Biden’s HHS Pick Becerra Collaborated With Dems’ Mystery IT Man Imran Awan

If Awan seeks a post at HHS, Becerra would surely hold the door open.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Senate has voted to confirm Xavier Becerra, Joe Biden’s pick to head the federal Department of Health and Human Services. As Deion Kathawa notes at American Greatness, the California attorney general is a rather odd choice for the job.

After a video by pro-life activist David Daleiden exposed Planned Parenthood’s sale of body parts from aborted babies, Becerra charged Daleiden with 15 felonies. The California attorney general also sued the Little Sisters of the Poor, as Kathawa explains, “because their Catholic faith compelled them not to be complicit in the sale of contraceptives under Obamacare.” With other groups, attorney general Becerra proved more lenient.

In Mendota, near Fresno, the MS-13 gang imposed a reign of terror, committing at least 14 murders, with some victims hacked to death before they could testify. Federal authorities spearheaded the case against the gang, and Becerra only showed up after the feds arrested 25 MS-13 members. The attorney general made it clear he was not concerned about the gang’s “status.” In similar style, the murder of police officers Ronil Singh and Brian Ishmael, both by illegal aliens, prompted little concern for the slain officers and no campaign against criminal illegals, who enjoy sanctuary in California.

These issues did not surface in Becerra’s HHS hearing. Neither did the curious case that led to his surprising departure from Washington in 2016.

Rep. Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s shortlist as a running mate, headed the House Democratic Caucus and was in charge of its server. The Democrat’s IT man Imran Awan had access to that computer, and that was a problem. DNC boss Debbie Wasserman Schultz not only brought Awan aboard but hired his wife and other family members, though none had degrees in information technology.

The unvetted Awan could not possibly have qualified for a security clearance but he enjoyed access to the computers of 45 members of Congress, including members the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. When investigators from the Capitol Police requested the server under Becerra’s control, they got only false information. Becerra, reportedly in line for a key post on the House Ways and Means Committee, bolted for California, where Gov. Jerry Brown tapped him for attorney general. In that role, Becerra upheld sanctuary policies and filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, at a cost of $41 million.

For his part, Imran Awan became a subject for Frank Miniter, author of Spies in Congress, and Luke Rosiak, author of Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect Democrats. That book, along with the Daily Caller, became the target of lawsuit by Imran Awan. Democrats rushed to the barricades in his defense.

“Congress Pays $850,000 to Muslim Aides Targeted in Inquiry Stoked by Trump,” read the November 25, 2020 New York Times headline. According to the story, the previously unreported settlement is one of the largest to resolve discrimination or harassment claims, in this case by people who “lost their jobs and endured harassment in part because of their Muslim faith and South Asian origins.” In this narrative, Awan’s computer capers had little if anything to do with it, and the award doubtless sinks any prospect for a full investigation.

In these conditions, Democrats believe it’s safe to bring Becerra back to Washington. He’s unqualified to head HHS but for Democrats, Trump Derangement Syndrome and disregard for national security count as qualifications. The problem did not start with Becerra.

In 1976, John Brennan voted for the Stalinist Gus Hall presidential candidate of the Communist Party USA, a party funded by the Soviet Union. That disqualified Brennan for any federal intelligence job, but from 2013 to 2017, the Gus Hall voter headed the CIA. In that powerful post, and afterward, Brennan aided and abetted the covert operations against candidate and President Trump.

Brennan was the choice of the composite character president David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. His Dreams from My Father, Garrow wrote, was a novel and the character “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, an African American Communist who spent much of his life defending all-white Soviet dictatorships.

As Paul Kengor documented in The Communist, Davis’ FBI file runs some 600 pages and Frank was on the bureau’s security index. So no surprise that the composite character removed Frank from the audio version of Dreams, and Frank makes no appearance in anything under the Obama brand, including Promised Land.

The composite character president looked the other way at militant Islam, so Becerra’s experience with Imran Awan was a perfect fit. Becerra is back in Washington now, as Deion Kawatha observes, with help from Republican Susan Collins, whose “yea” carried the day for the California Democrat. His HHS post is doubtless a rest stop en route to a place on some Democrat’s ticket, or maybe his own. 

For his part, Imran Awan has been rather quiet since he bagged $850,000. If the Democrats’ favorite IT man sought a post at HHS, Xavier Becerra would surely hold the door open.

Will the Pandemic Break the Government School Monopoly? Data Says Homeschooling Is Skyrocketing



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Homeschooling rates increased significantly in the fall of 2020, according to a Household Pulse Survey from the Census Bureau. Previous estimates had shown that parents had selected this option at increasing rates between 1999 and 2012, when homeschooling plateaued and remained steady at about 3.3% of children. The pandemic, school closures nationwide, and some parents seeing the racialized and sexualized classroom curricula have changed this statistic significantly.

According to the Census Bureau:

In the first week (April 23-May 5) of Phase 1 of the Household Pulse Survey, about 5.4% of U.S. households with school-aged children reported homeschooling .

By fall, 11.1% of households with school-age children reported homeschooling (Sept. 30-Oct. 12). A clarification was added to the school enrollment question to make sure households were reporting true homeschooling rather than virtual learning through a public or private school.

That change represents an increase of 5.6 percentage points and a doubling of U.S. households that were homeschooling at the start of the 2020-2021 school year compared to the prior year.

While the Census Bureau found an increase across all racial groups, it saw the most significant increase in households that identified as black or African American by a factor of five.


Across the nation, 28 out of 50 states had an increase in homeschooling that was statistically significant, and so did eight of the largest metropolitan statistical areas. States with the most significant increases varied between open ones, like Florida with a 13.1% increase, and those with longer lockdowns, like Massachusetts, at 10.6%. The large metros that saw increases usually suffered the longest lockdowns, such as Detroit, Michigan, and the greater New York area.

As schools resume, it is not clear how many parents intend to continue homeschooling. According to Education Week in November, parents showing an interest in public school alternatives has increased:

Homeschooling in response to the pandemic is driving enrollment declines in schools and districts across the country, according to a majority of principals and superintendents surveyed by the EdWeek Research Center. Fifty-eight percent in a mid-October survey listed homeschooling as being a major contributor to enrollment declines caused by COVID-19—more than any other single reason, such as losing students to charter schools, private schools, or “pandemic pods” in which families band together to hire instructors who teach their children at home.

In North Carolina, notices of intent to homeschool tripled during the enrollment period. In Wisconsin, they nearly doubled. There was also a marked decline of 15-20% in parents opting to enroll their children in kindergarten in one Wisconsin school district. At least one professor believes the pandemic will cause a lasting increase in the number of parents who choose to homeschool:

But for some districts, per-pupil declines, coupled with cutbacks from the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic, may be a “double whammy” for their finances, said Christopher Lubienski, a professor of education policy at Indiana University.

Lubienski, who studies homeschooling, said the pandemic could give a long-lasting boost to the movement. While he believes many families that opted to home school this year will eventually return to public school, he thinks the United States will see a permanent increase in the number of homeschoolers even after the pandemic ends.

That’s “partly because people who haven’t really thought about it before suddenly saw themselves forced into [home schooling], and then realizing that it’s something they can see themselves doing,” he said.

Contrary to what you may think, parents with less income and education were more likely to say they were homeschooling:

According to Education Week’s survey, which was conducted at the beginning of the academic year, the less education and income parents had, the more likely they were to say they were homeschooling this year. Twelve percent of parents whose highest level of education is less than a bachelor’s degree said they are homeschooling their children at least some of the time this school year, compared to 5 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or more.

Twelve percent of parents whose children qualify for free or reduced-price lunch said they are homeschooling, compared to 5 percent of parents whose children do not qualify for reduced meals.

Individual parents interviewed cited the increased time for interest-based learning in the homeschool environment and more control over who their children socialize with when they connect with other homeschooling parents. With the increase in remote work that is likely to accompany the end of the pandemic, parents may find they can balance working virtually with engaging in a homeschool curriculum. If parents keep moving toward homeschooling, city and state leaders who kept schools closed, and teachers’ unions who made ridiculous and never-ending demands, have no one to blame but themselves for playing politics with the pandemic.

While the press likes to portray women as victims of the pandemic because workforce participation has dropped to 57%, its lowest since 1988, employers may need to take another look. At least two out of five considered leaving or downsizing their career during COVID-19. Many noted that while working remotely, their children came first. Perhaps some of them noticed how much their presence during the day benefits their children. While some may like to return to flexible or project-based work, it would not be surprising to find some do not return at all because they choose not to.

The Woke Make Biden’s “Moderation” Irrelevant



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Let’s take a couple of things for granted at the moment. First, let’s take for granted that in the final analysis, the 2020 US presidential election will be decided in favor of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (who must be mentioned—for, shall we say, reasons). Second, let’s accept the assumption that Joe Biden is genuinely a moderate Democrat and less likely than his history and record suggest to govern along with the trends, which on the left half of the universe right now are decidedly radical. Where would that leave us with regard to “Wokeness,” say like the Critical Race Theory President Trump successfully hamstrung in federal agencies and their contractors by means of executive order?

Nowhere good.

Many people who are skeptical of or opposed to Critical Race Theory and the rather distinctly neo-Maoist flavor of Wokeness more generally vociferously supported Joe Biden and, presumably in most cases, voted for him in this election. They did so on the assumption that the best way to put a halt to the excesses of the Critical Social Justice movement—by which it should be known—would be to remove the irritant in chief, Donald J. Trump, and then take to fighting the culture war against CSJ properly, with the “but Trump!” defense removed from play. I’m not unsympathetic to this argument at the level of the culture war because it is, in fact, right. I think it misunderstands the nature of how the Critical Social Justice ideology works, however.

It must be understood that Critical Social Justice is an administrative and bureaucratic ideology by its very design. It was formulated by activist academics to train not just activists but, very specifically, either people who will go on to produce the culture industry (like in media and arts) or who will become administrative bureaucrats where they can produce a kind of unaccountable policy that we find in HR departments, where pushback is irrelevant unless it’s from the top down. These sorts of people dream of positions not specifically of power and influence, like the presidency, but of training and administrative roles where they will receive relatively little scrutiny or opposition while they engage in their favorite activity of all: telling other people what to do, not directly, but through a shield of very official and institutionally binding paper.

For any of his late and thin comments about the violence that has rocked our streets for the last half of this year, Biden has given us absolutely no indication that he’s going to resist any of this bureaucratic totalitarianism. In fact, he’s done the opposite, using the language of the ideology, like saying he has a “mandate” from the voters (in an election that hasn’t yet even been decided, two weeks later) to take on “systemic racism,” and tapping individuals like Mehrsa Baradaran (who believes in full reparations) for the Treasury Department and Margaret Salazar (whose focus is on “cultural responsiveness”) for Housing and Urban Development. These come among roughly 500 more appointments to his administrative bureaucracy—so far—who allegedly express a commitment to racial justice, in line with precisely the racial equity programs touted by Biden and Harris on their campaign and now transition websites. In few domains has it been signaled that this will be more powerfully considered than in public health and the Covid-19 response, which Biden has already indicated will lead to a permanent position: “At the end of this health crisis, it will transition to a permanent Infectious Disease Racial Disparities Task Force,” we’re told on the Covid-19 priorities page on Biden’s “Build Back Better” transition site.

This renders Biden and, perhaps, Harris largely irrelevant to the “Woke” impacts of their election. They are, if you’ll accept the metaphor, “not the room.” These administrators are the room. Biden (and Harris, maybe) can be as moderate as moderate gets, and if even a modest fraction of the administrators in key departments favor the Critical Social Justice style of policy, that’s most of what we’ll get. So far, we have reason to suspect that at least an eighth of Biden’s administrative apparatus will be in that vein, including in key and powerful sectors like public health—to say nothing of apparatuses like the FBI.

What can we expect from these administrators under Biden the Irrelevant? Equity. Equity is intended to be brought into roughly every sector of the federal government, from education to jobs to banking to climate policy to public health—which will, itself, be used as a rather potent lever against the people. And what is equity? Equity is the adjustment of shares of resources in a society so as to make people or groups of people equal when certain disparities of outcomes exist. Equity is both the measuring stick and functional opposite of “systemic racism,” which is to say that which Critical Race Theory believes is the cause of all racial disparities that do not favor blacks, some Latinos (but not others), and members of other non-white races (under certain conditions).

How any of this will be resisted with entities like the Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and so on, stuffed with people whose chief ambition in life is to order the affairs of others so that nothing against the Theory of Critical Social Justice is permissible or tolerated remains unclear. It was, in fact, for the clear-eyed, the central issue on the table in this election: who gets to control these unaccountable administrators? Someone permissive or even sympathetic, or someone who has indicated that he’s starting to understand the problem and is willing to take fair steps to stop it. And all of this goes even without considering that the Senate still hangs in the balance, its majority to be decided in Georgia’s January runoff elections.

In addition to skewing policy so that equity is a priority—indeed, Biden’s campaign website said that it will be achieved, which, in practice, will imply racial quotas, skewed admissions using diversity statements and other means, and other forms of redistribution of opportunities and resources, like preferential jobs investments into certain races but not others—we can also expect Biden will overturn Trump’s executive order that, nominally, “bans Critical Race Theory” training from the federal government and its contractors in certain capacities, though not universally. This is a curious matter, though, to anyone who has taken the ten minutes required to read the executive order itself (which is not long, not complicated, and not drowning in legalese). It’s worth lingering on the issue of this executive order, not because of its symbolic status of fealty or opposition to Critical Social Justice and Critical Race Theory, or even because of its practical effects, but because of the symbolic status that it implies about someone who wants it overturned.

First, let’s dispel a widespread and pervasive myth that seems so deliberately applied as to qualify as something simpler: a systematically pushed, disinforming lie. Trump’s executive order does not ban diversity training or racial sensitivity training, nor does it prohibit teaching the claims of Critical Race Theory in an academic fashion. This doesn’t need to be inferred, by the way. It’s actually explicitly in the order, in Section 10:

Sec. 10. General Provisions. (a) This order does not prevent agencies, the United States Uniformed Services, or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the requirements of this order. (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order in an objective manner and without endorsement.

Now, what does it prohibit? Teaching as uncontested fact in the workplace or academic training settings certain “divisive concepts,” as mentioned, among them race and sex stereotyping, race and sex scapegoating, that meritocracy is itself racist and oppressive, that discrimination should be acceptable, and teaching that the United States is itself an inherently racist or evil entity. The first of the listed concepts prohibited by the order is, to be clear, “(1) one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.” One will notice, by the bye, that this order therefore would ban teaching white supremacy and patriarchy in addition to those portions of Critical Race Theory that do the same in a different way (which happens to be the functional core of it). This means that people who are against this order or who would overturn it—like Biden the Irrelevant—must support at least some of these things.

It is incumbent upon us, in our relative powerlessness against the administrative state that we have presumably collectively empowered, to therefore ask that question repeatedly of Biden, Harris, and everyone else with enough power to be held accountable to it. If they want to (or will) overturn that executive order, which is it that they support: race or sex stereotyping, race or sex scapegoating, believing that merit is racist, racial or sex discrimination, or that America itself is racist or evil? Which things among these do they want taught as uncontested fact, by employer mandate, to our federal employees and employees of federal contractors? And why do they want these things taught, possibly in violation of the Civil Rights Act and other laws? These questions must be put to as many officials in this administration, including Biden and Harris themselves, and many officials in other institutions and organizations, as widely and as often as possible.

So long as we’re talking about things of this kind that Biden, Harris, and others need to be pushed upon as vigorously as possible by those with the courage to do it, is what protection is offered to the everyday American who cares about the relevant issues and yet does not subscribe to the tenets of this sociological faith. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and liberal secular humanism all have different views about race and racism than the Critical one—all of which could rightly be called “anti-racist.” Christians see neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free; all are Muslims in Islam; Buddhists see superficial features like race as worldly illusions; and liberal secular humanists believe that race and racism are matters of individual belief and action, not complex and indescribable systems of domination and power. What protections for their beliefs exist in our workplaces, our professional societies, our schools, and our public lives to hold these admirable beliefs as is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution, the cornerstone of our republic?

Finally, on the issue of the Constitution itself, since Biden, Harris, and administration are already signaling support of and perhaps fealty to the doctrines of Critical Race Theory, they should be asked—and asked clearly and repeatedly—how it is that they intend to fulfill their oaths to the Constitution given that Critical Race Theory explicitly calls into question the very idea of neutral principles of constitutional law. In their own words, in Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, the authors are quite clear that Critical Race Theory is opposed to such an idea:

The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, setting, group and self-interest, and emotions and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights discourse, which stresses incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. (emphasis added)

 Given that this is the case—it is not mere interpretation or speculation—those who would support or install Critical Race Theory in our federal government and who would enable it within our country owe a tremendous debt of obligation to the American people to explain how they can thread the impossible needle of doing so while protecting and upholding their oath to the Constitution of the United States (if elected and sworn to do so) or its ideals (as responsible Americans mostly should). Sadly, this includes Biden and Harris, along with their administration, not to mention many lawmakers who, in having taken that same oath, should be put to the same basic American test. The questions must be asked, and clear answers must be given.

In summary, there is very little to suggest to me that the Biden administration that we have presumably elected to the highest office in the land and as the leadership of the free world for at least the next four years is prepared to safeguard its people on this issue. In fact, I see quite the opposite, based both upon knowing the Theory itself and understanding how it tends to implement itself through bureaucratic, administrative, and personnel training apparatuses. Whether right or wrong, we seemingly now have to play the game on the field set for us by anti-Woke Biden voters and do everything in our power to hold the relevant parties as accountable as possible.

This article was originally published at RocaNews.

Boulder Shooter Threatened Fake Hate Crime Charges Against Classmates He Attacked

See the source image



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The gunman in Boulder who killed 10 people at a supermarket would routinely threaten his classmates with threats of filing fake hate crime charges after violently attacking them, eyewitnesses told the media.

As we highlighted yesterday, Ahmad Al-Issa would typically be described as an “anti-racist activist,” with his Facebook page having featured criticism of Donald Trump, advocacy for refugees and Muslim immigrants.

Despite the gunman’s family telling the Daily Beast that the reason for his rampage was as a result of him being the victim of “bullying” in high school, Al-Issa’s classmates say the opposite is true.

Fox 31 report reveals that Al-Issa once punched a classmate and continued to hit him as he lay on the ground.

Al-Issa tried to justify the attack by claiming the victim “had made fun of him and called him racial names weeks earlier,” although no other classmates could corroborate this.

The shooter’s wrestling team classmate Dayton Marvel also told the Denver Post that in Al Issa’s senior year, “during the wrestle-offs to see who makes varsity, he actually lost his match and quit the team and yelled out in the wrestling room that he was like going to kill everybody.”

“Nobody believed him. We were just all kind of freaked out by it, but nobody did anything about it,” said Marvel.

“He would talk about him being Muslim and how if anybody tried anything, he would file a hate crime and say they were making it up,” he added.

Given this history and the fact that Al-Issa was an avid reader of mainstream media, questions now must be asked about his real motivation given that all the gunman’s victims were white and whether he was radicalized by anti-white racism that has been institutionalized by the press.



Boulder Shooter is ISIS Sympathizer, Leftists Hardest Hit



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Another opportunity to shore up their sagging “white terror threat” narrative is lost. My latest in FrontPage:

A man murdered ten people in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket Monday. No details were immediately released about the shooter, but Leftist “journalists,” working from a photo of the shooter, seized upon the shooting to shore up their sagging narrative of “white supremacist terrorism.” There was just one problem: the massacre was actually, after a four-year hiatus, a new incidence of Islamic jihad on American soil.

Even after the shooter’s name was revealed as Ahmad Al Issa (which is how he himself wrote it on his Facebook and Twitter accounts), establishment media reports continued to give his name as  “Alissa,” which of course is a common first name for women in the U.S., and thus gives the impression that he is an American non-Muslim. Were “journalists” trying to obscure the fact that he is a Muslim migrant ISIS sympathizer? Of course, they were.

And that was after they had already decided that he was one of those “right-wing extremists” who are, according to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the “most lethal and persistent” threat the U.S. faces today. Julie DiCaro, a senior writer and editor at Deadspin, tweeted: “Extremely tired of people’s lives depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a good day or not.” As of this writing on Tuesday afternoon, DiCaro has not taken down the tweet, as some media hacks are still, like a captain going down with his sinking ship, insisting that Al Issa is white. Prominent race-baiter Tariq Nasheed tweeted: “White supremacists are trying their hardest to deflect from the fact the Boulder suspect is WHITE. Syrians in America are legally, politically & socially WHITE. Their white status is well documented in court cases Terms like ‘Muslim, ‘Arab’, ‘Islamic doesn’t change whiteness.”

Of course, Al Issa really is white, as he is an Arab Muslim migrant from Syria, and Arabs have been considered “white” ever since they began arriving in this country. Nasheed’s tweet, however, still pointed up the Left’s inconsistency and hypocrisy: up until this shooting, Leftists considered Arab Muslims to be “brown,” after the fashion of Linda Sarsour, who memorably identified as white until she put on a hijab and miraculously became a “person of color.” If the Boulder shooter had been a white non-Muslim American and his victims had been white Arab Muslims, Tariq Nasheed would be railing against the persecution of “brown” people in the United States.

But as it is, Nasheed is trying desperately to shore up a failing narrative. The reality is that Ahmad Al Issa is a deeply religious Muslim with pro-ISIS sympathies. He complained bitterly about “Islamophobia,” hated Donald Trump with passionate intensity, and had scouted out churches and Trump rallies as possible targets for his jihad massacre.

All this makes it abundantly clear that not only is Ahmad Al Issa not a “white supremacist,” but he is a living manifestation of the effects of Leftism in America today. After migrating from Syria as a child during the Obama administration, he, and many others like him, has been inundated with relentless propaganda about how he is a victim of a racist and “Islamophobic” society that will never give him a fair shake, and is institutionally determined to make sure he will never succeed. He has been told that Trump hated Muslims and that his followers were precisely the people who were keeping him down and denying him access to the privilege that they themselves enjoyed at the expense of the “brown” people they despised.

The Democratic Party has been stoking this kind of resentment and feeding it to young people in schools, colleges and universities for years. Ahmad Al Issa is a product of their indoctrination. That in itself may be one reason why Leftist “journalists” and professional agitators such as Tariq Nasheed are so intent on driving home the point that this was a “white” shooter acting out of the hatred that is intrinsic to American culture: to deflect attention away from the fact that he is not a product of American culture at all, but of the Left’s subculture of hatred and resentment. If we had a sane political environment in the country today, that is the hateful subculture the Justice Department would be concerned about. Instead, even as Antifa continues to make the Great Northwest into a radioactive wasteland, this hateful subculture isn’t even on the radar screen. And Ahmad Al Issa isn’t going to put it there.


The Boulder Jihad Massacre: Clearing Away the Deceptions



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

UTT Initial Report: Boulder Colorado Shooting on 3/22/21

Attack: 10 people were shot and killed at the King Soopers Grocery Store in Boulder, Colorado on Monday, March 22, 2021 at approximately 2:30 PM MST. Police arrested the lone gunman on-site and identified him as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a U.S. citizen born in Syria.

False Narrative: Alissa’s family has publicly stated Alissa has mental health issues and is paranoid. This narrative has been utilized by family members of jihadis in many of the jihadi attacks in Europe and in the United States for the past 20 years. UTT assesses this is a deception meant to take the focus off normative and universally taught Islamic doctrine which commands Muslims to wage war against non-muslims until the world is under the rule of “Allah's divine law”/sharia in an Islamic State (caliphate).

UTT’s Assessment: The attack in Boulder, Colorado was an act of jihad by Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa. Alissa was likely taught and trained in the local Boulder area by organizations acting as a part of the hostile North American Islamic Movement. This network is allowed to operate because local and state police agencies, as well as the FBI, have no knowledge nor understanding of the doctrine, network, and modus operandi of these hostile actors and organizations nor the grave danger they pose to the communities they have a duty to protect.

Details: Alissa’s own writings reveal he is a sharia adherent Muslim. His numerous writings on Facebook and elsewhere reveal he is committed to Islam and its doctrinal teachings. On December 18, 2018 Alissa posted the following on his Facebook page: “Muslims might not be perfect but Islam is.” On May 7, 2019, Alissa posted “So Mary wears a hijab and Jesus doesn’t eat pork and prays on his knees and hands. There (sic) both Muslims it’s obvious.” See the screen capture below.

[Note: Alissa attended Arvarda West High School, the same high school in Boulder attended by Shannon Maureen Conley, who was arrested in April 2014 charged with providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization – the Islamic State (ISIS)]

Ahmad was allegedly known by the FBI because he was linked to another individual under investigation by the bureau. Investigative journalist and Congressional candidate Laura Loomer reported this evening that a law enforcement source told her Alissa killed the people in the name of ISIS (Islamic State).

The only mosque publicly listed in Boulder, Colorado is the Islamic Center of Boulder (ICB), located at 5495 Baseline Road. If Alissa attended this mosque, he was likely taught that jihad is obligatory for all Muslims until sharia is the law of the land. He also may have been encouraged to take the violent actions he did in Boulder.


Key Information About the Islamic Center of Boulder (ICB)

1. A cursory review of the teachings of the ICB quickly reveals this mosque teaches that Muslims are obliged to wage war against non-Muslims until an Islamic State is established under Islamic Law/sharia. The ICB website states: “Following the Sunnah of the Prophet is a fundamental part of Islam.” The most authoritative biography of Islam’s prophet Mohammad in Islam is the Sirat Rasool Allah, which states Mohammad: married a 6-year-old girl; participated in beheading up to 900 Jews after the Battle of the Trench; participated in torture; took sex slaves; and many other such things, to include telling the Muslim community Allah commands Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims until they convert to Islam or, in the case of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, submit to Islamic Law and pay the non-Muslim poll tax. This is the “example” the Islamic Center of Boulder commands its attendees to follow.

2. The ICB website “Donate” page details the obligatory requirements for all Muslims to give to “Zakat ul-Fitr.” The language on the website is in line with sharia on these matters, specifically Reliance of the Traveller: Islamic Sacred Law, Book H (Zakat), h7. It should be noted sharia mandates that 1/8 of all Zakat collected must go to “Islamic Military Operations,” which is legally defined under U.S. Code as “terrorism.”

3. The ICB website contains a Code of Conduct. Paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct for the ICB states that groups staying overnight inside the mosque must receive permission of the ICB’s Executive Council, and specifically lists “Tableeghi Jammah.” Tableeghi Jammah provides the doctrinal underpinnings for jihadis/“terrorists” around the United States and beyond. The Tableeghi members travel in small groups going to mosques around the United States and help ensure mosque members understand and adhere to Islamic sharia.

4. The Islamic Center of Boulder works with known hostile jihadi organizations including the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and its affiliates. Evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), Northern District of Texas, 2008 – identifies ICNA as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s network, whose stated goal is the overthrow of the U.S. government and the implementation of an Islamic State under Islamic Law/sharia.

Muslim Brotherhood Properties in Boulder County

A review of Boulder County property records reveals that two properties in the county are owned by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s bank, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). Evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), Northern District of Texas, 2008 – identifies NAIT as a “Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood” which provided funds directly from its bank accounts to Hamas leaders and organizations overseas. Hamas is designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States government.

Significant Jihadi Infrastructure in Colorado

A snapshot of Colorado reveals there is a significant jihadi (terrorist) network across the state which has been present for decades with little interference from state/local officials or law enforcement. The following organizations primarily present themselves as non-violent community organizations, when in fact they are at the core of the U.S. jihadi Movement:

  • The Muslim Students Association (MSA), the first national Islamic organization established in America, is a Muslim Brotherhood organization whose goal is identical to that of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (formerly ISIS). MSA chapters are present on every major college/university campus in Colorado.
  • Hamas, doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), has at least one office in Colorado.
  • The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and their affiliates including Islamic Relief, have offices in Colorado.
  • Numerous properties across Colorado are owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the bank for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, which has directly funded Hamas terrorist organizations and leaders.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim American Society (MAS) has at least one office in Colorado.
  • The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), identified in the US v HLF trial as a Muslim Brotherhood organization which funds the terrorist group Hamas and its subsidiaries have chapters across Colorado, including the Islamic Society of Colorado Springs and the Denver Islamic Society.

Significant Historical Terrorism Cases in Colorado

1. Anwar al Awlaki, the leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2011, was the President of the Muslim Students Association at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, one hour north of Boulder.
2. Al Qaeda operative Najibullah Zazi, from the Denver area, was involved in a jihad plot in 2009 involving up to 12 backpack bombs in New York City. The plot was disrupted by U.S. intelligence, intercepting communications directly between Zazi and a known Al Qaeda location overseas, and then putting surveillance on him.
3. In October 1992, Colorado officials raided a Jamaat al Fuqra terrorist training camp approximately 12 miles east of Buena Vista. The officials discovered weapons, bomb-making materials, evidence of surveillances on a Colorado National Guard Air Base, an assassination list, and other such materials. Buena Vista is approximately 2 1/2 hours SSW of Boulder.

Conclusion: As has been seen in numerous cases prior to and after the attacks on 9/11/01, jihad attacks inside the United States are supported by a massive jihadi infrastructure present in America, which includes the most prominent Islamic organizations and a majority of the mosques educating, training, and supporting jihadis in their efforts. By and large, the Islamic community protects these individuals, as we have seen in cases in Europe and the United States. The lack of understanding of the doctrine, networks, and modus operandi of the U.S. Islamic Movement and its close coordination with the Communist Movement continues to produce absurd investigative conclusions which can never lead to the root of the matter, because leaders in the political and law enforcement realms are unwilling to address these threats. There is no understanding of the gravity of these threats inside the U.S. security apparatus at any level. Ahmad Alissa is a jihadi who was likely trained in Colorado to do what normative and universally accepted Islamic doctrine teaches. There are tens of thousands more like him across the United States.

This report is published by Understanding the Threat (UTT) and UTT gives permission for other outlets to reproduce this material for the benefit and security of the American people.