It’s Time for Candidates to Discuss the Enemy Within | The Counter Jihad Report

Note: I agree with the writer, Ted Cruz has introduced legislation that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s affiliate groups (ISNA, CAIR, etc….) as  terrorist organizations. I support #TedCruz, but he needs to put this legislation OUT FRONT AND CENTER in his campaign!!! This is the most important issue facing America today and Ted knows it, but he has to VOICE IT LOUDLY and just take whatever heat he gets over it, because that is what Americans want and need to hear!!!

 

It’s Time for Candidates to Discuss the Enemy Within

EgyptElectionsConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, December 28th, 2015: (h/t @PoliticalShort)

When Congress returns in January, there will be a robust debate over the authorization of use of military force (AUMF) in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS.  But while we debate a bunch of lousy options and the potential cost of lives and billions of dollars arming our enemies in endless Islamic civil wars, the politicians in both parties will never discuss the enemy within the United States.  This is where the presidential candidates must lead by example.

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have already drawn attention to the first half of the homeland security threat – the endless migration from the Middle East as manifest through our suicidal immigration policies.  Unfortunately, Republicans didn’t listen, and despite the universally-accepted threat of the Syrian and Somali refugees, they gave Obama the full $1.67 billion for refugee resettlement in the Omnibus bill.

However, it is the second half of the equation – the most foundational threat to our homeland and society – that has garnered almost no attention from anyone in politics.  That is the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America that have so much influence both on the Obama administration and the Muslim communities in our country.

Three questions should automatically come to mind in light of the San Bernardino attack and the nearly daily incidents of Muslims being arrested for plotting terror attacks or attempting to join ISIS.

  1. Why is our government expunging any mention of Islamic terror from their official documents and hampering investigations into connections to local radical Muslim Brotherhood groups?
  2. Why are so few moderate Muslims speaking out against the growing trend of radicalization?
  3. Why are so many Muslims in America, even those who were born here, being drawn into groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda?

The answer to all these questions, point to the Muslim Brotherhood and the influence of their three North American affiliates that were implicated in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust.

Last Wednesday, I had the privilege of guest hosting the Sean Hannity show along with my colleague, Deneen Borelli, and we discussed why the Muslim Brotherhood represents a more foundational threat to our homeland than ISIS or Al Qaeda.  They are the enemy within that radicalizes American Muslims (the ones that weren’t already radicalized), marginalizes and intimidates moderates, and influences the government to eschew any policy that even mentions Islamic terror much less policies that actually combat Islamic terror.

[My segment on the Muslim Brotherhood can be found here.  You will hear national security expert, Patrick Poole, discuss how this problem started long before the Obama administration.]

This is why we need the GOP candidates to step up to the plate.  But until now they have largely been silent.  Ted Cruz has introduced an important piece of legislation, which would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, but he needs to make this issue more front and center in his campaign.

Just last week, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron took the unprecedented step to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group after his government launched an exhaustive study into their activities.  They will now ban visas to Muslim Brotherhood officials and increase surveillance of their offices.   If the liberal Europeans are willing to protect themselves and root out their enemy within, cannot our “conservative” leaders muster the same courage?

Not surprisingly, Obama condemned Cameron’s move as a needless de-legitimizing of a non-violent group.  But their use of “non-violent” means of subversion in western countries to marginalize moderates and quietly radicalize the Muslim communities and mosques is exactly what will destroy both America and Europe from the inside.

It was recently reported that the U.K. is experiencing a sharp drop off in cooperation from local Muslims in rooting out terrorists from their communities.  Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood intimidation is a big part of this deterrent against cooperating with the authorities.

Earlier this month, Phil Haney, a former DHS counterterrorism official, wrote an expose on how he was stifled from connecting the dots between some of the very same foreign terror groups Tafsheen Malik was affiliated with and local Muslim groups in America:

“But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?Worse still, the administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement.”

It’s not surprising that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division (CRCL) was responsible for shutting down the investigation.  CRCL is the nexus for the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government.  In 2008, under the Bush administration, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff drafted a memo for CRCL that called on government officials to strip all references of Islamic supremacism from their training.  This memo was drafted, in the words of Chertoff, based on “its discussions with a broad range of Muslim American community leaders and scholars.”  In 2011, based on the same recommendations of these Muslim Brotherhood “scholars,” DHS published its training and guidance manual on the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda.  The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

If ISIS is the new quarterback for Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood is their all-star offensive linemen. In theory the United States should have a great defensive line capable of overwhelming ISIS’ strategy. But with our very own Department of Homeland Security playing ball for the Muslim Brotherhood, the fox appears to be guarding the henhouse.

 

Source :

The Counter Jihad Report

Law Enforcement Forfeitures and You

civilforfeitures

I was reading my email today and got a link to this story. Having had personal experience in the subject matter, and wanting to shed some light on something few people know about, I thought I’d share it with you.

In 2006 I got put in jail for a probation violation in Chambers County Texas, it’s not something I’m proud of or normally share but it’s relevant to this story.

I was in the holding cell just inside the front door for about 9 hours. While I was there approximately 6 other people were booked in and put into that holding cell. Of the 6 two were there for nothing more than “having cash in excess of $7500.00 dollars”

The two were arrested solely for being in possession of that money according to them, and they both thought someone had called the police on them. One guy claimed he had $18,000, but police showed him having $12,000. Hmmmmm And the other guy said he had $30,000 cash. Why did they think someone called police on them you ask?

Because they both claimed officers knew they had the money, even asking them before searching the vehicle “Where is the currency?” The FBI runs a joint task force with Chambers County, they are the guys with the dark tinted windows on I-10 before you get to Beaumont, Texas.

Well my curiosity was aroused by now, how in the world did police know these guys had that money BEFORE they searched the car?

Once my booking was complete I got my striped jumpsuit and went on back into the jail. (what joyous memories) Once in the back I met another young kid, he was about 19. The same thing had happened to him!

The kid spoke honestly with me,  said that a man had payed him to drive a Ryder rental truck to Houston from Florida to buy cheap marijuana in Houston. The man who payed him was following behind the truck in a car. The young man said police stopped the car of his associate, so he pulled into a burger shop to wait for him.

He went inside, got a burger and went back out to the truck. As he reached the truck police swarmed in on him and almost immediately asked him “Where is the currency?” He had been in jail a week or so, and after some phone calls found that the man following him was released by police because he had less than $7,000 on his person.

The slick man had the youngster hauling the majority of the cash, over $102,000 dollars! I know what you are thinking, “who can believe a guy in jail.” Well, I saw the kid’s indictment myself and it read “The state of Texas vs. The Kid and $102,000” No crime was cited on the indictment.

That’s exactly what it said! The money was NAMED in the indictment! The kid bonded out later that day and I don’t know what happened to him after that, but I’m sure neither of them got that $102,000 back! And the same goes for the $12,000 and the $30,000.

In one day in Chambers County Texas they confiscated $144,000 THAT I WITNESSED!!! How much more did they get that day that I was not aware of?

After that day I spent in jail, witnessing all of that, and  listening to their stories, I’m convinced that police have some type of “radar” that can detect large groupings of those little security strips in currency. If not, how could they know before searching the vehicle, and pick out THAT vehicle???

That money is just another resource that gets wasted, stolen, or misused in our broken system. Thanks to Bree for igniting me to write about this, because everyone I’ve ever told acted like my hat was made of tin-foil or something. If I had not witnessed it all myself, talked to the people involved myself, and seen the documents for myself………….I probably would not believe it either!

 

This story made me want to tell my story :

 

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple But Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime

14364931241

A Massachusetts couple has been fighting for three years to regain cash they say was wrongfully seized from them. In October 2012, the Illinois State Police pulled over Adam and Jennifer Perry for speeding as they were driving through Henry County on Interstate 80. The Perrys said they were headed to Salt Lake City, Utah to see a hearing specialist for an ear infection Adam was suffering from.

A drug dog sniffed and indicated on the car. Officers then searched the vehicle and found $107,520 in cash in a suitcase and in Jennifer’s wallet. The Perrys claimed the search was without their consent and without a warrant. According to the officers, they also found a duffel bag that reportedly smelled of marijuana.

No drugs were found in the car, nor did the government file criminal charges against the Perrys. Nevertheless, officers seized the cash and eventually transferred it to the federal government.

In a letter filed earlier this month, Adam claims that the taken cash came from savings and disability settlements and payments. “Our faith in the United States legal system has been shaken. Why are officer’s [sic] allowed to be judge, jury and executioner on the side of the road?” the Perrys asked in a 2013 response to federal prosecutors.

Unfortunately, their case is not unique. An extensive investigation by The Washington Post into one federal forfeiture program found nearly 62,000 cash seizures since 9/11 where police did not use warrants or charge the owners with a crime. Out of those seizures, more than 1,700 were in Illinois alone.

Moreover, for federal civil forfeiture cases, property owners are not presumed innocent and do not have a right to an attorney. With few safeguards, police and prosecutors can profit from forfeiture. Illinois agencies received more than $186 million in federal forfeiture funds between 2000 and 2013 from the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the Institute for Justice’s report, Policing for Profit.

This article originally appeared on Institute for Justice.

ABOUT AUTHOR

Bree is a recent college graduate from NYC who excels in writing, social media, music-listening, and pizza pie-eating.

Source :

Capitalism Is Freedom

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple But Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime

A Congressional Overture to Censorship | The Counter Jihad Report

A Congressional Overture to Censorship

HouseCensor3 001The Rule of Reason, by Edward Cline, December 22, 2015:

Stephen Coughlin alerted me to a House Resolution introduced on December 17th, H.Res.569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.114th Congress (2015-2016).”  As of this writing, the country remains clueless about this development.

The resolution was introduced by Virginia Democrat Donald S. Beyer, and sponsored by Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, and endorsed by seventy-one other Representatives, most of them Democrats, and possibly a sprinkling of Republicans. The resolution has gone into committee, but one can predict with confidence that it will emerge virtually unscathed and unaltered. After all, the “victims” are Muslims, and the House wishes to put it in the record that certain of its members are against hurting anyone’s feelings.

Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character.

Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House. One suspects that H.Res.569 was inspired by U.S.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s promise to an audience of Muslim Advocates on December 3rd that she would spend efforts to combat and prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. I do not think the two-week gap between Lynch’s pronouncements and the introduction of the resolution is coincidental. It probably took two weeks to compose and fine-tune its wording.

Interestingly, the term “Islamophobia” does not occur in the resolution text. That may or may not have been oversight on the part of the resolution’s backers. But Coughlin, in Parts IV through VI in Catastrophic Failure, reveals in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the  Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) mutual and complementary obsession with having Islamophobia quashed and prohibited on pain of penalty, worldwide, but especially in the U.S.

Nevertheless, as Coughlin explains in great detail in his book, the language of the House resolution mirrors the OIC’s Islamophobia narrative being implemented domestically. See my reviews of Coughlin’s book here.

Missing from the list of backers of the resolution is one Republican of note:Michael McCaul, who represents the 10th District in Texas. He is now chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. But he is very friendly with envoys and officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A Breitbart article chronicled one encounter, “McCaul Meets With Islamic Leader Who Says U.S. Muslims Are ‘Above Law Of Land,” from February 2015.

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) was photographed with—and wrote a personal note in silver sharpie to—an Islamic leader who said practicing Muslims in the United States are “above the law of the land.”

On May 13, 2013, McCaul held an open house at a district office in Katy, Texas. While McCaul’s Facebook posting announcing the open house said an RSVP was required, a spokeswoman for McCaul told Breitbart News that Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Houston branch executive director Mustafa Carroll showed up without notice.

During the open house, McCaul and Carroll were photographed speaking to one another. On top of the photograph, in silver sharpie, McCaul wrote to Carroll: “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.” (Italics mine)

The most effective weapon against what?? America? See Michael McCaul’s denial of reality in Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure, Section VI, p. 401.

In parsing this resolution, let’s first examine all the Whereas’s first:

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

I think I can count the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes committed in the U.S. on the fingers of one hand; I don’t immediately recall any Muslim of either gender in the U.S. of being physically assaulted as Europeans are now being attacked and raped by Muslim gangs of immigrants and “refugees.” I do not think the scarcity of reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes is due to the news media’s oversight; there is just a paucity of such crimes, unless one counts publically burning aKoran or hanging a side of bacon on the front door of a mosque. But one can be sure that when one occurs, the news media will be all over it like raspberry jam on a muffin.  As for “verbal abuse,” that’s covered in the criminal code, so a House resolution on the subject is redundant. Does the code really need another superfluous category that pertains only to Muslims? Is  Congress now turning to maintaining the emotional health and welfare of Muslims? It seems so. There is the nanny state, complemented by the nursemaid state.

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Note how “violence” and “hate speech” are paired together, as though they were synonymous offenses, which they are not. “Hate speech,” which I have argued for years is an illegitimate concept (prosecute the demonstrable crime, not the contents of a person’s mind), has no metaphysical power to physically harm anyone. For words to be capable of actually harming anyone, they would need to “spoken” by a kind of paintball gun rigged to replicate the sound of an insult as a mass of air that could knock a person flat on his tosh. Words on paper, words transmitted through the air, are not tangible weapons. Further, “hate speech” is not in “contravention” to the nation’s founding principles. It hadn’t been invented yet, and, it being an illegitimate category of crime, it is not to be confused with genuine slander or libel. Those offenses our Founding Fathers knew something about, most of them having been lawyers schooled in British law.

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

And? So what? Those millions of Muslims and their mosques expect to be deferred to and accommodated because their “faith” requires it. No mention anywhere in the resolution of the practice of female genital mutilations, honor killings, beheadings, arranged marriages that often send a girl or woman to Pakistan or some other Sharia-governed country, and sermons advocating jihadand not cooperating with the authorities when the latter are investigating genuine “hate crimes,” such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre by….Muslims. No mention of Muslims bringing into this country their age-old sectarian animosities between Muslims, no mention either of their “cultural” hatred and contempt for Western liberties, so often articulated by Muslim spokesmen.

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

“Innumerable contributions”? Which ones? I can’t think of any advances in medicine, science, literature, or any of the other arts that Muslims have contributed to American society. In terms of an economic contribution, I can think of a spike in gun sales to Americans who, for some strange reason, wish to arm themselves against Islamic depredations. I can see, too, how the presence of millions of Muslims is tearing the fabric of our Western society, because their “culture” is alien and hostile to everything America stands for. Again, in terms of economics, there are the millions of Muslims who have gravitated toward the welfare state and working as little as possible, if ever. Most American Muslims are here for the same reason millions of Muslims want to settle and colonize Germany, Britain, Sweden, and other European welfare states.

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Come again? Where do we see that “welcoming and fellowship” of Muslims with Jews? With Christians? Except in some bogus “outreach” program or in interfaith “dialogue”? There is a word that covers the act of a Muslim willing to talk civilly with Jews and Christians: hudna, or a temporary truce that Muslims are willing to endure to buy time or gain the trust of infidels. The Koran, however, specifically prohibits Muslims from being friends with infidels or treating them as equals. Any “friendship” or “dialogue” that occurs between Muslims and infidels is simply the practice of dawah, or attempts to persuade infidels to convert to Islam.  Effusive protestations of “friendship” with non-Muslims are but practiced taqiyya.

On the other hand, Koran 003.118 goes:
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

Point made. There is much more where that came from. Raymond Ibrahim, for example, has an excellent post on the role of taqiyya and false friendships, “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception.” Or absorb Stephen Coughlin’s section on “Interfaith Outreach” in Catastrophic Failure.

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

So, we mustn’t consider the individual victims of Islamic terrorism, nor their families and friends. Only alleged Muslim victims and their families, and communities, and the whole Islamic ummah can claim victimhood. Non-Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism are simply blanked-out when Muslim victimhood is making the rounds in Washington, D.C.  See the CNS report on the number of anti-Muslim “hate crimes” here.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted. A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

If they have been disproportionately “targeted” for “discrimination” it is because such garb is 1) required of Muslim women, otherwise they are beaten or assaulted or honor-killed by other Muslims; and 2) because women are regarded in Islam as second-class human beings, as chattel.  Muslim women who wear the full burqa or other garb that covers their faces are not to be trusted because too many of them have been suicide bombers.

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:

This is perhaps the most obtuse and odious “Whereas” in the resolution’s text. Islamic terrorist groups do not engage in “false narratives”; they mean what they say and they as a rule quote chapter and verse from the Koran about why they do what they do. Western “hate speech” does not “play into the hands of terrorists”; we, however, are putty in their hands because we have adopted the false narrative that the terrorists have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion” or have a perverted interpretation of “kill the Jew or Christian if he does not submit or pay jizya.” To wit:

Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad narrated – hence abrogating what came before, including the oft-quoted verse 2:256 –“There is no compulsion in religion…”.

That is from the horse’s mouth. It can’t be “perverted.”

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Commentary on these seven points would be redundant.

Someone, please, tell me that H.Res.569 is not in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That it is not thoroughly and treacherously unconstitutional, aside from it being a commiserating overture to censorship and a not-so-subtle recasting of the UN/OIC Resolution 16/18, which would criminalize freedom of speech about Islam and Muslims, regardless of the form the speech takes.

Someone please tell me that H.Res.569 is not a formal recognition and application of Sharia law, which also purports to be the “law of the land” in contravention of the U.S. Constitution being the “law of the land.”

No one can deny it. No one can say that the resolution does not represent an itch to legally gag Americans when they try to discuss Islam and the Obama-enabled invasion of this country by enemy aliens. No one can tell me that this resolution is not a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC.

Doubtless, the House resolution cannot be declared unconstitutional because it is a mere opinion expressed by members of the House. It does not carry the force of law. Therefore, it cannot be enforced or entered into the statutes, provided it survives, as a bill intended to become a law, vetting by the Senate, and is signed by the President.

To become the “law of the land.” Barack Obama would not hesitate to sign it.

Also see:

Just Asking about Islam and Terrorism | The Counter Jihad Report

jihadiNational Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Dec. 26, 2015:

Let me ask you a question.

Let’s say you are an authentically moderate Muslim. Perhaps you were born into Islam but have become secularist. Or perhaps you consider yourself a devout Muslim but interpret Islam in a way that rejects violent jihad, rejects the concept that religious and civic life are indivisible, and rejects the principle that sharia’s totalitarian societal framework and legal code must be imposed on the state. Let’s just take that as a given: You are no more inclined toward terrorism than any truly peaceful, moderate, pro-democratic non-Muslim.

So let me pop the question: Is there any insulting thing I could say, no matter how provocative, or any demeaning video I could show you, no matter how lurid, that could convince you to join ISIS?

Mind you, I am not asking whether, upon my insulting and provoking you, you would ever want to have anything to do with me again. I am asking whether there is anything that could be said or done by me, or, say, Donald Trump, or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula — the video producer (Innocence of Muslims) whom Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tried to blame for the Benghazi massacre — that could persuade you to throw up your hands and join the jihad? Is there anything so profoundly offensive to Islam that we could conjure up that would make a truly moderate, peaceful Muslim sign up for mass murder? Torching and beheading? Killing children? Participating in systematic rape as a weapon of war?

I didn’t think so.

RELATED: Yes, Islamic Is Islamic, But That’s Just the Beginning of the Debate

Yet, understand, that is what Washington would have you believe. Whether it is Barack Obama sputtering on about how Guantanamo Bay drives jihadist recruitment, or Hillary Clinton obsessing over videos (the real one by Nakoula that she pretended caused terrorism in Libya, and the pretend ones about Donald Trump that she claims have Muslims lined up from Raqqa to Ramadi to join ISIS), you are to believe violent jihad is not something that Muslims do but that Americans incite.

And it’s not just Democrats who’d have you buy this bunkum. Think of the Arab Spring fairy tale — about Libya, Egypt, and, most recently, Syria — that Republicans have been telling for years, critiqued by yours truly in Spring Fever. It is still GOP gospel, glibly peddled by Marco Rubio just a couple of weeks ago at the 2016 presidential candidates’ debate. (Disclosure: I support Ted Cruz.)

RELATED: Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth — the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

The fairy tale goes something like this. There is a terrible dictator who so tormented his people that they rose up against him. These were noble people, overwhelmingly moderate, secular Muslims — adherents of a “religion of peace” (or, as Bush secretary of state Condi Rice put it, “a religion of peace and love”), who craved democracy. (Caution: You can call them “rebels,” but words like “Muslim Brotherhood” and “sharia” are not to be uttered — we’re trying to build a narrative here!) Sure, the noble people may have tolerated the occasional jihadist in their midst, but that could happen to even the most well-intentioned peaceful moderate, right? (The pervasive presence of jihadists who used Syria and Libya as gateways to jihad against Americans in Iraq is also not to be mentioned.)

Now let’s let bygones be bygones. No need to tarry over small details — like how the noble people installed anti-democratic Islamists who imposed a sharia constitution on Egypt after ousting their pro-American dictator; or how Libya became a jihadist playpen where Americans are murdered after the U.S. government sided with the noble people to oust the U.S.-supported dictator who had been giving us counterterrorism intelligence about jihadists in places like Benghazi.

Let’s just skip ahead to Syria. There, the noble people needed America’s help, but Barack Obama turned a deaf ear. (No need to get into Obama’s collusion with the Islamic-supremacist governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to arm and train the “rebels.”) This forfeited our golden opportunity to intervene actively and empower the bounty of moderate, secular, America-loving, democracy-craving Muslims (because that worked so well in Libya). But for Obama’s default, these moderate legions could simultaneously have toppled the dictator and purged the teeny-tiny number of jihadists who might have been skulking about. (Let’s not get into how there don’t seem to be enough of these moderates to man a soccer team, let alone a legion; or how weapons supplied to these “rebels” somehow keep ending up in the hands of the jihadists.) Obama’s default, coupled with the ruthlessness of the dictator, created a leadership and territory void into which jihadists suddenly poured (apparently out of nowhere). Somehow, these spontaneously generating jihadists managed to entice recruits, vastly increasing in number and power (even though — you’ll have to trust us on this — the moderate, secular Muslims really want nothing to do with them).

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how ISIS was born and al-Qaeda rose from the ashes.

You buying it? Me neither.

RELATED: Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban Should Touch Off a Badly Needed Discussion

About 20 years ago, I prosecuted a dozen jihadists, led by the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, for waging a terrorist war against the United States — including the World Trade Center bombing and a plot to attack the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, as well as other New York City landmarks. The defendants were caught on tape building bombs, scheming to strike at American military sites, and planning attacks timed to achieve maximum infidel carnage.

At trial, the jihadists tried to tell the jury they were just moderate, peace-loving Muslims who had been provoked by American foreign policy, a perception of anti-Muslim bias, and videos of Muslims being persecuted in Bosnia. The Blind Sheikh insisted his incitements to jihad were simply a case of faithfully applying sharia principles, which, according to his lawyers, the First Amendment gave him the right to do.

So I asked the jury a simple question:

Is there any obnoxious, insulting, infuriating thing I could say to you, or show to you, that would convince you to join up with mass-murdering terrorists? To become a terrorist yourself?

Of course, a dozen commonsense New Yorkers did not need to be asked such a question. They laughed the defense out of the courtroom.

Alas, in the 20 years since, the defense they laughed out of the courtroom has become the bipartisan government policy of the United States.

Go figure.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

 

Source :

The Counter Jihad Report

Cleric Who Claimed He Barely Knew San Bernardino Terrorists Exchanged Dozens of Messages with Farook

The Obama administration “pulls the plug” on active investigation into radical mosque in 2012, which is tied to several attack

Source: Cleric Who Claimed He Barely Knew San Bernardino Terrorists Exchanged Dozens of Messages with Farook

Let me have “A big fat NOTHING burger with cheese” please

Ted Cruz is scaring them on the left, so they attack with the only thing available to them, NOTHING. They are hoping a baseless nasty rumor will be enough to hurt Ted Cruz. It makes me smile, it really does. They have hundreds of interns pouring over data about Ted Cruz to try to find some dirt, and they come back with……………………NOTHING!!!

From The Conservative Review :

Commentary

Ted Cruz

Andrew Harnik | AP Photo

Secret Recordings of Cruz Shows Nothing Secret At All

By:Amanda Carpenter | December 23rd, 2015

 

Oh, I could hear the balloon deflating all the way from the Politico headquarters.

Phllloooooooopppphhtt.

Last week, on the day of the highly-watched GOP presidential debate, someone gave Politico’s Mike Allen an enticing piece of catnip to put in his insidery morning email. Secret audio tape would soon be published on a conservative news site supposedly showing that Ted Cruz talks much differently to NYC moderates than Iowa evangelicals. “These leaks are designed to undermine Cruz’s authenticity,” Allen wrote.

The prospect of a juicy secret recording flew around the Internet.

People reported on the prospect of the audio tape, before ever hearing a word of what Cruz said. All by design, to be sure, just like Allen wrote. The whole intent was to plant the notion that Cruz is a big phony – without a shred of evidence.

Days and days went by. Nothing. Then, finally this morning Politico published the story. The day before Christmas Eve. Aka the holiday news dump. They didn’t have the goods.  Someone put one over Mike Allen.

Now that it’s finally out, what did Cruz say? Absolutely nothing he hasn’t said in public before.

Politico wrote:

“During the question period, one of the donors told Cruz that gay marriage was one of the few issues on which the two disagreed. Then the donor asked: “So would you say it’s like a top-three priority for you — fighting gay marriage?”

“No,” Cruz replied. “I would say defending the Constitution is a top priority. And that cuts across the whole spectrum — whether it’s defending [the] First Amendment, defending religious liberty.”

The story went on:

“A well-known Republican operative not affiliated with a 2016 campaign said by email when sent Cruz’s quote: “Wow. Does this not undermine all of his positions? Abortion, Common Core — all to the states? … Worse, he sounds like a slick D.C. politician — says one thing on the campaign trail and trims his sails with NYC elites. Not supposed to be like that.”

Hilarious. These operatives don’t seem to understand that the Constitution happens to cover religious liberty issues. Like marriage. And, pretty much everything else!

Moreover, as Politico even admits, Cruz has made the exact argument in public places, including during interviews with Stephen Colbert and Jay Leno!

Specifically, when Stephen Colbert suggested that Cruz believed there should be “no gay marriage,” Cruz stopped him and said, “Let’s be precise. Under the Constitution, marriage is a question for the states, if you want to change the marriage law–”

Colbert then interjected the “Constitution doesn’t mention marriage.”

And Cruz explained, “That’s exactly why it’s a question for the states. The 10th Amendment says if it doesn’t mention it, it’s a question for the states. That’s in the Bill of Rights. Everything that is not mentioned is left to the states.”

Cruz went on,

“I don’t think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington. Why would you possibly hand over the rights of 320 million Americans to five lawyers in Washington to decide these are the rules that govern you? If you want to win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box. That’s the way the Constitution was designed.”
Read the full article at :

Be Heard H.R.4269 “Assault Weapon Ban 2015”

Introduced on December 16, 2015 by David Cicilline (D) RI        HR4216 is just another attempt to disarm the American People a little at a time.

guns

Tell Congress what you think about H.R. 4269 infringing on your Second Amendment‬ rights!!! Right now, by signing up at: https://www.popvox.com/ you can be heard in Congress. You can read more about this bill at :

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr4269

All of these people seem to think that your second amendment rights are not unlimited. They seem to think that as they allow terrorists to cross our borders daily, on our dime, that they need to “reduce” your 2nd Amendment protections. You can be heard by Congress!!! By following this link, signing up with PopVox and then you will be able to see EVERYTHING under consideration in the House right now. This is Bill H.R. 4269. It and many more are searchable by bill number, and you can support or oppose the bill and leave your reason. Don’t be irate, leave a nicely worded comment with no vulgar language, and it’ll be seen by members of Congress. This Bill is at :

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr4269


Dec 16, 2015

Co-Sponsors

d-123

Representative
Stacey Plaskett
VI

Source : https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr4269

Stay informed about the Bills being considered in YOUR House of Representatives!!! Go to

https://www.popvox.com/  and sign up for a free account today!!!