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:

 

 

 

 

Is Govt Paying Security Firms to Hire Muslim Immigrants to Guard Critical Infrastructure?

vetsecLogo

Source: Dave Hodges – The Common Sense Show

Critical Infrastructure Being Guarded by Muslim Immigrants – DHS Paying Security Firms $1200 for Each Muslim Hired

I was having a casual conversation with an old friend the other day and this casual conversation drifted into the area of national security.

He told me a firm that he works for called Veterans Security, or Vet/Sec for short. They are tasked with providing security for some America’s most sensitive infrastructure (e.g. power plants, etc).

Historically, the firm hired almost exclusively American veterans. However, that demographic is changing. According to an anonymous inside source that works for this security firm, they are increasingly hiring unvetted Muslim immigrants to provide security at these sensitive locations. Amazingly, the firm is receiving $1200 from the government to hire these workers. According to my source, some of these employees barely speak English.

If there anyone anything wrong with hiring Muslims to guard American infrastructure? No, so long as they are citizens and have passed an extensive background check and they certainly should not be part of a program that hires Muslims and then the government pays the employer $1200 to hire them. And if the government cannot screen these immigrants, neither can this firm.

With God’s providence and timing, I received this communication in yesterday’s email.

Dave,

I did an assignment at Kirkland AFB / Sandia National Labs.  The trucking company we used was xxxx Trucking.  xxxx xxxx used to quip they were the only NM [New Mexico] truckers that could  get onto the base.

Note, you have to have a serious background check to get inside the gates.

The last time I talked to xxxx (~16 mos).  He was called to the Sandia main gate. Where he was to transport a load from inside the base to the front gate to a 3rd party trucker who could not get a security clearance to get inside the gate.

He related his story about the cargo:  He drove deep onto the base into a uber secure facility.  Where and AP put a weapon to the back of his head and told him to follow the painted foot prints on the floor.  He was then instructed to face the wall. (SOP for this facility) After the cargo was loaded, the AP came back, they did the reverse procedure and Hayes then delivered his cargo to outside the front gate where this 3rd World trucker, who should not been within 10 miles of Kirkland AFB took charge of the cargo.

Apparently, our beloved FedGov.Inc (note domain suffix) has been importing 3rd World types and:

  • Paying for their CDL license training
  • Giving / leasing them Commercial trucks
  • Giving them lucrative Gummint hauling contracts for hauling TS and above components..
  • Taking contracts from US contractors capable of getting needed clearances.

Not a recipe for success.

Regards

This closely parallels what my inside source said about Vet/Sec. I believe we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg.


We cannot confirm or deny any of this information but hope that by bringing it to light other resources (Breitbart, WND, Daily Caller, Alex Jones/Prison Planet, etc.) will.

It is all too believable.

Former DOD Official Warns America On Wrong Track Fighting War On Terror

The right track starts by banning Muslims from migrating to the United States. Any other plan may slow the inevitable but will be futile in the long run. 

Source: Rich Higgins: Terrorists ‘Weaponizing Political Correctness’ | The Daily Caller Continue reading

Muslim former FBI agent who refused to wiretap fellow Muslims now Homeland Security Adviser

Source: Jihad Watch – Muslim former FBI agent who refused to wiretap fellow Muslims now Homeland Security Adviser

Back in 2002, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz was in the FBI, and refused to conduct a secret recording of a Muslim suspect. He said: “a Muslim doesn’t record another Muslim.” This was quite controversial at the time, and there were calls for him to be fired. But now the foxes own the henhouse, and he is advising the President on how to deal with the terror threat. That explains a great deal.

Abdel-Hafiz should have been fired in 2002, immediately after demonstrating that his allegiance to Islam was greater than his allegiance to the United States. Instead, he is now in a greater position of influence than ever.

Patrick Poole reports, via Homeland Security Adviser Demands National Gun Registry

Following the terror attack in Orlando, the dominant media/political narrative turned to gun control and now-discredited claims of the suspect’s mental illness (claims which included gay-baiting).

Now, one controversial former FBI agent — and current consultant to the Obama administration on “countering violent extremism” (CVE) — is suggesting a national gun registry be created. Such a registry would target millions of law-abiding American citizens.

Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, born in Cairo, immigrated to the U.S. in 1990. He recently retired from the FBI after 22 turbulent years at the bureau. Following the Orlando attack, Abdel-Hafiz explained his rationale for creating a national gun registry:

A former FBI counter-terrorism agent says lawmakers could make mass murders less likely. “What we need to do is keep the ownership of guns known to the government, so we know who has what,” said security consultant Gamal Abdel-Hafiz. “And I know a lot of people are against that.”

He also defended the FBI’s handling of the Mateen case, despite the FBI having conducted multiple interviews with the killer based on statements and threats of violence he had made, and then shutting down the investigation:

“He shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun legally. He shouldn’t,” said Abdel-Hafiz about 29-year-old Omar Mateen. He says 3 FBI interviews should have been enough to keep Mateen on the radar, but he also knows why he wasn’t. “Once you investigate someone and clear them, you have to remove them from the watch list by law,” he explained Monday from his office in Dallas.And even if Mateen had been on a terror watch list, or no-fly list, that would not have prohibited him from legally buying weapons, including a high-velocity semi-automatic assault rifle.

“That means the list is useless then,” the former agent said. Efforts to ban weapon sales to those on watch lists have been blocked in Congress. Some lawmakers say the lists could violate a person’s Second Amendment rights. “As long as our politicians keep fighting each other for the sake of fighting each other, more innocent people will keep on dying,” he said.

Remarkably, he admits that the various terror watch lists and no-fly lists are useless. Moments after suggesting another list. He doesn’t explain how a national gun registry — yet another government list targeting millions of law-abiding Americans — would prevent another terror attack.

It’s unlikely that Abdel-Hafiz would agree to a facially unconstitutional registry of Muslim Americans. So why is he agreeable to attempts to strip Americans — including perhaps thousands of Muslim Americans — of their Second Amendment rights without the conviction of any crime?

The WFAA interview concludes with this ominous detail:

Gamal Abdel-Hafiz is now consulting on a government counter violent extremist project to reduce the threat of homegrown terrorists. He’s an avid gun owner. But he says the carnage in Orlando shows that gun law must be part of the conversation.

Abdel-Hafiz is advising the Obama administration on its disastrous “countering violent extremism” policies that were very likely more responsible for the mass killing in Orlando than any current gun law. As someone advising Homeland Security and law enforcement agencies on “countering violent extremism,” it raises the issues surrounding his controversial tenure with the FBI.

In December 2002, ABC News reported accusations by two veteran FBI investigators that Abdel-Hafiz interfered in ongoing terror investigations:

Perhaps most astounding of the many mistakes, according to Flessner and an affidavit filed by Wright, is how an FBI agent named Gamal Abdel-Hafiz seriously damaged the investigation. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz, who is Muslim, refused to secretly record one of al-Kadi’s suspected associates, who was also Muslim. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz told him, Vincent and other agents that “a Muslim doesn’t record another Muslim.”“He wouldn’t have any problems interviewing or recording somebody who wasn’t a Muslim, but he could never record another Muslim,” said Vincent.

Wright said he “was floored” by Abdel-Hafiz’s refusal and immediately called the FBI headquarters. Their reaction surprised him even more: “The supervisor from headquarters says, ‘Well, you have to understand where he’s coming from, Bob.’ I said no, no, no, no, no. I understand where I’m coming from,” said Wright. “We both took the same damn oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and he just said no? No way in hell.”

Far from being reprimanded, Abdel-Hafiz was promoted to one of the FBI’s most important anti-terrorism posts, the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia, to handle investigations for the FBI in that Muslim country.

Abdel-Hafiz was ordered fired in May 2003 by the FBI’s top disciplinary officer for a variety of personal and professional problems, including insurance fraud and mismanagement of important 9/11-related files at the bureau’s office in Riyadh.

The ordering firing Abdel-Hafiz was later overruled in 2004 by a special three-man panel convened to hear the case. As Newsweek reported, his reinstatement coincided with efforts by the FBI to hire more Muslim and Arabic-speaking personnel.

Despite his reinstatement, controversy continued to follow the troubled FBI agent.

As the New York Times reported just last year, the reinstated Abdel-Hafiz was placed in the bureau’s Post-Adjudication Risk Management program in 2012 that stripped him of access to certain classified material that he claimed was necessary to do his job.

Yet now he is advising the Obama administration on their “countering violent extremism” policies.

CIA Director Admits ISIS Infiltrating West Through Refugees, As Obama Imports Thousands

We’ve been posting on Muslim terrorist refugees since at least 2011 when 2 Muslim “refugees” from Iraq were charged with terrorism. The CIA is just figuring this out now? Source: CIA Director: Islamic State Attempting to Infiltrate the West Through Refugee Flows – Breitbart

Thursday at a hearing on CIA intelligence activities, CIA Director John Brennan said ISIS is attempting infiltrate operatives into the West through “refugee flows, smuggling routes and legitimate methods of travel.”

“Since at least 2014, ISIL has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against it’s foreign enemies, resulting in hundreds of casualties. The most prominent examples are the attacks in Paris and Brussels, which we asses were directed by ISIL’s leadership. We judge that ISIL is training and attempting to deploy for operatives further attacks. ISIL has large cadre of western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West. The group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including in refugee flows, smuggling routes and legitimate methods of travel. Furthermore, as we have seen in Orlando, San Bernardino and elsewhere, ISIL is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. Last month, for example, a senior ISIL figure publicly urges the groups followers to conduct attacks in their home countries if they were unable to travel to Syria and Iraq. At the same time, ISIL is gradually cultivating the global network of branches into a more interconnected global organization.”


Like Farah Pandith, who directed DHS not to use the words sharia and jihad among other Islamic terms, John Brennan is also a Muslim.

Meanwhile, now that the CIA confirms Muslim terrorists are embedded with Muslim refugees and the FBI Director Admitted the US Can’t Vet All Refugees For Terror Ties, 441 Syrian Refugees Admitted to the U.S. Since the Orlando Attack, with Dozens Going to Florida.

In the days since an Islamic radical murdered 49 people at an Orlando gay bar, the Obama Administration has admitted hundreds more Syrian refugees to the United States, including placing dozens in Florida.

According to State Department data, since June 12, 441 Syrian refugees have been resettled in communities across the U.S. Just five of the recent arrivals are Christian the rest are Muslim, including 434 Sunni Muslims and one identified as simply “Moslem.” One is listed as having “no religion.”

The 441 new arrivals have been resettled across 26 states, with Illinois (60), Florida (49), and Arizona (38) taking in the most Syrian refugees over that four-day timeframe.

Of the 49 new Syrian refugees resettled in Florida since the attack, 10 have been resettled in the greater Orlando area — with five resettled in Orlando proper and five resettled in Kissimmee. The rest of the refugees settled in Florida were placed in Clearwater (six), Delray Beach (five), Miami (five), Pensacola (five), Tampa (18).

Florida Gov. Rick Scott says he is opposed to resetting Syrian refugees in his state amid ongoing vetting concerns. Tuesday, following the attack, Scott expressed frustration that the administration is refusing to share information about the Syrians placed in his state.

“The White House said they will not share that information with the Florida law enforcement. They said, oh, that — those people have privacy rights,” Scott said during an appearance on Fox News.

“What about our security rights?” Scott continued. “The security and making sure if you live in my state, you’re gonna be safe. I’m responsible for the safety of the people in my state. I’m fed up with the fact that we’re not destroying ISIS. We’re not vetting these people; we’re not taking care of our own citizens.”


Florida has been the top destination for sharia-adherents invading the United States, via Afghanistan Migration Surging into America; 99% Support Sharia Law:

The Tampa Tribune reported last year that Florida now leads the nation as the number one state in resettling refugees.

According to the federal government, Florida resettled 43,184 refugees in 2013.

While most of these refugees settling in Florida arrive from Cuba, many arrive from Middle Eastern countries. According to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, the next largest countries to resettle in Florida are (in order) Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Colombia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, and Palestine.

According to data from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps and 68.3 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on cash welfare.

The Tampa Tribune reported that many of these Muslim refugees are carving out their own Muslim communities within Florida (similar to what refugees have done in Dearborn and Minneapolis): “Many of the refugees finding homes in the Tampa Bay area are Muslim because the region has an established Muslim community.

Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled nearly 30,000 Afghan migrants on green cards. According to Pew, nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) support sharia law as official law.


To recap, thousands of Muslims have been imported to Florida against the will of the citizens of that state – where a Muslim shot and killed 49 people last week, and where ISIS ‘kill list’ targets Palm Beach, Treasure Coast residents:

A pro-Isis group has released a hit list with the names of more than 8,000 peoplemostly Americans.

More than 600-people live in Florida, and one security expert believes that many of those targeted live in Palm Beach County and on the Treasure Coast.

The “United Cyber Caliphate” that hacked U.S. Central Command, 54,000 Twitter accounts and threatened President Barack Obama is the same pro-Isis group that’s reportedly created a “kill list” with the names, addresses and emails of thousands of civilian Americans.

Reports of the list came to light online when Vocativ reported the list was shared via the encrypted app, Telegram, and called on supporters to kill.

We reached out to the FBI, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office and Martin County Sheriff’s Office to see how credible they view the threat and what action they might be taking.

We are awaiting their response.


At least one source states, “The list is old data and really has no value.” Regardless, common sense is prevailing among average citizens and a Majority of Americans Back Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban in Post-Orlando Poll. Continue reading

Muslim-led Committee Tells DHS to Ban Words Like ‘Jihad, Sharia’

Source: DHS To Fight ISIS With Political Correctness | The Daily Caller

Less than a week before Omar Mateen walked into an Orlando gay club and killed or wounded more than 100 people, the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) submitted its Countering Violent Extremism report to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson. The report instructs the DHS not to use any language that might be “disrespectful” to Muslims, including (but not limited to) the words “jihad,” “sharia” and “takfir.”

The report was crafted by an HSAC subcommittee that Secretary Johnson created in November 2015. The head of that subcommittee, Farah Pandith, was appointed by Johnson in May 2015. The subcommittee published the report on June 9.


Note: Farah Pandith is a Muslim who was previously hired and sworn in on a Koran by Hillary Clinton.

Farah Pandith – now head of DHS committee recommending ban on use of words jihad and sharia – sworn in on Koran by Hillary Clinton


Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

In addition to combating violent extremism by reaching out to “gender diverse” Americans and teaching youth “appropriate online etiquette,” the report recommends that the DHS “avoid stigmatizing specific communities.”

The report urges DHS officials to “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

 For example, the report says the DHS should be “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’”

The report acknowledges that, “There is a disagreement among scholars, government officials, and activists about the right lexicon to use around the issues of violent extremism.”

Nevertheless, the report states, “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”

“We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and words. Tone and word choice matter,” the report states.

The report includes other recommendations for countering violent extremism, such as: “Focus on gender diversity of youth through careful attention to the range of push and pull factors that attract individuals of differing gender.”

The report also recommends countering extremism by teaching youth “appropriate online etiquette.”

The report instructs the DHS to “Develop a curriculum in partnership with the Department of Education and education experts and non-profits to disseminate to schools, teaching children appropriate online etiquette to mitigate online hate.”

The DHS website states that HSAC, “Provides organizationally independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary, including the creation and implementation of critical and actionable policies for the security of the homeland.”


h/t Pamela Geller who writes: Homeland Security PROHIBITED from Using ‘JIHAD’, ‘SHARIA’ — words that “DISRESPECT” Muslims

Sharia enforcement on DHS language. If we have submitted and surrendered, why do we even need a Department of Homeland Security?


Post-script: Since 2008, we’ve been informing readers about Muslim-led efforts to prevent the West from speaking about Islamic jihad:

Obama appoints Muslim who praised 9/11 attacks as positive to Homeland Security committee!

Brotherhood_Infiltration

The number is now well beyond six

Source: Obama taps Muslim who praised 9/11 attacks – puts her on US Homeland Security committee!

As the country still reels from the terror attack on a Florida nightclub perpetrated by a radical Muslim, news of another radical Muslim has emerged – only this one was hired by Barack Obama and placed on a U.S. Homeland Security subcommittee.

One of the new members of Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism is a 25-year-old Syrian immigrant who has not only outright rejected ever accepting the idea of truly being an American, but has praised the 9/11 attacks as a positive good, and indulged constant racist attacks on white people on Twitter.

As Daily Caller documents, Laila Alawa was hired by Barack Obama to join the Department of Homeland Security–an agency set up to stop another 9/11 attack–even though she has praised 9/11 as a good thing.

In September of 2014 Alawa insisted “9/11 changed the world for good and there’s not other way to say it. I just hope we keep having open conversations about our differences.”

 Obama’s new member of Homeland Security also recently said that she will never consider herself an actual American. Even though she came to the U.S. as a 10-year-old child, Alawa says she will always consider herself a Syrian. “But I will always be Syrian. I will always be from Syria. I will always be of Syria,” she wrote in an article in November of 2015. In the same piece she called Syria her “homeland.”

In a tweet from 2013, Alawa slammed anyone who might say that the U.S. is a great country.

To further prove how little she thinks of America, she also has posted numerous tweets attacking white people.

On September 10, 2015 she attacked the U.S. as a place where being American means “being white.”

In September of that same year she attacked those who didn’t want to bring in untold numbers of Syrian “refugees” into the U.S. as shedding “salty white tears” over Obama’s plans to flood the country with unscreened Muslims.

She again attacked the U.S. as racist and anti-woman in July of 2015.

In 2013 Alawa took to Twitter to celebrate the Boston Marathon bombing and disparage anti-Jihadi activist Pam Geller for marking the murders committed on that terrible day.

There are many, many more tweets just like these, tweets attacking the U.S., some tweets slamming the American concept of freedom of speech, many more attacking whites–especially white men–and others celebrating terrorism.

This is the person Barack Obama has put on a committee of our Homeland Security Department. And is it any surprise that this committee is advising the U.S. government to eliminate Muslim words such as “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir‘ or “umma” when talking about the problem of radical Islamist terror all in order not to “offend” Muslims?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60,047 other followers

%d bloggers like this: