Tag Archives: jihadists

On June 6^th, the date of D-Day, scores of patriots from across the nation poured into Zuccotti Park at the corner of Liberty and Trinity, across the street from Ground Zero to protest the 9/11 mosque being built just 600 feet from our country’s most painful wound.

Many have spoken to the horrible insensitivity of this mosque, arguing that it is an affront to American sensibilities, a planting of the victory flag as evidenced by its 9/11/11 opening date and the name of the project itself, the “Cordoba Initiative,” and a reflection of the growing stealth Sharia in the United States given the mosque’s Imam’s pro-Islamic law stance.  Indeed Muslims have been building mosques for centuries as symbols of conquest and dominance, and this one in particular will mark the first to stand on US soil.

The 9/11 mosque however has far greater implications with regard to the fundamental principles of our nation.  As reflected by the guffaws of many in the crowd when one of the speakers at the rally argued in favor of the mosque on Constitutional grounds regardless of the abhorrence of its location, many find it hard to reconcile that Islam is allowed to use our freedoms to subvert or mock our freedoms.  The religious tolerance of our culture alone deems us largely unable to prevent against mosques in which Islamic supremacism is preached, creating fertile protected grounds for jihadists both peaceful and violent.

If in fact we are unable to safeguard against such institutions, or even criticize the ideology of Islam at all, then we are going to be neutered in a war against those who use Islam to justify murdering innocents and implementing universal Sharia law both overtly and stealthily.

To adequately combat jihad and Sharia generally runs up against the Constitutional separation between church and state, which in addition to the commitment to our cultural values is why we have been largely ineffective to this point in countering terrorists and their sympathizers here in America.

I would like to present an alternative view of Islam, that it fundamentally differs from other religions, thus making the relationship between mosque and state a fundamentally different one from that between church and state.

The key to understanding Islam is that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a theopolitical ideology.  It is a legal system wrapped in a religion.  The imposition of Sharia law as the supreme law of all lands and all peoples is required by the Koran.

For the word “Islam” itself means submission to Allah.  Muslims must compel the non-believer infidels to either convert, live as oppressed, second-class citizens, forced to pay a special jizya tax to the ruling Muslims and unable to freely practice their own faith, or face the sword.

The Sharia state as we know is anathema not just to the United States but to all Western Civilization.  It sanctions the beating of women, oppression of gays, honor killings and a host of other restrictions on our natural rights.

Lest one think that Sharia need only be imposed by force, the Koran contains a tenet known as taqiyya, which says that Muslims are allowed to use any useful means, including lying and deception to advance the supremacy of Islamic law.  This leads Muslims dedicated to imposing Sharia to ironically become Alinsky-ites (ironically given Saul’s Jewish faith), which explains well the similarities between organizations like CAIR and ACORN, and the broader ties between Islam and Leftism as “fellow travelers” on the road to totalitarianism.

Moreover, even beyond the political implications of Sharia, and in no small part due to the ignorance if not sympathy of our political leaders, academia and media, we have not had an open discussion as to the tenets of the religion itself.  Eric Holder cannot attribute terrorism to Islam, our top schools are cesspools of jihadism and our media believes that terrorists attack us because they are late on their mortgages.

One crucial part to understanding Islam is the notion of abrogation.  This refers to the fact that as Muhammad revealed his truth over a long period of time, his later words abrogated his earlier ones.  This effectively means that the peaceful verses of the Koran that came chronologically earlier in the book are supplanted by the violent calls to impose Islam later in the book.  This violence manifests itself not just in acts against non-Muslims but Muslims as well – for apostates, along with those who shame their families for example in dating non-Muslims are liable to be killed in accordance with Islam.

More generally, as Turkish Prime Minister Tayepp Erdogan said with regard to moderate Islam:

“These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

But since we in the West fail to understand this either out of ignorance or fear, we are left believing that it is just a percentage of violent misinterpreters of the religion that threaten us, when in reality it is not just violent jihadists but stealth jihadists, their sympathizers and those who refuse to condemn these people who are all complicit in the war against our civilization.

If we are to win this war, we must study the ideology that is used by those fighting against us, and devise policy consistent with our understanding of it.

Because Islam is not just a theology, but a theology that requires a universally imposed political system, this has manifold implications with regard to our Constitution and our way of life.  Until and unless we are able to grapple with this truth, Muslims peaceful and violent will continue to be able to exploit our freedoms by hiding behind the separation of church and state, regardless of the stark differences between what is taught in the church and what is taught in the mosque.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), claims to be “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group.”  But that’s a myth.  As we reported here on BigGovernment.com last fall, only 1% of CAIR’s latest reported revenues actually came from Muslim American members.

Meanwhile foreign donors have given CAIR over $6,000,000 in cash and loans, and over $50,000,000 in pledges.  That’s 1% from American members; tens of millions from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.  Shouldn’t there be a law to let the American public know the truth about CAIR and their foreign donors? Of course, and there is one.  CAIR just doesn’t follow it.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), enacted just before World War Two, still requires foreign agents spreading propaganda to register so Americans can know what they are up to.  Back then the problem was foreign agents working for the Nazis.  Today the problem is foreign agents like CAIR, defending Jihadists in the media and pushing Muslim Brotherhood values in America.

The Center for Security Policy recently unveiled a unique new tool to expose CAIR as a foreign agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and several of its member states.  The CAIR Observatory website (http://www.cairobservatory.org) presents comprehensive open-source evidence and analysis alleging that CAIR has acted as a foreign agent on behalf of Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The centerpiece of the website is the report “CAIR and the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” which details the foreign funding, foreign direction and domestic political influence operations of CAIR in the United States.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) requires any agent of a foreign principal — not just foreign governments but foreign political parties, corporations, non-governmental organizations and even individuals — to register with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent.

The report documents these CAIR activities as a foreign agent:

• CAIR received at least $2,192,203 in Contributions, Income and Money from foreign principals in the form of 10 distinct transactions
• CAIR received a $2,106,251 mortgage loan from a foreign principal for their Washington, D.C. headquarters
• CAIR secured the promise of at least $54,500,000 in pledges from foreign principals
• CAIR met and coordinated with foreign principals on at least 30 occasions
• CAIR engaged in at least 50 political influence operations on behalf of foreign principals in the United States

And the Center for Security Policy has additional evidence that cannot be made public at this time documenting another $2.4 million in foreign donations and loans given to CAIR since 2000.

The goal of the CAIR Observatory website (http://www.cairobservatory.org/) is to build a model for researching and compiling evidence of illegal behavior by Muslim Brotherhood front organizations, with a focus on organizations operating in the United States as unregistered foreign agents for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its member states.  The website’s name — “CAIR Observatory” — is a direct counter to the so-called “Islamophobia Observatory” maintained by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The Jeddah, Saudi Arabia-based OIC has been a contributor to CAIR, and the two have a history of coordinated meetings, tactics and goals.

CAIRObservatory.org will regularly feature new reports and short documentaries spotlighting specific examples of CAIR’s FARA violations, and will be frequently updated with new evidence on CAIR’s ongoing activities as a currently unregistered foreign agent.

Starting next week we’ll begin to expose specific CAIR political operations targeting the U.S. Congress.

For more information contact CAIRObservatory.org Editor Adam Savit (savit@securefreedom.org).

Some Defense Department lawyers are worried. Actually, quite a few of them are. They see a train wreck coming with the Obama administration’s evolving Guantanamo Bay detainee policies. Since it is DOD lawyers tasked with much of the footwork for administration decisions, they see firsthand how disorganized, inept, and ideologically extreme the handling of the issue has been. The DOJ, now thoroughly politicized and partisan under Eric Holder, is lock step with Obama’s White House on the issue, and is thoroughly at odds with its legal counterparts in the DOD. At a time when former Guantanamo Bay detainees are battling US forces in Afghanistan, and Jihadists are resurgent worldwide, the country can ill afford the administration’s criminalizing of admitted terrorists or of enemy combatants captured in battle against US forces.

What DOD lawyers are worried about are second-order effects. Namely, the unanticipated consequences of decisions made without due consideration or examination of facts. They are deeply concerned that the administration’s political appointees making decisions on the issue are as likely to be chosen for ideological purity as they are for their acumen on applicable laws. The political appointees are perceived by many in the DOD as caring more for their political ideological creed than for the safety of US citizens, or for the responsible stewardship of tax dollars. It is Leftist canon that Guantanamo Bay be closed, the risks and consequences be damned. Every policy decision pursuing that goal equates to thousands of man hours for DOD lawyers and millions of dollars.

DOD attorneys, including prosecutors and defense attorneys of all political stripes, are of the opinion that closing Guantanamo Bay is an illogical and irresponsible political move made without the facts, and one that will cost billions. No stateside facility has the resources Guantanamo Bay does. As for which stateside facility should replace Guantanamo, the administration cannot make up its mind. As Obama’s minions position for optimum political influence, they have flitted from military sites in Leavenworth, Kansas and Charleston AFB, South Carolina, to civilian facilities in Standish, Michigan and Thomson, Illinois.

The MSM has been telling Americans less that the truth on the detainee issue. Americans have not been told how well thought out was the construction of Guantanamo Bay. Its courtroom was designed by the William and Mary Law School – it is state of the art, capable of handling testimony involving top secret evidence. It has a media center. As for the detainees, forget the horror stories that represent the disinformation tactics of terrorist sympathizers who aim to sway public opinion. Detainees receive the best in medical and dental care. They have daily access to soccer fields. They have exercise areas that overlook the Caribbean, books and movies, as well as a menu where they can choose from several entrée’s cooked to Islamic Halal standards.

They are not tortured and they never were.

Lawyers, sympathic to the detainees, want you to forget that the murderers, terrorists and assassins held in Guantanamo Bay are dedicated to destroying the US. They want you to forget that they have no moral compunction against slaughtering innocents. They want you to think they were all peaceful farmers caught up in an overzealous imperialist military action. Even the Uyghur’s, members of the oppressed Chinese ethnic minority, were training to be terrorists – albeit terrorists against the Chinese, not the US. Their lawyers want them released in the US. The US has so far advocated sending them to other countries willing to accept them. They may well end up here.

Obama and Eric Holder will make a final decision only when forced to, draining time and money when justice would be served at Guantanamo Bay without endangering US citizens or allowing terrorists to exploit the US justice system. And exploit it they are, and will. Lawyers for detainees have been busily petitioning the Supreme Court and searching for sympathetic federal judges. Should trials be held in the US it is a distinct possibility that procedural tactics will allow some of the terrorists held at Guantanamo to go free. And that is exactly what many of the leftist lawyers that flocked to Guantanamo from the very beginning hope for.

What DOD lawyers understand is that the defense of the nation must be decisive, just as must the justice meted out to its enemies. They take their oath to defend the nation seriously. Their very real fear is that justice will not be served by those whose sympathies lay in part with the terrorists, believing their own country responsible for all the miseries delivered on it on 9-11-2001, and after. They perceive that the proposal to transfer detainees to the US is not about justice, but about exploiting a crisis and engaging in political manipulation. All in the quest for the opiate of power.

The same people who have brought you 10 percent unemployment, government run health care and a national energy tax are now attempting to bequeath you with another unwanted holiday gift.  This time, however, the stakes are even higher as they want to bring terrorists to US soil.

The White House has just announced their plan to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois.  From my briefings at GITMO and speaking with people who know the situation well, I can say that moving GITMO terrorists to Thomson, is a huge unnecessary gamble.

Those terrorists still remaining in GITMO are among the world’s most dangerous warriors. They are wickedly creative in thinking out of the box when contemplating doing us harm, as evidenced by the attacks of September 11, 2001.  They command the loyalty of thousands of fellow jihadists around the world and have complete control over the minds of followers, both in detention and on the outside.  On a whim, they can—and have—ordered those under their command to commit suicide at a moment’s notice.

I have enormous respect for American military personnel who will guard Thomson along with civilian law enforcement.  These professionals will undoubtedly be well-trained and dedicated to protecting the public.  But they will be responsible for guarding the largest terrorist cell in the world.

Those in favor of closing GITMO do not seem to get the fact that terrorists are not going to be mollified by simply changing the address of the terrorist’s prison.  Rather than satisfying the left-wing base and attempting to win an international public relations battle, we should keep the state-of-the-art detention facility in GITMO open rather than bringing these terrorists to small town America.  Terrorists need to be tried in military tribunals, as opposed to civil American courts that come with an array of rights of the accused, appropriate for criminals but not for terrorists.

This decision of moving GITMO terrorists to Thomson was rushed and planned in secrecy.  Rather than answering the questions about who exactly is coming, what security improvements are being made to Thomson and how much this will cost, the Administration is simply selling this as an economic stimulus package.  While the president’s Council of Economic Advisers estimates the relocation of these prisoners may reduce unemployment a few percentage points, it’s important to remember these are the same people who promised the unemployment rate would remain under 8 percent after the stimulus passed.  We’ve all seen how great those predictions have turned out.

The bottom line is Thomson is a top quality prison, very well equipped to handle maximum security criminals. It should be opened as a state or federal prison to ease overcrowding, but not to house the most dangerous terrorists in the world.  Only time will tell how wise or reckless this move is.

Before any decision is finalized we need answers to these critical questions.  Indeed, it was the answers to these questions that caused  Governors Granholm of Michigan and Sebelius of Kansas to say thanks but no thanks.