick Poole wrote online at PJ Media, quoting a Department of Homeland Security official. After all, “the NCTC has Kifah Mustapha on the highest watch list we have.”19

Unbelievable. So who pulled those plugs? Wouldn’t it be great to get a bunch of national security pooh-bahs into one room and ask them?

It would be—and so it was. In September 2010, at a Washington conference on domestic intelligence, I took the opportunity to ask as many of these officials as possible this very question. First up was James Clapper, director of national intelligence, who would later make history, or, rather, antihistory, by proclaim- ing the Muslim Brotherhood to be a “largely secular organization.”20 During a question-and-answer session, I asked him about FBI “outreach” to Mustapha. “I think the FBI will be here later,” Clapper boldly punted (laughter in the room). Meanwhile, he continued, there is “great merit in outreach, to engage as much as possible with the Muslim community.” Subtext: Bringing a Hamas op into a top secret security installation is no big deal.

Between panels, I buttonholed panelist Sean Joyce, a senior official with the FBI. What did the FBI executive assistant director for national security think about the Mustapha incident?

“We don’t comment on individuals,” he told me.

OK. How about commenting on a blanket policy regarding FBI tours of sensitive installations for unindicted coconspirators and terrorist group operatives?

“Again, we don’t comment on individuals.”

It’s not every day that you notice a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency standing around, so I asked Michael Hayden for his overall opinion of the speak-no-Islam policy that let jihadists through the door. “People I trust”—uh-oh—”say to be careful not to use the term ‘jihadist’ because it does have a broader use across the Islamic world,” he said, referencing the definition of jihad as “inner struggle.”

Oh, please. This is another Grand Pulling of Wool over Infidel Eyes. Why? There is precisely one explicit reference in the Koran to jihad (“ja-ha-da”) “as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenome- non.” So writes Tina Magaard, a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in tex- tual analysis. “But,” she continues, “this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Ko- ran (and even more in the Hadith).”21

Unfortunately, I didn’t have a Magaard cheat sheet with me when I hap- pened on the former CIA director, so I just erupted, politely: So what? That doesn’t affect the accuracy of “jihadist” as a description of the enemy!

Then again, not using the word “Islamic,” he continued, “obfuscates the is- sue (and) neuters our understanding” of Islamic terrorism “however perverted it might be.” Hayden continued, meaningfully: “This is in no way a comment on the Islamic faith.”

Heaven forfend. The Islamic faith can inflict censorship, death for leaving Islam, marital rape, polygamy, and slavery on the world, but please, none of the above is in any way a comment on the Islamic faith. Or so the American “intelligence” community has determined. What we inadequately label “political correctness” has obfuscated and neutered fact-gathering and conclusion- drawing powers to the point where the “political correctness,” too, is obfus- cated. To wit: NCTC Director Michael Leiter next took the podium to address the conference and declared “there was no PC-ness” on his watch. “If someone is inspired by Islamic ideology—” he began, then stopped. “Let me rephrase that: al Qaeda ideology . . .”

Poor baby.

Later, I had an opportunity to ask Leiter what he thought about the FBI bringing Mustapha into NCTC. “Ask the FBI,” he suggested helpfully.

Isn’t NCTC your shop? I asked.

“Actually,” he explained, “the building isn’t owned by us. Three organiza- tions have offices there.”

When I picked myself up off the floor, he was still talking. “It’s more complicated—talk to the FBI. They’ve got a lot more information than I do.”

The FBI better be good, right? They should be prepared, anyway. Indeed, on taking my Mustapha question, FBI Director Robert Mueller, the confer- ence’s final speaker, said he’d been briefed to expect it. His response? “I’m not sure I agree with the predicate of your question, and we’re not going to debate it here.”

He continued discussing the Citizens’ Academy program, which he described as “exposing the FBI to a variety of communities.”

“Exposing” is right.

He, too, wouldn’t discuss individuals, he said, but added, “We do look into the individuals that we invite into the Citizens’ Academies.” The man who pulled the plugs had spoken, but he explained nothing. Soon, the FBI director would make his way out of the conference hall, his security detail in tow. And he drew himself up more proudly than ever, while the chamberlains walked behind him, bearing the train that wasn’t there.


West adds to the evidence of Muslim infiltration in our security agencies with this montage:

 

 

 

 

Watchdog Files FOIA For Details on Obama’s “Jihad” Word-Purge

Or as one government whistle-blower calls it, “The Great Purge.”

Source: ACLJ Seeks Information from Obama Administration’s “Jihad” Word-Purge | American Center for Law and Justice

The Obama Administration, in lockstep with groups like Muslim Advocates and CAIR, is hamstringing our ability as a nation to combat jihadist terror. How? By prohibiting the use of “offensive” religious, legal, and cultural terms like “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.”

That’s right. The government is honoring demands to “purge” these words from its “lexicon” – including law enforcement and intelligence training material and other government documents.

Today, the ACLJ filed new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in order to get to the bottom of these outrageous and dangerous policies. We sent these FOIA requests to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and six of its components, including ICE, TSA, Customs and Boarder Patrol, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The records we requested will reveal who was involved in these decisions, what outside groups were influencing these decisions, when these decisions were made, and why. The American people need to know, and they deserve to know.

It became clear that a FOIA request was necessary when, on June 28, 2016, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing entitled “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

Continue reading

Terror-linked Muslim Group CAIR Met with Congress 325 Times in 2016

obamacair

Source: CAIR Met With Congress 325 Times in 2016

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group identified by the Justice Department as a Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated as terrorists by the United Arab Emirates, boasts of having 325 meetings with members of Congress or their staff over the last year.

The group says it also enjoyed $3 million worth free advertising through media appearances this year alone, resulting in 50 million views of its work.

CAIR’s fundraising video boasts that there were 14,000 mentions of CAIR on radio or television this year alone, and that it has a database of 1.6 million media contacts to use. The organization said it has 65 trained spokespeople, 29 offices and 35 full-time lawyers.


Much of that on Fox News. Read it all.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60,084 other followers

%d bloggers like this: