TURKISH WAR CRY: ERDOGAN CALLS “ALL MUSLIMS” TO WAR TO “PROTECT JERUSALEM”

 
TURKISH WAR CRY: ERDOGAN CALLS “ALL MUSLIMS” TO WAR TO “PROTECT JERUSALEM”
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday urged
all Muslims to visit and protect Jerusalem after violence broke out over
metal detectors that Israel installed and later removed from a
sensitive holy site in the city.

This is a call to jihad by Erdogan, who further states: “From here I
make a call to all Muslims. Anyone who has the opportunity should visit
Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa mosque…Come, let’s all protect Jerusalem.” He also
threatened that “Israel will suffer most” from the Al-Aqsa dispute.

While spewing hatred and calling for violence against Israel, Erdogan
repeats the usual propaganda about Israel oppressing Palestinians, and
makes no mention of why the metal detectors were installed in the first
place. Israel installed them after three Arab-Israeli jihad gunmen shot
and killed two Israeli policemen outside the Temple Mount-Noble
Sanctuary complex on July 14th. It was deemed “one of the most serious attacks in the area for years.”
Erdogan has been increasingly showing signs of Islamic supremacist aggression. In April, he declared a clash between “the cross and the crescent” over an EU headscarf ban in the workplace. He has been seizing churches in Turkey and declaring them state property; he declared that “sick Europe” will “pay for humiliating and oppressing” Turks; and despite the chaos as a result of Muslim immigration into Germany, Erdogan openly rebuked Angela Merkel for using the expression “Islamist terrorism” because it “saddened Muslims.”

“Erdogan Urges all Muslims to ‘Visit’ and ‘Protect’ Jerusalem”, Breitbart News, July 24, 2017:

ANKARA (AFP) – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on
Tuesday urged all Muslims to visit and protect Jerusalem after violence
broke out over metal detectors that Israel installed and later removed
from a sensitive holy site in the city.


“From here I make a call to all Muslims. Anyone who has the
opportunity should visit Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa mosque,” Erdogan said in
Ankara. “Come, let’s all protect Jerusalem.”

He was referring to the site, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, which is central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel installed metal detectors at entrances to the site, which also
includes the Dome of the Rock, following an attack on July 14 that
killed two Israeli police officers.
Palestinians viewed the security measures as Israel asserting further
control over the site and deadly clashes erupted during protests.
“They are attempting to take the mosque from Muslim hands on the
pretext of fighting terrorism. There is no other explanation,” Erdogan
said in a speech to ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) lawmakers
in parliament.
He said Israel’s legitimacy rested on the extent of the respect it showed to Palestinians and their rights….

______________________________________________________

 ERDOGAN URGES MUSLIMS TO 
‘VISIT’ AND ‘PROTECT’ JERUSALEM! 
 

GOOGLE BOWS TO MUSLIM PRESSURE, CHANGES SEARCH RESULTS TO CONCEAL CRITICISM OF ISLAM & JIHAD

 http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/AFLC_SocialMedia_Censorship_Banner_07-11-16-3-Final.jpg
GOOGLE BOWS TO MUSLIM PRESSURE, 
CHANGES SEARCH RESULTS TO CONCEAL 
CRITICISM OF ISLAM & JIHAD
BY ROBERT SPENCER
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

“Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’,
‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the
Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which
a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the
sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of
results.”
“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom?
Google is bowing to pressure from Muslim such as Omar Suleiman without
considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be
skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it
be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths
about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?
This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would
have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not
these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s
not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due
diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred
as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern
Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which
groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that
Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to
have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others
said.
Suleiman, however, still isn’t satisfied: “One leading activist in
favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the
updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said
‘much still needs to be done.’” He claimed that Google has a
responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they
work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and
al-Qaeda.”
This should have made Google executives stop and think. The Islamic
State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly
for more mass murders. There is no firm evidence that anyone has ever
been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe,” and the claim that
Hamas-linked CAIR and the SPLC make in this article, that this supposed
“Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against
Muslims, is supported by not a scintilla of evidence. Suleiman is
equating critical words with murderous deeds, and Google should have
realized at that point that he had an agenda and wasn’t being honest.
“Suleiman said Google should differentiate between ‘criticism of
Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia’, emphasizing the religion should not
be infringed upon.”
That’s not clear. He apparently is saying that there is acceptable
criticism of Islam that is not “hate-filled Islamophobia,” but if that
is so, then the religion can be “infringed upon,” at least by this
legitimate criticism, no? Or if the claim that Islam must not be
“infringed upon” means that it cannot be criticized, why is that so of
Islam but not any other religion?
Suleiman says: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray
Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out
fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence
critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims.”
The problem with this is that neither Suleiman, nor Hamas-linked
CAIR, nor anyone else who has ever said that there was a distinction
between legitimate criticism of Islam and “hate-filled Islamophobia” has
ever identified anyone he thinks is a legitimate critic of Islam who is
not “Islamophobic.” Over 16 books now, as well as thousands of articles
and over 45,000 blog posts, I have attempted to present a reasonable,
documented, fair and accurate criticism of Islam and explanation of the
jihad doctrine. Nevertheless, I’ve been tarred as a purveyor of
“hate-filled Islamophobia” by groups and individuals that have never
given my work a fair hearing, but have read it only to search of
gotcha!-quotes they could wrench away from their obvious benign meaning
in order to claim I was saying something hateful. And this isn’t just me
— this happens to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical
word about Islam or jihad, wherever they are on the political spectrum.
This experience, reinforced countless times over a decade and a half,
makes me extremely skeptical when Omar Suleiman says that he doesn’t
want Google to silence critique of Islam. If he could produce some
critique of Islam that he approved of, my skepticism might lessen. But
he won’t, and can’t. It seems much more likely that he pressured Google
to skew its results so as to deep-six criticism of Islam, but knowing
that he couldn’t tell them that he was trying to bring Google into line
with Sharia blasphemy laws forbidding criticism of Islam, he told them
instead that he wasn’t against criticism of Islam as such, but only
against “hate-filled Islamophobia.”
Mr. Suleiman, if you and your colleagues hadn’t spent years tarring
rational criticism of Islam that was accurate and presented in good
faith as “hate-filled Islamophobia,” I might have believed you. But as
one of your primary victims, I don’t.
I discuss the Islamic supremacist initiative to compel the West to
accept Sharia blasphemy laws under the guise of stamping out “hate
speech,” an initiative that is now galloping forward and achieving
immense success, in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“US Muslim groups welcome changes to Google results,” by Michael Hernandez, Anadolu Agency, July 26, 2017:

Queries about Islam and Muslims on the world’s largest
search engine have been updated amid public pressure to tamp down
alleged disinformation from hate groups.
However, activists who have worked to bring about the changes say more work remains.
In the past, users on Google seeking information about the religion
or its adherents would be presented prominently with what many
criticized as propaganda from hate groups.
That has recently changed.
Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”,
“shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the
Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which
a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the
sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of
results.
Google did not confirm to Anadolu Agency the changes but said it is constantly updating its algorithms.
The search giant referred the agency to a recent blog post in which
it said it was working to push back on what it called “offensive or
clearly misleading content”.
“To help prevent the spread of such content for this subset of
queries, we’ve improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic
updates to surface more authoritative content,” it said.
Combatting Islamophobia
One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told
Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the
company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done”.
Imam Omar Suleiman, who has been at the forefront of efforts to
combat misleading information about his faith on the web, argued that
Google and companies like it have a responsibility to combat
“hate-filled Islamophobia” similar to how they work to suppress
extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.
Suleiman said Google should differentiate between “criticism of Islam
and hate-filled Islamophobia”, emphasizing the religion should not be
infringed upon.
“Google does not need to silence criticism of Islam and honest
discussions about Islam, but heavily funded hate groups that are able to
work the SEOs to get their websites showing up on the first, second
page – I think that’s deeply problematic,” the popular imam said,
referring to search engine optimization — the way in which websites are
able to improve their placement in search engine results.
The task of sorting out legitimate criticism or debate about Islam
from misleading information will not be easy, particularly in societies
that value freedom of speech — a fact Suleiman, who is the founder and
president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, acknowledged.
Google told Anadolu Agency it does not seek to remove content from
its platform simply because it is unsavory or unpopular, but does its
best to prevent hate speech from appearing.
One way it is working to improve on the effort is by providing users
with a mechanism in autofill suggestions that would allow users to alert
the company when an offensive term appears.
Amid a nationwide increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims, the
effort to combat misinformation is more imperative than ever, Muslim
group said.
Hate crimes against Muslims
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S.’s largest Muslim
advocacy group, said it tracked a 584 percent increase in anti-Muslim
hate crimes from 2014 to 2016.
The group is not the only one to find such numbers. The Southern
Poverty Law Center tracks hate incidents and groups in the U.S. and said
it found hate groups increasing in number for the second consecutive
year in 2016, fueled largely by a near-tripling of anti-Muslim groups.
“The growth has been accompanied by a rash of crimes targeting Muslims,” the center said in its annual report.
Information people receive from a variety of sources — television,
radio and the Internet — no doubt plays a role in fomenting hatred among
some of those who perpetrate attacks but could also be used to stop
them.
“We are seeing a rise in hate crimes towards Muslims, and there is a
direct connection between this demonization of Islam and Muslims and the
hate crimes that are being perpetuated against Muslims in the United
States,” Suleiman said.
Still, he maintained that such voices should not be censored but “should not be featured prominently as authoritative voices.”
Suleiman added: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray
Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out
fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence
critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims…

Yes, you do.

FDA “PROTECTS” AMERICANS FROM AMISH SALVE~AMISH MAN FACES 6 YEAR PRISON TERM

 http://www.thepreparedpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/graneyandthepigwordpress.jpg
FDA “PROTECTS” AMERICANS FROM AMISH SALVE 
BY JAKE MACAULAY 
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 On June 30, 2017, in Lexington, Kentucky, Sam Girod, an Amish farmer, 
was sentenced to 72 months in prison. Girod’s crime? According to the 
federal agents going after him, he made a salve without the FDA’s 
permission. That’s it! A salve so innocuous that you could make it in 
your own kitchen. This “felonious” salve consists of rosemary, beeswax, 
olive oil, peppermint, eucalyptus, and chickweed.
 

He’s now in prison about 7 hours away from his family — his wife
Elizabeth, their 12 children and 25 grandchildren — although Sam has
never harmed anyone. There are no victims of the 3 herbal salves he made
and sold for over 20 years.

In 2012, someone called the FDA and reported that a store in MO was
selling Sam’s products and that medical claims were being made.

The claims turned out to be customer testimonials contained in a brochure about
Sam’s products. No different than Amazon reviews, yet, since Sam
reprinted his customer testimonials in a brochure, the FDA calls these
“medical claims,” which puts Sam’s products under their so-called
“jurisdiction”. Sam complied and stopped producing any further
brochures.

Then the FDA claimed to have found a MO customer who had been harmed
by Sam’s bloodroot salve, which turned out to be false – he wasn’t using
Sam’s product.

With so many so-called “illicit” infractions the FDA decided to take Sam to federal court in MO in 2013.

The Amish do not use lawyers as a rule and Sam did not. Because he
barely presented a defense against federal prosecutors, Sam was
convicted on all counts against him.

To quote our friend, Sheriff Richard Mack, founder of CSPOA.org:

“The FDA and several state agencies as well, have already been
raiding the Amish who think they can own a few acres of land, grow grass
on it, let their cows graze and digest the grass, bring the cows home
in the evenings, and milk them. Then the Amish have the criminal
audacity to make raw dairy products and share them with family and
neighbors. Many such dairies have been destroyed by our brave public
officials and many Amish have been arrested. SWAT teams have raided such
‘criminal enterprises’ to protect us all from such dangerous people!”

Thanks to constitutional sheriffs or courts with juries who know
their real duty, some Americans have been protected from this lawless
tyranny.

You see, there is no authority for the FDA found in the constitution.
The constitution designates no authority for a Federal Drug and Food
Administration.

The FDA has found pretended authority, which they claim appears in
the general welfare clause. However, the general welfare clause only
applies to the 17 items found in Article 1, Section 8. This is a perfect
example of what our founders call “pretended legislation” in the
Declaration of Independence. This is a dangerous make-believe. The
solution would be for a representative who understands the constitution
to call for the impeachment of this federal judge, and finally, the
president should pardon Sam so he can return home and be with his
family.

You see God is the only one that can give rights. Not the FDA. And the right to health? Well, that’s yours and mine.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.
______________________________________________________

 FREE CHICKWEED MAN! Amish Father Of Twelve Faces 68 Years In Prison For Mislabeling Home Remedy
 Amish Father Arrested & Imprisoned for selling natural skin salves made from herbs 
 Published on Jun 10, 2017

The
FDA is trying to put KY Amish farmer Samuel Girod in jail for up to 68
YEARS with up to $3 M in fines for charges stemming from an innocent
labeling infraction which he corrected years ago. 

FBI WARNED TO RETRIEVE DOCUMENTS REMOVED UNLAWFULLY BY FIRED FBI DIRECTOR

FBI WARNED TO RETRIEVE DOCUMENTS REMOVED UNLAWFULLY BY FIRED FBI DIRECTOR 
BY JIM KOURI
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 On Thursday a nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog group sent a warning 
 letter to Acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe reminding him of the FBI’s responsibility
 to follow the law stipulated by the Federal Records Act (FRA) to recover records — 
including memos Comey admitted under oath that he intentionally leaked to the media.
 The FRA, a law which originally went into effect in 1950 and was amended by President 
Barack Obama in 2014, makes the removal of documents from the Bureau by former 
FBI Director James Comey an unlawful act.

Comey who was canned by President Donald Trump, appeared in front of
the Senate Intelligence Committee on last week and made some statement
against former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former President Barack
Obama, the New York Times — which he said published “fake news” stories —
and complained about the handling of the Hillary Clinton email
brouhaha.

Comey also admitted he gave a confidential document about his meeting
with President Donald Trump to a “friend” who then gave it to the New
York Times, an admitted Trump-hating publication.
 The letter from watchdog group Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton states:

“As you are well aware, former FBI Director James Comey gave
sworn testimony last week before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. Among other things, Mr. Comey confirmed that, while in
office, he created various memoranda regarding his meetings with
President Trump. Mr. Comey also confirmed that, after his departure from
the FBI, he provided at least some of these memoranda to a third party,
Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman, for the purpose of
leaking them to the press. Various media outlets now have reported that
Professor Richman has provided these memoranda to the FBI. It is unclear
whether he still retains copies of the memoranda.

“I am writing to you on behalf of Judicial Watch, Inc., a
not-for-profit educational organization that seeks to promote
transparency, accountability, and integrity in government and fidelity
to the rule of law. In furtherance of its public interest mission,
Judicial Watch regularly requests access to the records of the FBI
through the Freedom of Information Act and disseminates its findings to
the public. In fact, on May 16, 2017, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA
request seeking these specific memoranda removed from the FBI by Mr.
Comey. Judicial Watch also has pending FOIA lawsuits in which the
memoranda may be at issue.

“These memoranda were created by Mr. Comey while serving as FBI
director, were written on his FBI laptop, and concerned official
government business. As such, they indisputably are records subject to
the Federal Records Act. 44 U.S.C. §§ 2101-18, 2901-09, 3101-07, and
3301-14. The fact that Mr. Comey removed these memoranda from the FBI
upon his departure, apparently for the purpose of subsequently leaking
them to the press, confirms the FBI’s failure to retain and properly
manage its records in accordance with the Federal Records Act. Even if
Mr. Comey no longer has possession of these particular memoranda, as he
now claims, some or all of these memoranda may still be in possession of
a third party, such as Professor Richman, and must be recovered. Mr.
Comey’s removal of these memoranda also suggests that other records may
have been removed by Mr. Comey and may remain in his possession or in
the possession of others. If so, these records must be recovered by the
FBI as well.

“As you may be aware, the Federal Records Act imposes a direct
responsibility on you to take steps to recover any records unlawfully
removed from the FBI. Specifically, upon learning of “any actual,
impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration,
corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the
custody of the agency,” you must notify the Archivist of the United
States. 44 U.S.C. § 3106. Upon learning that records have been
unlawfully removed from the FBI, you then are required to initiate
action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records.
 Id.

“In the event you fail to take these steps, you should be aware
that Judicial Watch is authorized under the law to file a lawsuit in
federal district court seeking that you be compelled to comply with the
law.
 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Kerry, 844 F.3d 952, 955 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Armstrong
v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282,296 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Please advise us no later
than June 26, 2017 if you intend to take the action required under the
law. If we do not hear from you by that date, we will assume that you do
not intend to take any action. Thank you for your attention to this
matter.”

“[Director] Comey took government records and the FBI and Justice
Department are obligated to get them back. The former FBI director isn’t
above the law and current leadership of the FBI should stop protecting
him and take action,” Tom Fitton noted in a press statement.

Fitton’s team of attorneys and investigations — such of Judicial
Watch’s Chief of Investigations Chris Farrell — are currently pursuing
lawsuit 
against the U.S. State Department for failing to take proper action to
retrieve emails written or received by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and other employees which were unlawfully removed from the
State Department.  Judicial Watch’s legal argument is that the State
Department and FBI never even bothered to undergo a full and
complete search for Hillary Clinton’s government emails.

This is one of several of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits seeking
government records and information about the non-government email
system used by Clinton. Her email system transmitted and received
classified information but the Obama administration allowed her to
skate, although she did lose the presidential election.

LINDA SARSOUR’S FINANCIAL JIHAD ON AMERICA

LINDA SARSOUR’S FINANCIAL JIHAD ON AMERICA
 Published on Jul 25, 2017

Anni Cyrus exposes Linda Sarsour’s newest Jihad of finance and practice of Sharia’s jizya (FORCED TAX) on people of America.

 Thank You, Linda Sarsour

BY PHILIP HANEY
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Through the Looking Glass’ – An Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 1, 2017 Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention

Where ever you came from, you came to America. And you came for one reason – for one reason only – to establish Allah’s deen [a complete way of life, governed by a system of law]. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991

As long as you remember that if you get involved with politics,
you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah. You don’t get
in politics because it’s the American thing to do. You get involved in
politics because politics can be a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.
Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991

Before beginning an analysis of Linda Sarsour’s speech at the 54th
Annual ISNA Convention, I’d like to thank Ms. Sarsour for doing all of
us here in America (and the West) an invaluable favor.

What favor, you may ask?

Linda Sarsour has graciously accompanied us right up to the shore of the Great Sea of Islam, and allowed us to capture a rare glimpse into its impressive breadth and depth.

However, this thoughtful gesture comes with caveat, because even
though Ms. Sarsour has granted us this unique opportunity to see Islam
more clearly, we must still overcome the strong temptation to either
hide our eyes (and ears), or to simply walk away entirely.

Perhaps now, thanks to you, Ms. Sarsour, we’ll all be delivered from the powerful grip of ignorance and delusion about Islam, and we’ll finally be able to gain a better, correct understanding of The Religion of Peace ®.

More specifically, Thank You, Linda Sarsour, for so graciously showing us:

*how to use social media to blatantly distort and mischaracterize the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in real time

*how to lie (and distract) with a straight face about the deliberate and intentional efforts of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), to impose (“normalize”) the malevolent statutes of Islamic Shariah on our Constitution, and our unalienable, endowed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

*how to criticize women with more vindictive obscenity and cynical sarcasm than anyone on the alt-right could ever imagine

*that female genital mutilation (FGM) is barbaric, but NOT an Islamic practice, that “has no place in Detroit or anywhere else in the world,” (while ignoring the well-established fact that it is considered obligatory according to Shariah law)

*how to skillfully use ad hominem attacks on your opponents (your “oppressors”), whenever facts (such as previous public statements) get in your way

*how to enthusiastically endorse your special roster of convicted murderers

*how to extend heartwarming, sincere praise to your chosen mentor, motivator and encourager (your “favorite person in this room”), who was himself an dedicated protégé of the murderous Blind Sheikh

*that since the Muslim terrorists who massacred the Charlie Hebdo staff had “avenged the Prophet,” you would not stand with the victims, especially since the magazine was “a bigot and a racist” for publishing Muhammad cartoons, which served to “vilify my faith, dehumanize my community [and] demoralize my prophet.”

*that advocating violence against right wing Zionist media outlets, Israel and Israelis=Jews, while insisting that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” is now considered acceptable in the red-green alliance you so passionately represent

*that support of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement (BDS), under the banner of true feminism and social justice, has become so obviously avant-garde and progressive

*that for all those Islam-bashers out there who “spout anti-Muslim, xenophobic and white-supremacist beliefs” (along with “right-wing Zionists, and Islamophobes”), you are our self-proclaimed worst nightmare

Yes, Linda Sarsour, Thank You, for showing us the best possible
reflection of what a first-generation, native born Palestinian-American Champion of Change really should look like.

Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017 Speech At The 54th Annual ISNA Convention

His announcements and his talk have made an incredible measure of mischief [to] the American Muslim people group.

ISNA President Azhar Azeez, June 30, 2017 (referring to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reform immigration)

This is a “through the looking glass” analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017, speech at the 54th Annual Islamic Society of North America Convention, entitled Hope & Guidance Through the Quran, which was held in Chicago, IL from June 30 through July 3, 2017.

Just above, I summarized several years of opinions and public
statements that have made Linda Sarsour a highly visible media figure.
This is the “looking glass” (mirror) that the general public gets to
see.

Meanwhile, as we’ll see in the following phrase-by-phrase
analysis of Linda Sarsour’s ISNA speech, there is an entirely different
dimension of meaning that lies camouflaged behind the everyday words
and phrases she used during her presentation.

Let us now walk through this looking glass, into Sarsour’s ISNA-endorsed
world of the Quran, Hadith and Shariah, as we examine the deeper
Islamic meanings that lie hidden behind the veil of common American
English.

Also, we should keep in mind that the federal government has already proven that the ISNA is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, and that for nearly 10 years, the ISNA has remained listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, still the largest terrorist financing trial in American history.

It should also be noted that the ISNA is prominently listed in a May 5, 1991 document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-described “organizations of our friends.”

The same Muslim Brotherhood strategic document, which was drafted for
internal review as early as 1987, also lists the ISNA Fiqh Committee,
the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, and the ISNA+Dr. Jamal Badawi Foundation (Islamic Information Foundation), as friends of the “Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America.”

In addition, Jamal Badawi, who also remains listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial, has been an ISNA member since its inception on July 14, 1981. Dr. Badawi joined the ISNA Board of Directors (Majlis Ash-Shura) in 1988
and also served on the board of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
from 1991 until 1993. Along with the ISNA and the Council on American
Islamic Relations (CAIR), the NAIT was also named as an unindicted
co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trail.

With all this in mind, we might ask: Who was the real target audience
for Linda Sarsour’s speech? Was it the American general public, or was
it the ISNA’s core leadership (Majlis Ash-Shura), who were assembled there at the annual conference?

A partial answer to this question will be found in a particular phrase on Page 1, Paragraph 1, of the Explanatory Memorandum. In Arabic, the phrase is Al-Qaeda Al-Islamia Al-Moltzema, while in English, it is translated as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as “Base,” is the very same
word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world.
However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually an important
socio-political concept, i.e., a “base of operations,” rather than a
violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in
Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

In the context of her ISNA-endorsed speech, this is the “Base,” (audience), i.e., the ISNA Board of Directors, or Majlis Ash-Shura, that Ms. Sarsour was specifically addressing.

Ms. Sarsour’s calls to socio-political tactical action are actually
based on well-established Islamic strategic principles, and were closely
parallel to the call(s) to action (and Quranic warnings) found in a
carefully-written document entitled AMJA Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap, which was published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) on November 28, 2016.

A careful analysis of this 14-paragraph document, which regards the election of Donald Trump as President a disruptive calamity and source of oppression (see Sarsour’s comments on oppression below) for the Muslim community, can be found here. Officially known in Arabic as the Majama Fuqaha Al-Shariah B’Amrikia
(Group of Shariah Specialists in America), the AMJA is openly promoting
the implementation of Islamic Shariah, right here in America.

This is in direct violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.

To put this all in context, Sarsour’s speech before the ISNA leadership echoes the strategic and tactical plans of both the “Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America,” as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, drafted thirty years ago, and in the AMJA Roadmap, published just two weeks after the November 2016 election.

Note: This analysis is presented in a chronological
time sequence. Specific comments or phrases are cited by marking the
time they occurred in Ms. Sarsour’s speech, e.g., (3:01)

Honoring Imam Siraj Wahhaj as “My favorite person in the room” (1:50-2:33)

Much has already been written about Siraj Wahhaj, Imam of Masjid At-Taqwa in Brooklyn, NY, who was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing, and stated that the bombing was a terrorist attack staged by
the U.S. government and possibly Israel as a “conspiracy” against Islam.

What does it say about Ms. Sarsour, who considers Imam Wahhaj to be her mentor,
when Wahhaj supported Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was charged
with the attempted assassination of Egyptian leader Anwar Al-Sadat, and
said while leading the Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn that, “We must
terrorize the enemies of Islam and…shake the earth under their feet.”

In fact, what does endorsing and supporting Siraj Wahhaj say about the leadership of the ISNA?

To be fair, we should also ask why the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC would feature Siraj Wahhaj as their ‘Grand Imam’ at its first everJumah [Gathering] At The DNC”?

Allah is the Best of Protectors (3:01)

This phrase is taken directly from Quran 3.150 and Quran 12.64, Allah is the Best of Protectors (Al-Hafiz in Arabic).

For more on this concept from an Islamic perspective, especially the
severe admonition not to take non-Muslims as helpers or protectors, or
against obeying disbelievers and hypocrites, because such obedience
leads to utter destruction in this life and the Hereafter, see here, here and also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.150.

In America, Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism (5:32-5:45)

Patriotism in your home country is different than patriotism in
these United States of America. In this country, in the land of freedom
of speech, in the land of democracy, dissent is the highest form of
patriotism.

Is Linda Sarsour correct? Is dissent really the highest form of patriotism in America?

Apparently, the earliest documented use of this phrase is found in a 1961 Friends Peace Committee publication entitled, The Use of Force in International Affairs: “If what your country is doing seems to you practically and morally wrong, is dissent the highest form of patriotism?” The Friends Peace Committee is a Quaker anti-war group that was founded in the 1880’s.

It was also used repeatedly during the Vietnam era, as when New York Mayor John Lindsay declared during an October 15, 1969, speech at Columbia University, “We
cannot rest content with the charge from Washington that this peaceful
protest is unpatriotic…The fact is that this dissent is the highest form
of patriotism
.”

In a July 3, 2002 interview, Howard Zinn said, “While
some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that
dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means
being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to
stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles.
And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act.

While dissent may truly be a form of patriotism (depending on the
circumstances), so is defending the freedoms and liberties that our
Creator endowed us with, as documented in the Declaration of
Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

Whether or not dissent is a higher form of patriotism than defense of
our Constitutional freedoms depends entirely on motive, i.e., is it
designed to undermine or supplant the Constitution, or strengthen and
support it?

Sorry, Ms. Sarsour, but according to Article 6, Islamic Shariah will never
be compatible with the Constitution, which means that, here in America,
dissent for the sake of Islam cannot possibly be the highest form of
patriotism.

Policies that Oppress the communities that they came from…(5:45-5:55)

This is the moment when Ms. Sarsour introduces the central theme of
her speech, which is the volatile Islamic concept of fighting or
striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah فِتْنَةَ, which occurs at least 60 times in the Quran). Fitnah is also translated as Affliction, Confusion, Disbelief (Shirk),
Discord, Dissention, Distress, Domination, Mischief, Sedition, Strife,
Testing, Trials, Tumult, Opposition, Persecution and Punishments.

To further build her case, Ms. Sarsour goes on to say that if you [the ISNA audience] maintain the current status quo that not only oppresses Muslims…you, my dear sisters and brothers, you are aligned with the oppressor…if you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country…you are not a patriot, you are aiding and abetting the oppressors in these United States of America (6:09-6:35)

The concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah)
is a 1,400 year old doctrine, deeply embedded within the founding
ideology of Islam. From such a Quranic perspective, the consequences of
transgressing the statutes and commandments of Shariah law, or of oppressing (opposing or preventing ) the Islamic community from following the laws of Allah, warrants a Shariah-authorized violent response toward all such ‘rulers and tyrants.’

For example, in 2014, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, wrote to President Barack Obama about his views on the situation in Iraq, Gaza and Palestine, while also commenting about “Muslim oppression at the hands of the West in general and the United States in particular.”

For three explicit Quranic examples, see Quran 2.190: Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors, Quran 21.9: Then We fulfilled for them the promise, and We saved them and whom We willed and destroyed the transgressors, and Quran 2.193 Fight
them until there is no [more] Fitnah [oppression] and [until] worship
is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to
be no aggression, except against the oppressors
.

The concept of Oppression is also discussed in extensive detail in the Hadith (Bukhari), Volume 4, Section 43, and in Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.73

What is the Best Form of Jihad, or Struggle? (7:02-7:04)

After introducing the concept of Oppression (Fitnah), Ms. Sarsour segues into a discussion of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression, by recounting a passage from the Hadith: “What is the best form of Jihad”?

Paraphrasing the Hadith, Ms. Sarsour then provides the answer, which is, “A word of truth, truth in front of a tyrant, ruler or leader, that is the best form of Jihad.”

At this point, it is also important to note that the phrase “The best Jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler” also occurs in Chapter Q1.2(3) of Reliance of the Traveller, which is the world’s most authoritative English translation of Islamic Shariah.

Also, Chapter Q2.4(4) of Reliance begins a section entitled Being Able To Censure, which includes the following incredible endorsement of what we call lone-wolf terrorists, or lone-wolf Jihadists:

There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a
single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight
them even if he knows he will be killed…Such censure is only
praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.

The phrase eliminate the wrong in Chapter Q2.4(4) is just the theological equivalent for what we call Socio-Political Activism in the secular (non-Islamic) arena.

All of Book Q in Reliance is under the main heading of THE OBLIGATION TO COMMAND THE RIGHT (AND FORBID THE WRONG), which is derived from Quran 3.104.

For additional detail on the concept of enjoining Al-Maruf (all that Islam orders) and forbidding Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.104.

It is disingenuous, at best, for Ms. Sarsour to claim that she wasn’t talking about violence, or that she is being persecuted by the alt-right, for her statements about the Best Form of Jihad, when she is well aware (and so is her ISNA audience), of the deeper, inflammatory, theological connotations of her remarks.

A Note on Linda Sarsour’s use of the phrase “A Word of Truth” (7:10-7:18)

In his July 11, 2017 article entitled Linda Sarsour Defends Her Call for Jihad Against President Donald Trump, writer Neil Munro made the following observation:

Sarsour’s “word of truth” phrase seems like a Western-style appeal
for debate, but for Muslim activists, truth is only found in the Koran’s
transcribed instructions from Allah, which include his frequent calls
for warfare against his enemies.

That ‘word of truth’ phrase also evokes the dramatic courtroom
defense strategy adopted by the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was
accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Egyptian
dictator Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Shortly after Sadat was murdered, Rahman was accused by the Egyptian
government of urging the murder of Sadat in prior religious tracts. But
Rahman pressured the Egyptian government and judges to declare him
innocent by portraying himself as merely a blameless messenger of the
Koran’s denunciations against oppressors.

This is what “A Word of Truth” looks like, when you go through the looking glass, and look at the world through the eyes of Islam.

And I hope…that Allah accepts from us that as a form of Jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers…but here in these United States of America (7:23-7:29)

This is the part of Ms. Sarsour’s speech that received the most attention (and criticism) in the media. In an attempt to defend her comments, she posted a July 09, 2017 editorial in the Washington Post, entitled Islamophobes Are Attacking Me Because I’m Their Worst Nightmare.

In her editorial, Ms. Sarsour made the following assertions:

Most disturbing about this recent defamation campaign is how it is
focused on demonizing the legitimate yet widely misunderstood Islamic
term I used, “jihad,” which to majority of Muslims and according to
religious scholars means “struggle” or “to strive for.” This term has
been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike,
leaving ordinary Muslims to defend our faith and in some cases silenced.
It sets a dangerous precedent when people of faith are policed and when
practicing their religion peacefully comes with consequences.

At this point, an obvious question arises: Is Linda Sarsour correct that the term Jihad “has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike”?

Let’s start with Chapter O9.0 of Reliance, which defines Jihad in the following manner:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word Mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser Jihad. As for the greater Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (Nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.

Then, in Chapter H8.17 of Reliance, in a section entitled Those Fighting for Allah, we find the following discussion of Jihad:

The seventh category [of giving charity] is those fighting for Allah,
meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no
salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers
for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them
for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and
expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time
they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned
here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

In addition to what is found in Reliance, it is also important to note that variants of the root word Jihad occur about 40 times in the Quran. In virtually every case, it is obvious from the plain Arabic meaning of the text, that Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims.

It seems pretty obvious that the leaders of Turkey recognize the full meaning of Jihad, too. On July 22, 2017,
Ahmet Hamdi Çamlı, a deputy of the governing Justice and Development
Party (AKP), participated in a debate about the introduction of the
concept of jihad, or holy war, into the national school curriculum.
During the debate, Çamlı said it is useless to teach math to a child who
does not know the concept of jihad, while also asserting that jihad is
one of the main pillars of Islam. The previous week, Ankara Minister of
Education İsmet Yılmaz said, “Jihad is an element in our religion; it is
in our religion…”

Fascists, and White Supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House (7:30-7:38)

This is another subject that is discussed extensively in the Quran (for example, see verses 10.83, 28.19 and 40.35), and in Reliance. Chapter P13.0 of Reliance is entitled The Leader Who Misleads His Following, the Tyrant and Oppressor. Section P13.1 refers to Quran 42.42,
which says: “The dispute (lit. ‘way against’) is only with those who
oppress people and wrongfully commit aggression in the land; these will
have a painful torment.”

In Section Q1.2(4) of Reliance, it is
written: The Prophet said, “When you see my Community too intimidated by
an oppressor to tell him, ‘You are a tyrant,’ then you may as well say
goodbye to them.”

The Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 40.35
says, “[Tyrants] who attempt to refute truth with falsehood and who
dispute the proof without evidence or proof from Allah, Allah will hate
them with the utmost loathing. It is greatly hateful and disgusting to
Allah, and to those who believe…”

From an Islamic perspective, Ms. Sarsour is well aware of the
volatile implications of calling President Trump a tyrant, fascist, white supremacist or Islamophobe.

Islamophobia Industry…if those who choose to vandalize our masjids [mosques]…if they are treating us like we are one community, why are we not acting like one community…(8:42-9:06)

According to Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry,

Fear sells and the Islamophobia Industry – a right-wing
cadre of intellectual hucksters, bloggers, politicians, pundits, and
religious leaders – knows that all too well. For years they have labored
behind the scenes to convince their compatriots that Muslims are the
enemy, exhuming the ghosts of 9/11 and dangling them before the eyes of
horrified populations for great fortune and fame.

Their plan has worked. The tide of Islamophobia that is sweeping
through Europe and the United States is not a naturally occurring
phenomenon. It is their design.

A June 24, 2016 Al Jazeera article entitled Report: Islamophobia Is A Multimillion-Dollar Industry claims that,

More than $200m was spent towards promoting “fear and
hatred” of Muslims in the United States by various organisations between
2008 and 2013, according to a fresh joint report by the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the University of California,
Berkeley.

Released on Monday , the report [Confronting Fear]
identifies 74 groups, including feminist, Christian, Zionist and
prominent news organisations, which either funded or fostered
Islamophobia. “It is an entire industry of itself. There are people
making millions of dollars per year from promoting Islamophobia. They
often present themselves as experts on Islamic affairs when they are
not,” Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, a spokesman for CAIR, told Al Jazeera.

At least 32 states have introduced and debated anti-sharia or
anti-foreign law bills. And, according to our research, 80 percent of
legislators who sponsor this type of legislation also sponsor bills
restricting the rights of other minorities and vulnerable groups.

If Ms. Sarsour wants to put an end to the Islamophobia Industry, she
should simply stand up for the Constitution, and stop promoting the
normalization of Shariah in America.

Potentially horrific time that could come (9:20)

This is a direct parallel to Paragraph 8 of the AMJA Roadmap, which states:

Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations is unalterably fixed. It does not accept any replacement for change…A
Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome
matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there
has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in
which one is required to flee with one’s faith, or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.

Note on the phrase Flee With One’s Faith’: This refers to the Hijrah (Migration),
another fundamental concept in Islam, with connotations going back
1,400 years, to the founding history of Islam. At this point, the
Roadmap introduces the possibility that Muslims in America may have to
flee to a safer location, for the sake of their faith. Socially, this is
a very provocative (and potentially inflammatory) statement by the
AMJA. It engenders immediate animosity and tension, and serves to
further alienate and marginalize the Muslim community in America.

Notice also that in this time of crisis, the AMJA is not encouraging
Muslims to assimilate into American mainstream culture, but instead
advises them to further distance themselves from it, while surrounding
themselves with the protective wall of Shariah law, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

We need to build coalitions; we need allies…in communities who are marginalized and oppressed in this country (10:23-10:32)

Ms. Sarsour also refers to building coalitions as “creating intersectional alliances within communities of color, and other oppressed minorities,” while her biography
says she is “most known for her intersectional coalition work and
building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities.”

Remarkably, building coalitions is also specifically called for in Paragraph 11 of the AMJA Roadmap:

Among the most important of obligations
during these days is to open our doors to all sectors of our society and
to reach out to the other ethnic and religious groups as well as
political movements on both the left and right of the political
spectrum. This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate.

This is AMJA’s call (and official authorization) for American Muslims
to form coalitions with a diversity of ethnic and religious groups, as
well as movements on the left and right of the political spectrum. In
other words, to start forming new alliances, in as many different arenas
as possible, to build a wall of resistance.

Some of the organizations involved in this AMJA-authorized effort to develop common-cause alliances include the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the Black Lives Matter movement, ANSWER Coalition, the Tides Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

In Islamic terms, phrases like creating intersectional alliances and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities are socio-political substitutes for what is known as Dawah, which means to invite or summon someone, in order to teach them more about Islam.

Quran 16:125
calls Muslims to, “Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and
beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most
gracious.” Dawah is mentioned at least 19 times in the Explanatory Memorandum. In fact, Mohamed Akram Adlouni, the author of the memo, signs the Foreword with the salutation, May God reward you good and keep you for His Daw’a, Your brother, Mohamed Akram.

Paragraph 12 of the AMJA Roadmap reinforces this premise:

From among the most important obligations during this
stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the
Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil
rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and
relief, and those dedicated to Dawah,
religious instruction and providing religious rulings. It is most
unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community
and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such
organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray
for them or give them a kind word. But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.

U.S.-based Shariah-promoting organizations include the AMJA itself, as well as the Fatwa Center of America, the North American Imam’s Federation (NAIT), and the Institute of Islamic Education (IIE), which is part of a network of Islamic schools (Madrassas) operating across America.

So, when we go through the looking glass, we find out that Linda
Sarsour is channeling (mainstreaming) the strategic goals of the Muslim
Brotherhood here in America, as found in both the Explanatory Memorandum, and in the AMJA Roadmap.

We also discover that creating intersectional alliances is
really just the cynical use of American style politics and social
activism for the promotion of Islam, and, ultimately, to push us toward
acceptance (normalization) of Islamic Shariah.

Giving support to ICNA Relief, ISNA, CAIR, MAS (13:43-13:48)

All four of these organizations are known front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR and ISNA remain unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, while ICNA Relief and the Muslim American Society (MAS), have also been linked to support of terrorism (specifically, to the support of Hamas).

What does it say about Linda Sarsour, that she would encourage
(exhort) Muslims in America to increase their financial support of these
known pro-Shariah, pro-Jihad Muslim Brotherhood organizations?

And we still as a community find ourselves unprepared, in so
many moments…Why, sisters and brothers, why are we so unprepared, Why
are we so afraid of this administration, and the potential chaos, that
they will ensue on our community…? (14:10-14:45)

At this point, Ms. Sarsour reinforces her basic theme, which is to
resist the tyrannical, racist, relentlessly Islamophobic Trump
administration. She also uses the word ‘chaos,’ which is just another
adjective for the Islamic concept of Fitnah.

From an Islamic (Quranic) perspective, she is now calling for the Muslim community in America to Prepare themselves fight Jihad against the Fitnah of the Islamophobic Trump administration.

The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is Wa’a’idu (وَأَعِدُّو), which is translated “Be Prepared,” or “Make Ready.” Make ready for what, exactly?

The answer is found in Quran 8.60 (Al-Anfal – The Spoils of War), which says:

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power
and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and
your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah
knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully
repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

Also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.60,
which makes it very plain that this entire verse (in fact, the entire
Chapter) is about preparing to wage war against unbelievers.

Once again, the Explanatory Memorandum has already laid the groundwork for the path that Ms. Sarsour (and the ISNA) are now following. In a section entitled Understanding The Role Of The Muslim Brother In North America, the following emphatic declarations are made:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad
in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
“sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious
over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are
not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and
work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes,
and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to
slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

Page 8 of the Memo also addresses the theme of being prepared:

And in order for the process of settlement to be completed, we must plan and work from now to equip and prepare ourselves,
our brothers, our apparatuses, our sections and our committees in order
to turn into comprehensive organizations in a gradual and balanced way
that is suitable with the need and the reality

All of this sounds remarkably similar to the major themes that Linda
Sarsour emphasized during her ISNA speech. In fact, Ms. Sarsour was
obviously warning her ISNA audience, as well as the wider Muslim
community, not be caught unprepared, or to be numbered among those who
are counted as ‘slackers’ by Allah.

Now that we’ve gone through this part of the looking glass, we can
finally get beyond the outward persona, and the social media hype, and
the cultural barriers, and the gender sensitivities, and just listen to
the actual words that Ms. Sarsour is saying.

When we do that, we soon discover that she is speaking a dialect of English that is 100 percent pure Muslim Brotherhood.

When I think about building power, I think about brothers
like Abdul Sayed, who is in this room today, who is running to become
the first Muslim Governor of the state of Michigan (14:49-16:07)

To set an example of taking direct action (i.e., political Jihad),
Ms. Sarsour now endorses Abdul Sayed [Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed],
who was seated in the audience, while urging the audience to donate to
his political campaign (cue the applause).

At the same time, Ms. Sarsour also criticized “establishment
Democrats” who have blocked Muslims from succeeding within the
Democratic Party in the past, and declared that brother Sayed would
change that.

On February 25, 2017, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed announced his bid to become the Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan. Dr. Sayed graduated from the University of Michigan on June 11, 2007,
where he served as Vice President of the Muslim Students Association
(MSA), and was also chosen for a [Paul & Daisy] Soros “New American” Fellowship.

With nearly 600 chapters located in the United States and Canada, the Muslim Students Association (MSA)
is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in
North America. The MSA was incorporated in January of 1963 by members of
the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,
with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America,” and for the specific purpose of Dawah (promoting Islam, as discussed above).

Dr. Sayed has grown up in an environment saturated with Muslim
Brotherhood ideology. If he is selected to run as the first Muslim
Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan, it will likely draw
national (and international) interest.

We have to stay outraged…We as a Muslim community in these
United States of America have to be Perpetually Outraged every single
[day] (18:52-19:01)

Even this concept – Staying Perpetually Outraged – is alluded to in Reliance. The title of Book Q is COMMANDING THE RIGHT AND FORBIDDING THE WRONG, which is based on a passage
from the Hadith, “Command the right and forbid the wrong, or Allah will
put the worst of you in charge of the best of you, and the best will
supplicate Allah and be left unanswered.”

To add further context, Book Q of Reliance specifically discusses how Muslims should actively oppose the unjust leader (the tyrant,
the oppressor), who does not rule his people according to Islamic
Shariah. Perhaps now, we can better understand why Ms. Sarsour’s
determination to stay perpetually outraged is actually authorized by Islamic law.

Then, Chapter Q5.0 of Book Q, which is entitled THE ACT OF CENSURING,
provides eight ‘degrees’ (levels) of authorized response when a Muslim
encounters a non-Islamic ‘wrong act.’ Each one of these progressively
more violent eight levels of response has ‘various degrees of severity
and rules.’

For brevity, I will just include the main title of each one of the eight authorized degrees of response to a wrong act (i.e., Fitnah).

Q5.2: Knowledge of the Wrong Act

Q5.3: Explaining that Something is Wrong

Q5.4: Forbidding the Act Verbally

Q5.5: Censuring with Harsh Words

Q5.6: Fighting the Wrong By Hand

Q5.7: Intimidation

Q5.8: Assault

Q5.9: Force of Arms

Ms. Sarsour, haven’t we been told repeatedly that Islam is a benign, harmless religion of peace?

Do not ever be those citizens that normalize this
administration, because when the day comes that something horrific
happens to us, or to another community…you will be responsible for
normalizing this administration…(19:18)

Once again, we can turn to the Quran, and to Reliance to find the deeper source of what Ms. Sarsour refers to as “normalization” of a corrupt, tyrannical regime.

For example, Quran 4.89 warns Muslims that:

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until
they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize
them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them
any ally or helper.

Quran 5.51 gives an even more specific warning:

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies.
They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to
them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides
not the wrongdoing people.

Section R7.1 of also Reliance reiterates this theme:

It is not permissible to give directions
and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is
helping another to commit disobedience. Allah Most High says, “Do not
assist one another in sin and aggression” (Quran 5.2).

Once again, as we go through another part of the looking glass, we
find that Ms. Sarsour’s use of the term “normalization” is just a
secular (political) equivalent of the well-established Islamic concept
of opposing (“striving against” = Jihad) tyrants and unjust rulers.

Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our
community; it is not to assimilate and to please any other people in
authority…(19:32-19:36)

The admonition to avoid assimilation
into non-Muslim cultures is found in multiple places in the Quran (as
in verse 5.51, cited above), as well as in the fundamental Islamic
doctrine known as Al-Wala’ Wa’l-Bara (Loyalty and Enmity; see here and here), and in the Explanatory Memorandum, as stated here in paragraph 7 of the section entitled The Process of Settlement:

The success of the [Islamic] Movement in America in
establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will
be the best support and aid to the global Movement project…the global
Movement has not succeeded yet in “distributing roles” to its branches,
stating what is needed from them as one of the participants or
contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani [Brotherhood] branch will have far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.

In other words, more than thirty years ago, the leadership of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement in North America was already looking ahead,
to the time when an entire generation of American children would be
raised under the influence of orthodox Ikhwan ideology, with the hope that this future American Muslim generation would play a central role in the establishment of a Shariah-compliant, global Islamic state (= Caliphate).

Nor is this strategic goal of non-assimilation and separation unique
to North America. Islamic communities in many western countries are in
the process of balkanizing, as they rapidly transform into Shariah-compliant “no-go zones.”

Finally, if we refer one last time to the AMJA Roadmap, we find that
in this time of calamity, chaos and crisis (i.e., the tyrannical Trump
Administration), the AMJA scholars are not encouraging American Muslims
to assimilate into mainstream culture, but instead advising them to
further distance themselves from it, while building a protective barrier
of Shariah, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

No wonder, then, that Linda Sarsour would feel compelled remind the
audience of the ISNA, the premier Muslim Brotherhood organization in
America, that their top priority is to “defend and protect our community; it is not to assimilate.”

Our top priority…even higher than all those [other] priorities, is to please Allah, and only Allah (19:52)

The concept of pleasing only Allah is found in at least 110 verses in the Quran, such as this example from Quran 5.55:

Your Guardian [Friend, Helper or Protector] can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer).

As Linda Sarsour has said, we must be prepared.

Even if you don’t believe me (yet), then at least take a look at the world around you.

It remains my hope that America will never succumb to the temptation to hide our eyes (and ears) from the threat(s) we face.

TRUMP IGNITES OHIO MAGA RALLY WITH AN EPIC SPEECH

TRUMP IGNITES OHIO MAGA RALLY 
WITH AN EPIC SPEECH 
 ‘We Worship God, Not Gov’t’
 Published on Jul 25, 2017

President
Donald Trump takes a victory lap after health care vote, jokes about
being on Mouth Rushmore and tangles with protestors in front of a huge
crowd in Youngstown, Ohio. President Donald Trump Full MAGA Rally Speech With Melania Trump In Youngstown, Ohio

 

TRUMP ANNOUNCES REINSTATEMENT OF BAN ON TRANSGENDERS SERVING IN U.S. MILITARY


TRUMP ANNOUNCES REINSTATEMENT OF BAN ON TRANSGENDERS SERVING IN U.S. MILITARY
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 WASHINGTON — President Trump announced on 
Wednesday that the U.S. government has decided to reinstate the 
country’s ban on open transgenders serving in the military, advising 
that the issue is a distraction and would place a burden on the finances
 of the Armed Forces.

“After consultation with my generals and military experts,
please be advised that the United States government will not accept or
allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S.
Military,” he tweeted
this morning. “Our military must be focused on decisive and
overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical
costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail.
Thank you.”
The announcement reverses the decision under the Obama
administration as then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter had advised in June
2016 that the Pentagon would lift the longstanding ban on open
transgenders in the military. Carter set July 1, 2017 as the deadline
for implementation, but on the eve of the date, current Defense
Secretary James Mattis issued a statement
outlining that the matter would be pushed back six months to give
additional time to determine whether or not the Obama-era policy would
negatively affect military readiness.
 “Since becoming the secretary of defense, I have emphasized that the
Department of Defense must measure each policy decision against one
critical standard: will the decision affect the readiness and lethality
of the force?” he said. “Put another way, how will the decision affect
the ability of America’s military to defend the nation? It is against
this standard that I provide the following guidance on the way forward
in accessing transgender individuals into the military services.”

Earlier this month, Air Force Gen. Paul Selva explained
during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the “decision to
delay the accessions of transgender individuals into the services was
largely based on a disagreement on the science of how mental health care
and hormone therapy for transgender individuals would help solve the
medical issues that are associated with gender dysphoria.”
The policy under Carter was to have included federal payment
of the “gender transition” treatments of transgender soldiers, and
troops were required to attend mandatory briefings in anticipation of
the policy implementation.
However, Christian organizations have expressed hopes
that the military would scrap the plan altogether as it raised a number
of concerns.

“Americans need to know the extreme implications of this
policy,” Chaplain Col. (Ret.) Ron Crews of the Chaplain Alliance for
Religious Liberty said
last year following a conference call with Pentagon officials. “Do we
want our sons and daughters to be forced to share showers and sleeping
spaces in a ‘mixed genitalia’ environment with no recourse for
objections of conscience?”
“Spending billions of dollars on transgender surgeries and
treatment plans, when the military has other priorities that would
actually ensure its effectiveness in war, is irresponsible,” Lt. Gen.
(Ret.) Jerry Boykin, who now works with Family Research Council, also
remarked earlier this month.
“However, the cost to readiness, recruitment, retention,
morale and cohesion will be even greater,” he said. “Secretary Mattis
and Congress need to ensure the priorities of the U.S. armed forces
remain those that the secretary has outlined: mission readiness, command
proficiency, and combat effectiveness. These should be the new
priorities, not the last administration’s social engineering projects
that ignore military readiness.”
_______________________________________________________

 Trump Announces Ban On Transgenders In Military 
Generals advise President to ban transgenders due to disruptions, medical costs

TEXAS BILL WOULD REVOKE MEDICAL LICENSES OF PHYSICIANS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS

 
 Rep. Valoree Swanson
TEXAS BILL WOULD REVOKE MEDICAL LICENSES OF PHYSICIANS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 AUSTIN, Texas — A bill recently introduced 
in the Texas legislature would revoke the medical licenses of physicians
 who perform abortions, with the exception of those deemed “necessary” 
to save the life of the mother or to save another baby when the mother 
is pregnant with multiples.

H.B. 86,
introduced by Rep. Valoree Swanson, R-Spring, expands the existing
enumerated prohibitions under which as physician’s license may be
revoked. The measure was filed as Gov. Greg Abbott had called for a
30-day special legislative session, which began on July 18, and includes
other pro-life bills.

Swanson’s bill would ban physicians from performing an
unborn unless “there exists a condition that, in a physician’s
reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the
woman that, to avert the woman’s death or a serious risk of substantial
and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other
than a psychological condition” or if “the woman is pregnant with
multiple unborn children [and] the abortion is necessary to ensure that
at least one unborn child is born alive and healthy.”

“The time to end abortion is here,” Swanson told Breitbart
earlier this year. “As we approach the anniversary of the Supreme Court
decision in Roe v. Wade, it is clear from science that the Court erred
44 years ago. While that remains the law of the land at present, Texas
should not be in the business of licensing and thus endorsing its
practice.”

Planned Parenthood has condemned the bill as an effort to strip away women’s reproductive choices.

“This bill is just another in a relentless wave of
legislation aimed at chipping away at the right to safe, legal
abortion,” Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director of Planned Parenthood
Texas Votes, told PopSugar. “It does nothing to improve the health and
safety of women, and the politicians behind this legislation have only
one objective: to push their extreme agenda onto Texans who don’t want
or support these dangerous policies.”

As previously reported,
a similar bill had been passed in Oklahoma last year, but was vetoed by
Gov. Mary Fallin, who opined that the proposed text was too subjective
and would “would not withstand a criminal constitutional legal
challenge.”

“The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot
be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to
preserve the life of the mother,’” she said in a statement. “The absence
of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception
vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and
application.”

Fallin also opined that the effort was not the proper way to end abortion—that it must be done by the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

But bill sponsor Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, noted that one of the responsibilities of government is to protect life.

“Since I believe life begins at conception, it should be
protected, and I believe it’s a core function of state government to
defend that life from the beginning of conception,” he stated.

As previously reported, Philadelphia legal writer, educator
and Christian apologist Francis Wharton, who wrote several books on
American law, penned an entire chapter on abortion in his book “American
Criminal Law,” which was published in 1855.

Wharton called abortionists “persons who are ready to
degrade their humanity to this occupation” and stated in regard to
abortion in general, “Such conduct cannot be too strongly condemned, and
is the more deserving of receiving the punishment awarded for the
criminal offense in question.”

 

TRUMP STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS REMOVING REFERENCES TO ISIS GENOCIDE AGAINST CHRISTIANS & YAZIDIS

TRUMP STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS REMOVING REFERENCES TO ISIS GENOCIDE 
AGAINST CHRISTIANS & YAZIDIS
BY ROBERT SPENCER
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

These are, of course, Obama holdovers, but they should have been
cleared out by now. Fire Richard Visek (and Rex Tillerson) and drain the
swamp, already.

“State Department Lawyers Removing References to ISIS ‘Genocide’
Against Christians, Other Religious Minorities,” by Susan Crabtree, Washington Free Beacon, July 25, 2017:

The State Department’s top lawyers are systematically
removing the word “genocide” to describe the Islamic State’s mass
slaughter of Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic minorities in Iraq
and Syria from speeches before they are delivered and other official
documents, according to human rights activists and attorneys familiar
with the policies.

Additionally, Democratic senators are delaying confirmation of Mark
Green, Trump’s pick to head the U.S. Agency for International
Development who has broad bipartisan support.

These efforts guarantee that Obama-era policies that worked to
exclude Iraq’s Christian and other minority religious populations from
key U.S. aid programs remain in place, the activists said.

Richard Visek, who was appointed
by President Obama as head the State Department’s Office of Legal
Adviser in October 2016, is behind the decision to remove the word
“genocide” from official documents…

The latest moves from the State Department’s Office of the Legal
Adviser appear aimed at rolling back then-Secretary of State John
Kerry’s March 2016 genocide determination.
Kerry’s much-anticipated genocide designation came after months of
equivocation and detailed documentation by interested parties that the
Islamic State is responsible for genocide against Yazidis, Christians,
and Shia Muslims.

It was one of the few times in history that the United States
designated ongoing mass murders against ethnic or religious minorities
as meeting the legal definition of genocide laid out in a 1948 treaty.
That agreement requires signatories, including the United States, to
take steps to “prevent and punish” genocide.

A bipartisan group of Capitol Hill lawmakers and activists, including
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R., Ala.) were
hoping the designation would help direct millions of dollars in U.S. relief funds to Christian, Yazidi, and other persecuted religious minority communities.

ISIS murders and kidnappings have decimated the Christian population
in Iraq, which numbered between 800,000 and 1.4 million in 2002,
reducing it to fewer than 250,000 now. Without action, activists and
charities say, Christians could disappear completely from Iraq in the
near future.

After meeting with Pope Francis in May, President Trump vowed to do
everything in his power to defend and protect the “historic Christian
communities of the Middle East.”

Activists and Catholic leaders are now calling on Trump to turn the
rhetoric into action on the ground and help get U.S. aid to these
persecuted communities trying to rebuild their homes and their lives in
Iraq.

These advocates want the State Department, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), and the United Nations to allow
church groups and other religious-affiliated relief organizations to
receive government aid, a practice prohibited during the Obama
administration….

SCARAMUCCI, THE “MOOCH” NAMED AS TRUMP’S COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

 http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/storyimage/CN/20170202/FINANCE/170209974/AR/0/Anthony-Scaramucci.jpg
SCARAMUCCI, THE “MOOCH” NAMED AS TRUMP’S COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR
BY BOB ADELMANN
 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

Following his appointment as White House communications director on Friday, Anthony Scaramucci (shown) made the rounds of various Sunday talk shows.
He told Fox News that President Trump is “one of the most effective
communicators that’s ever been born. And we’re going to make sure that
we get that message out directly to the American people.” He added:

I spent the last 18 months supporting him
unyieldingly because he’s a great person and he’s going to be a
phenomenal — he is a phenomenal — president, and he’s going to be a
better president.

However, events that happened previous to Scaramucci’s accolades
reveals why even his friends call him “The Mooch.” Scaramucci himself
admits, “I’m really not an ideological guy” and instead is much more
interested in riding whichever horse has the best chance of winning.

In 2008, Scaramucci was a fundraiser for Barack Obama. In April 2012,
while serving as Mitt Romney’s national finance co-chair, he tweeted:
“I hope [Hillary Clinton] runs [in 2016], she is incredibly competent.”
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Scaramucci first supported Scott
Walker in his run for the presidency but then switched to Jeb Bush after
Walker withdrew from the race.

In January 2016, Scaramucci wrote a scathing letter excoriating Donald Trump for his demagoguery which was published by Fox Business:

At the end of the current election cycle,
the Republican Party will be forced to take a long, hard look in the
mirror. Unbridled demagoguery has driven the GOP to an inflection point
from which there is no turning back. If a populist prevails in the
primary, as appears increasingly likely, the party faces either
devastating defeat in the general election or a new, unrecognizable
identity. In either scenario, a large swath of the GOP electorate will
be forced to eat crow and reevaluate its affiliation. Call it, if you
will, a moral debt restructuring, one caused by the reckless behavior of
a man who knows a thing or two about bankruptcy.

In May Scaramucci signed on as a fundraiser for Trump. He switched allegiances as easily as changing his socks, telling the Washington Post: “I am on board and will support and raise money for him. I will do whatever I can to support our Republican nominee.”

Following Trump’s victory, Scaramucci secured a position on his
transition team and then was named assistant to the president. The Mooch
continued to seek other positions in the administration but met with
disappointments. Lack of success did not deter him, however; and in June
he was rewarded with the role of senior vice president and chief
strategy officer for the U.S. Export-Import Bank. At the same time, he
was named as ambassador to the OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development).

But his big chance came from out of left field. CNN ran a story about
an alleged meeting between Scaramucci and a Russian diplomat, ascribing
all manner of suspicious under-the-table dealings. The story was false,
the three editors responsible for the story were fired, and Scaramucci
accepted CNN’s apology. That came at the same time that Trump was
seeking, as the New York Times put it (based, the paper said,
upon “a dozen people familiar with the situation”), an “upgrade” of his
existing staff. When Scaramucci’s appointment was made, Sean Spicer, the
president’s press secretary, quietly exited, claiming that there were
now “too many cooks in the kitchen” for Trump’s messaging to be
effective.

Scaramucci spent much his time over the weekend responding to
questions about his vitriolic attacks on Trump before he joined his
campaign. The smooth-talking Long Islander did his best to laugh it off,
saying that he has apologized to Trump many times for the nasty things
that he said, and blamed himself for being, at the time, “an
inexperienced person in the world of politics.” But those aren’t his
only skeletons.

After graduating from Harvard with a law degree, Scaramucci worked
for Goldman Sachs in the early 1990s, being hired, fired, and then
rehired before going on to found his own hedge fund, Skybridge Capital.
He’s a member of the globalist World Economic Forum and speaks at its
annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. He is also a member of the
globalist Council on Foreign Relations.

None of this apparently fazes the president who said Friday night:
“Anthony is a person I have great respect for. We have accomplished so
much, and we are being given credit for so little. The good news is the
people get it, even if the media doesn’t.”

It’s no wonder that even Scaramucci’s friends call him “The Mooch.”
He is now riding the horse that he long sought to ride for so many
years. Even the Wall Street Journal called his appointment “the latest triumph in a career advanced through self-promotion and persistence.”

PENTAGON CAUGHT GIVING WEAPONS TO PHONY FEDERAL AGENCY

http://www.truthandaction.org/wp-content/uploads/the_pentagon.jpg
PENTAGON CAUGHT GIVING WEAPONS 
TO PHONY FEDERAL AGENCY 
BY MICHAEL TENNANT
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) created a fake federal
agency and obtained $1.2 million worth of former Defense Department
hardware, including military-grade weapons, at no cost, a new GAO report reveals.

“They never did any verification, like visit our ‘location,’ and most
of [the communication] was by email,” Zina Merritt, director of the
GAO’s defense capabilities and management team, which ran the operation,
told the Marshall Project. “It was like getting stuff off of eBay.”

Under the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), GAO was
tasked with investigating the Defense Department’s Law Enforcement
Support Office (LESO) program, which transfers surplus military property
to federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies that claim to
need it. According to the GAO report, since 1991 the Pentagon has
transferred over $6 billion worth of its excess property to more than
8,600 agencies. Four to seven percent of these items consisted of
“controlled” property: items that “are typically sensitive in nature,
cannot be released to the general public, and require specific actions
to ensure proper disposal,” says the report.

Merritt told the Marshall Project that a GAO survey of local
law-enforcement agencies “did not turn up any instances of outright
abuse at the state level but did find one illegitimate agency that had
applied as a federal entity and was approved for equipment” — the
impetus for the sting operation described in the report.

Merritt’s team created a fictitious federal law-enforcement agency
that they claimed performed “high-level security and counterterrorism
work,” according to the Marshall Project. The team e-mailed an
application to the LESO program in late 2016. The application “contained
fictitious information including agency name, number of employees,
point of contact, and physical location,” the report reads. The team
also created a website plus mail and e-mail addresses for their fake
agency.

LESO officials asked the bogus agency to make some revisions to its
application, which the team did, resubmitting the amended application in
early 2017. Soon thereafter, the application was approved.

All this took place strictly through e-mail. “At no point during the
application process did LESO officials verbally contact officials at the
agency we created — either the main point of contact listed on the
application or the designated point of contact at a headquarters’ level —
to verify the legitimacy of our application or to discuss [the program]
with our agency,” wrote the GAO.

Once the phony agency had been approved for the LESO program,
Merritt’s team set about requesting controlled property items. According
to the report:

In less than a week after submitting the
requests, our fictitious agency was approved for the transfer of over
100 controlled property items with a total estimated value of about $1.2
million. The estimated value of each item ranged from $277 to over
$600,000, including items such as night-vision goggles, reflex (also
known as reflector) sights, infrared illuminators, simulated pipe bombs,
and simulated rifles. Our investigator scheduled appointments, visited
three Disposition Service sites, and obtained the controlled property
items.

The investigator managed to enter the three warehouses and procure
the requested items using fake credentials; two of the sites did not
even request or validate identification. In addition, two of the three
sites failed to use checklists to verify that the number of items
transferred matched the number approved, leading the phony agency to get
more of one item than it had requested.

GAO recommended a number of improvements to the LESO procedures to
prevent these types of oversights, and the Defense Department — as
agencies always do when caught acting like government agencies —
promised to implement them. Whether or not that happens remains to be
seen. GAO, after all, has been reporting deficiencies in the program for
15 years, and the Pentagon has purportedly implemented nearly all of
the GAO’s recommendations during that time, yet the possibility of
almost effortless fraud remains.

Even if LESO could be made completely fraud-proof, it would still be a
dangerous program because it contributes to the militarization of law
enforcement. As Madhuri Grewal of the anti-militarization Constitution
Project told the Marshall Project, “There just aren’t many everyday
policing uses for military equipment like this. The question is why can real law enforcement agencies get some of this stuff, let alone fake ones?”