Thursday, June 30, 2016

Muslims To Become U.S. Citizens Without Taking An Oath Of Allegiance Or A Pledge To Defend America

By Executive Order, Barack Hussein Obama Has Made It Possible For Muslims To Become U.S. Citizens Without Taking An Oath Of Allegiance Or A Pledge To Defend America

Muslim-American-Flag-560x420

Understanding that Muslims are forbidden from pledging allegiance to any nation state except the nation of Islam, the Obama regime will allow legal immigrants seeking citizenship through the nation’s Naturalization process to be  exempt from a key part of the Oath of Allegiance.

Breitbart: Immigrants seeking to become citizens no longer have to pledge to “bear arms on behalf of the United States.” They can opt out of that part of the Oath. Nor do they have to cite any specific religious belief that forbids them to perform military service.

The pledge to help defend America was good enough for the 6.6 million immigrants naturalized since 2005 and good enough for the over 15 million naturalized since 1980, but Obama’s appointees at the USCIS think that is too much to ask of the 18.7 million estimated legal immigrants eligible today for eventual naturalization or the 750,000 who will be naturalized in the coming year.

This radical change was announced a year ago, in July of 2015. Congress did not enact the change in new legislation. There was no congressional debate, no filibuster in the US Senate, and no sit-in in the House to demand that a bill to repeal the USCIS action be brought to a vote.

No, this radical change was implemented while Congress slept. Like other Obama actions to undermine our immigration laws, the Republican-controlled Congress has not used its constitutional powers to reverse the administrative action. Thank God many states are stepping up to fill that void.

In fact, most Americans will think it extremely odd that the USCIS action with regard to the Oath of Allegiance is not illegal. But the fact is, unelected bureaucrats at the USCIS can change the wording of the Oath without approval of the people’s representatives in Congress. Strange as it sounds, the law as it stands today allows USCIS bureaucrats great leeway in managing the Naturalization process, so Obama’s actions will not be challenged in federal court.

Yet, in view of Obama’s actions, why doesn’t Congress change the law and take control of the Oath of Allegiance? So far, there is no indication that the Republican leadership will do so. If they won’t even bar Islamic terrorists from the refugee program, why should we expect them to protect the Oath of Allegiance? Some members of Congress will grumble, make speeches, and issue press releases, but the Republican leadership will do nothing.

Such is the state of the nation as we approach this 240th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Some Americans see great irony in the British declaring their independence from the tyranny of Brussels while Americans quietly accept the new tyranny of Washington, DC.

Article reposted with permission from Shoebat.com



Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Joys of Muslim Women

Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish 

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9. 

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy. 

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. 

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. 

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her. 

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion. 

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman. 

In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law. 

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law. 

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. 

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before emigrating to America in 1978, When she was eight years old, her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza . 

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society. 

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television. 

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping Sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries. 

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose Sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. 

In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President! I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

Let's not allow this to happen in America

BREXIT: FIRST THEY CAME FOR MY COMMODE . . .

First They Came for My Commode - Welcome to the EU. Good call, Brexit. You got out just in time. #BlazeTheTrail

FIRST THEY CAME FOR MY COMMODE . . .

If you want to understand why Brexit passed and why more revolts from us peasants are likely ahead, take in this story from The Telegraph today:

EU to launch kettle and toaster crackdown after Brexit vote

The EU is poised to ban high-powered appliances such as kettles, toasters, hair-dryers within months of Britain’s referendum vote, despite senior officials admitting the plan has brought them “ridicule”.

The European Commission plans to unveil long-delayed ‘ecodesign’ restrictions on small household appliances in the autumn. They are expected to ban the most energy-inefficient devices from sale in order to cut carbon emissions.

The plans have been ready for many months, but were shelved for fear of undermining the referendum campaign if they were perceived as an assault on the British staples of tea and toast.

Time to adapt the famous Niemoller quote for our time, something like this:

First they came for my toilet, mandating only 1.6 gallons per flush, and I did not speak out, because I could flush twice. . .

Then they came for my shower head, but I did not speak out, because I could just run the water longer. . .

Then they came for my light bulbs, but I did not speak out, because I have a whole basement full of the good old incandescent ones. . .

Then they came for my toaster, but I did not speak out, because I am on a low-carb diet. . .

Then they came for my gun, and . . . Just wait till they try that! To quote a great political philosopher, “Go ahead—make my day!”



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, June 27, 2016

WOUNDED KNEE: The largest mass shooting in US history wasn’t Orlando

The largest mass shooting in US history wasn’t Orlando; it involved a gun control raid by the government

image002

The largest mass shooting in U.S. history occurred December 29,1890 when 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota were murdered by federal agents & members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”.

The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting shortly after, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. It is estimated that 200 of the 297 victims were women and children.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of hundreds of Native Americans.

On June 14th, 2016 The Daily Caller reported:

Articles published by NPR and The Oregonian both include members of various Indian tribes complaining that, when the media labels Orlando the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, it’s obscuring the suffering of Indians who perished in battles with the U.S. military in the 1800s.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our rights to bear arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

You can learn more about the Wounded Knee Creek massacre here.

(H/T: The Daily Caller)

Follow HYPELINE on Facebook and Twitter

Tell HYPELINE what you think: 



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, June 26, 2016

The UK’s Magna Carta 2.0: Good for freedom, good for growth

The UK’s Magna Carta 2.0: Good for freedom, good for growth

So while I understand that describing the Brexit victory as Magna Carta 2.0 is inexact, I think it makes a key point: Britain will regain its political freedom, its autonomous self-government, and its independence from an European Union that is spinning out of control under the power of establishment elites, unelected and unaccountable socialist bureaucrats, and a court that is increasingly making legal decisions that replace Britain's powerful common law. 

The EU's tax and regulatory policies, climate-change and welfare spending, and free immigration even in wartime are gradually ruining Europe. That's why I believe Brexit is good for British freedom, political autonomy, and the survival of democratic capitalism. 

The business elites told British voters that leaving the EU would lead to economic catastrophe. Well, in England, Main Street defeated the establishment elites by sending a populist message. 

And there need be no economic catastrophe. The EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. The London Stock Exchange is one of the most powerful financial centers in the world. Frankfurt will never replace it. 

Trade is the key to the economic outlook in Britain and the EU. Many corporate chieftains joined large bank chief executives and the fear-mongering International Monetary Fund to suggest that the EU will deal harshly with Britain if it leaves and stop all trade. That's mutually assured destruction – MAD. A tariff-driven trade war would destroy both power centers. 

Not only does the EU need Britain's financial capabilities, Britain itself is major importer of EU goods and services. If sanity prevails, there's no reason why the EU and Britain can't hammer out a free-trade agreement in the two years allotted by the Lisbon Treaty. 

And if the EU wants to go with MAD, the whole set-up will burn in flames.

Yes, there's a lot of disagreement about the economic consequences of Brexit. But remember that Britain is still a member of the IMF, the World Bank, G-7, G-20, the WTO, NATO, and so on.

Veteran Wall Street economist Robert Sinche wrote a note to clients in the early evening of the vote that there was a high probability that Brexit would win. He wrote: "most analysts have overestimated the negative impact of a leave vote as the UK has been a marginal member of the EU on/off for many decades." Brave chap. But I agree.

And we should also remember that the Bank of England -- a better operation than the European Central Bank -- will still be in business, as will the British pound sterling. 

My advice to investors is to ride out the short-term market volatility, which may last several months, and look instead at the long-term positives of political and economic freedom. 

It will now be up to Boris Johnson, the likely new British prime minster, and the Tory party, perhaps with bipartisan help, to negotiate a good trade deal and move more aggressively on the pro-growth path of free-market supply-side policies. 

There's already talk about abolishing the 5 percent value added tax on household energy. Good. Taxes need to be reduced across-the-board, heavy regulations need to be rolled back, and government spending needs to be restrained. 

This is Britain's opportunity. It's kind of a Thatcher moment. 

If you look under the hood of the populist revolt in Britain, and the budding revolts in larger Europe and America, the anger is in good part rooted in the lack of economic, job, and wage growth. Worldwide, growth has been missing. All the major countries have been operating under big-government spending, heavy regulations, and the insane central-bank policies of quantitative easing and zero (now negative) interest rates. It hasn't worked. Middle-income wage earners have had enough.

Plus, wartime immigration policies have been too easy. And the major countries, including America, have not destroyed ISIS. So this popular revolt is also aimed at national-security failures.

The American election in November may parallel the British story. Barack Obama, who insulted British voters by campaigning in London against Brexit, is a huge loser. Hillary will suffer from this. Donald Trump will benefit. 

So I'll end where I began: Brexit is good for freedom, growth, and Britain. Ride out short-term financial and economic volatility. And watch for a full populist revolt in America this fall. 



Sent from my iPhone

Europe's far-right saw the Brexit and now wants out of the EU, too

Brexit adds ‘huge unknown’ to Ga. economic outlook

Far-right political movements have been on the rise in Europe for awhile now, and some leaders within those movements are already looking to the United Kingdom's Brexit vote for inspiration.

>> Watch the video from Newsy

Far-right party leaders in both the Dutch Party for Freedom and the French National Front see the United Kingdom's move as a way to gain momentum in their fights to also get their countries to leave the European Union.

It's a sentiment that's growing stronger throughout Europe. Far-right political movements are popping up throughout the continent, and many are using the growing anti-immigrant sentiment to push for a Netherlands-exit or France-exit or a Denmark-exit. The list goes on.

>> RELATED STORY: UK votes in favor of 'Brexit': 5 things to know

And that anti-immigration sentiment is a major driver behind the Brexit, with 77 percent of British citizens saying immigration levels should be reduced.

At a gathering of far-right leaders in Austria earlier this month, the leader of Austria's Freedom Party said: "We are not against Europe as our opponents are always saying. We want another Europe, a better Europe, one of nations, values, culture and identity. The new fascism comes from the left and from radical Islam."

That statement seems to get at the heart of the issue. The Brexit represents, to these parties, a means of taking back sovereignty and national identity that they feel their countries have lost under the European Union.

>> Read more trending stories

While many of these far-right groups are drawing on anti-immigration fears, they've also been drawing in supporters with economic arguments and emotional appeals.

After concerns over immigration, two of the biggest drivers in far-right growth in Europe have been economic and ethical. These right-wing parties tend to experience periods of growth during economic turmoil or when there are perceived loss of values or ways of life.

But maybe it's not over yet. People in the United Kingdom are already pushing back against leaving the European Union. There's a petition with well over 1.5 million signatures calling for another referendum. Since it's passed the 100,000-signature mark, Parliament will at least consider it for debate.

This video includes images from Getty Images and clips from The Wall Street JournalRTBBC and Journeyman Pictures. Music provided courtesy of APM Music.

(End quote)

#Brexit represents, means of taking back sovereignty and national identity their countries have lost under EU. ajc.com/news/news/worl…


Saturday, June 25, 2016

PBS: A Portrait Of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz | Chasing The Sleeper Cell

Consider the source...but a LOT of good research material. 

Fixing The Fbi - A Portrait Of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz | Chasing The Sleeper Cell | FRONTLINE | PBS

photo of gamal abdel-hafiz

On Sept. 11, 2002, exactly one year after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, who says he was then the FBI's only practicing Muslim agent, was on a plane to the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain to interview an American citizen held by local police. The CIA had arranged for 21-year-old Mukhtar al-Bakri's detention, but under U.S. law they were not allowed to interrogate an American citizen.

Initially, Abdel-Hafiz's assignment was to get the young American to confess to having attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Using e-mails provided to him by the Bahrainis that were downloaded from the suspect's account, by midnight on the first day of interviewing al-Bakri, Abdel-Hafiz had a confession. This interrogation would lead to the arrests of five other men from Lackawanna, N.Y., who had traveled with al-Bakri, and who, along with him, were charged with providing "material support and resources" to Al Qaeda by attending a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.

Once he had obtained the confession, FBI headquarters asked Abdel-Hafiz to conduct further questioning about any knowledge al-Bakri might have of a pending terrorist strike. An ominous sounding e-mail sent by al-Bakri while he was traveling in Saudi Arabia that summer had been interpreted by the counterterrorism community back in the U.S. as code for an attack. Through his subsequent interrogation, Abdel-Hafiz was able to determine that al-Bakri was not involved in, nor had any knowledge of any plans by Al Qaeda to attack America either overseas or at home.

The agents who supervised the Lackawanna investigation, including Buffalo, NY Field Office Special Agent in Charge Peter Ahearn, told FRONTLINE that Abdel-Hafiz "broke the case."

But just eight months later, after Agent Abdel-Hafiz had been lauded by his supervisors and the FBI in Buffalo for his work, he was abruptly fired. For the FBI the firing represents another public embarrassment as it tries to re-orient its culture and priorities. It also ended a seven-year career of a special agent who had not only earned commendations and monetary awards, but who possessed the culture and language skills that are in desperate demand in the agency's top priority war on terror. 

Officially, the FBI says Abdel-Hafiz was terminated for failing to disclose on his employment application an insurance lawsuit in which he was involved. Abdel-Hafiz says he was driven out of the FBI after fellow agents -- one of whom he accuses of religious discrimination -- spoke to ABC News and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and accused him of having impeded a terrorism investigation, a charge which he denies. Although the FBI won't comment on the results of its internal investigation, sources within the bureau say its internal investigation did not substantiate the allegations that Abdel-Hafiz jeopardized a terrorism investigation.

The Case Behind the Allegations

Born in Cairo, Egypt, Gamal Abdel-Hafiz spent two years in the Egyptian military after studying to be an Arabic/English interpreter at Al-Azhar University.  He moved to New York in 1984 and obtained U.S. citizenship in 1990.

Abdel-Hafiz was first hired by the FBI in 1994 to translate video and audiotapes introduced as evidence in the trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind cleric indicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He testified extensively at that trial and was encouraged by special agents in the FBI's New York office to join the bureau. In 1996, Abdel-Hafiz says he became the first immigrant Muslim ever to wear an FBI badge. After graduating from the FBI academy, he began work in the Dallas field office's international terrorism squad.

In April 1999, Abdel-Hafiz became involved in an investigation launched by the FBI's Chicago field office code-named Vulgar Betrayal. Special Agent Robert Wright and his partner John Vincent suspected a large-scale international money-laundering ring was channeling funds through Muslim charitable organizations to terrorist organizations, principally Hamas. As part of their investigation, the agents were investigating an Egyptian citizen named Soliman Biheiri, president of a New Jersey Islamic banking firm called BMI, Inc. (Bait ul-Mal, Inc.). On Feb. 25, 1999, the FBI served Biheiri with a federal grand jury subpoena to appear in Chicago.

Coincidentally, one of BMI's accountants was friendly with Agent Abdel-Hafiz. They had once lived in the same Brooklyn, NY building and the man had been listed on the agent's FBI application as a reference. The accountant told Abdel-Hafiz that he was worried that funds from BMI had made their way to Africa and helped fund the bombings of two U.S. embassies. 

When BMI President Biheiri learned of the accountant's connection to Abdel-Hafiz, he asked the man to arrange a meeting so that he could discuss his case with the Muslim FBI agent. Abdel-Hafiz checked in with Agents Wright and Vincent to see if he should take the meeting.

Robert Wright later wrote in a signed affidavit, "SA Abdel-Hafiz asked if I desired him to speak with the president (Soliman Biheiri). I advised him that I desired him to have the meeting, to wear a wire."

Abdel-Hafiz offered to record the meeting openly or to file an official report afterward, but said he was not willing to bring a hidden microphone to the meeting. 

The assistant U.S. attorney assigned to the case, Mark Flessner, pressed Abdel-Hafiz to explain why he refused to wear the wire. "He said his decision was based on religious reasons saying, 'A Muslim doesn't record another Muslim,'" Flessner recalled. Special Agent Wright signed an affidavit on March 21, 2000 swearing that this was the exact quote. Former Special Agent John Vincent concurs.

But Gamal Abdel-Hafiz says the remark can only be understood in the proper context. "I told them that my family's and my safety would be at risk if this happened," he says. "They asked me who would put it at risk. I replied that members and supporters of these groups could easily target me and my family, both here in the United States and in Egypt, because they would consider the consensual monitoring under these circumstances a betrayal. When SA Wright asked me why would they consider it a betrayal, I responded that in their view 'a Muslim wouldn't record another Muslim'. I also added that I have received two death threats in the past from these groups."

"They took the words out of context and created a lie," he says. 

Abdel-Hafiz's fears are supported in letters he wrote at the time. It certainly was no secret that he was a special agent with the FBI: Abdel-Hafiz had publicly represented the bureau on numerous occasions involving outreach to the Muslim community.

His fear, he says, was based on his experiences in the 1995 Sheik Rahman trial. Prosecutors had informed him of a threat to his life. Agent Hafiz says his reaction was fear that his now ex-wife was in danger as well. At the time FBI officials said they didn't have the budget to protect his wife. "I had to threaten to resign in order for them to move her," Abdel-Hafiz recalled. "That's why I didn't trust the FBI to protect me."

Mark Flessner, the former prosecutor involved in the Vulgar Betrayal investigation, says Agent Abdel-Hafiz's decision was suspicious. "It's hard to emphasize how odd it was for an FBI agent to refuse to cooperate with an investigation when he had been approached by a grand jury subject. It was surreal. I've never heard it happening in the history of the FBI."

Flessner says the FBI ultimately decided not to pursue Vulgar Betrayal, and claims Agent Abdel-Hafiz's refusal to wear a wire played a big part. "It was huge at the time. Having Soliman Biheiri approach Agent Abdel-Hafiz was one the biggest breaks we had at the time. His refusal to wear a wire had a significant negative impact on our case." Biheiri was indicted in August 2003 on immigration charges. In the same indictment, the government alleges that BMI made or conducted financial transactions with persons who were or are now "Specially Designated Global Terrorists" by President Bush's Executive Order 13224. 

Danny Defenbaugh, now retired, was Abdel-Hafiz's ultimate superior as the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Field Office He defends Abdel-Hafiz, saying, "A very small number of agents wear wires and they are usually undercover. Agent Abdel-Hafiz, because of his extensive outreach to the Muslim community in Texas and elsewhere on behalf of the FBI was definitely not undercover." 

Defenbaugh says he did not feel the request to have Abdel-Hafiz wear a wire was justified. "I never gave him a direct order to wear a wire, so there's no insubordination or dereliction of duty," he says. "To me, it's sour grapes with Agent Wright. He made a number of very disparaging racial statements about Gamal to staff in my bureau. I told Gamal to file a racial discrimination complaint and that if he didn't, I would."

In fact, on July 6, 1999, Agent Abdel-Hafiz did file a religious discrimination complaint accusing Agent Wright of making derogatory comments to fellow agents. On Sept. 8, 2000, Abdel-Hafiz contacted the FBI's EEO office informing them that he had still not received any communications on the status of his complaint against Wright. In the letter, Abdel-Hafiz writes, "The rumors and the consequences of the actions taken by the Chicago agent have taken its toll on my health and my family. I feel the impact and reap the poison fruits of rumors every day. The Chicago agent attacked my integrity and my trustworthiness and I have full intention and the will to restore both." 

According to Abdel-Hafiz, his EEO case against Agent Wright has been waiting to have a judge in Washington, D.C. assigned to hear it since February 2002, and that even though he is no longer in the FBI, he expects to see his case tried. 

While Agent Vincent, who is no longer with the FBI, never went beyond questioning Agent Abdel-Hafiz's loyalty to the bureau, he says, "It looks suspicious. We're all in danger. If Agent Abdel-Hafiz relished his position as liaison between the Muslim community and the FBI as it seemed and was scared of retribution, he shouldn't be in the FBI. When you're dealing with a Muslim, his first allegiance is to his religion. His second allegiance is to his religion. Later down the line comes his family and his job. I think Gamal was being true to his religion."

FRONTLINE was unable to interview Agent Robert Wright who according to his lawyer David Schippers, has been forbidden by the FBI to talk to the media about this case.

Muslims and the FBI

With an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims living in the U.S., Abdel-Hafiz says the Muslim community is "grossly underrepresented within the FBI."   

Despite the FBI's affirmative action successes over the years, "There are only a handful of Muslims in the FBI," he says. "It creates a great disconnect between the FBI and the Muslim and Arab community in the United States." He says some agents in the FBI's counterterrorism unit have a sensitivity to the Muslim community, but "I wouldn't say all of them." He adds that it is a cultural problem: "Some of the agents feel like they don't have to study these people to work this matter."

The FBI will not comment specifically on the current number of Muslims working for the FBI. According to spokesman Paul Bresson, "The FBI does not maintain a catalog of people's religious persuasions. Our Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements are only to track people by race: White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Asian."

Abdel-Hafiz recalls that while he was training at the FBI academy, then-director Louis Freeh asked to meet with him. "He came on a tour with my class, and I met him and he thanked me for the work that I did for the trial in New York," says Abdel-Hafiz. He remembers that the director thanked him for deciding to become an agent. "He told me that the FBI wouldn't be able to counter terrorism effectively without having more Muslim and Arab agents. He gave the example of the Asian and Latino crimes in the United States. He said that because we have more Asian and Latino Agents we now are able to better combat crimes within these two communities in the United States." 

When he started at the Dallas field office, Abdel-Hafiz recalls an "old timer" saying, "Wow, Abdel-Hafiz is usually a name you see on the target list, not the agent list." 

Abdel-Hafiz also says some Muslims are afraid of being involved with the government because people will shy away from them. When Abdel-Hafiz joined the FBI, he says he was shunned by the Muslim community. "A lot of people just stayed away from me, a lot of people were warned not to talk to me within the community."

Abdel-Hafiz criticizes the FBI for failing to figure out what's needed in order to recruit sources from the Muslim community. He says the community outreach program that the Dallas FBI Field Office developed with the Arab and Muslim community was a good example of how it can work, but that when some people in the New York office wanted to start something similar, there was resistance from the higher-ups. Abdel-Hafiz explains, "In Dallas, we started an open dialogue -- which had never been done -- between the Muslim and Arab community and the Dallas FBI division. We met with imams at mosques, with leading members of the community. It was highly effective in clarifying the misconceptions both sides had of the other." He says, "Some people within the FBI, they felt like, we don't need to understand this culture, we don't need to understand these people, all we need to do is, when they violate the law, we'll put them in jail." 

And Abdel-Hafiz says getting people inside the community to reveal who is sending money to terrorists and who is sympathetic with anti-American causes is difficult. "People don't trust that their identity will always be kept hidden," he says. "There is some history with law enforcement sometimes exposing the identities of informants -- it can cause them a great deal of danger, and security concerns, for them, and for their families".

Gamal Abdel-Hafiz charges that the FBI's internal efforts to educate agents on Muslim and Arabic culture are piecemeal at best. "How often do they hold a training conference, or a training class for agents to understand Arab culture, the Muslim religion, on how to fight fundamentalist groups?" he asks. "It's not often. And when they do, there's a handful of agents who attend, and half of them are reassigned to something else a few months later. It's not one-day training, it should be long-term training, to be taken seriously, and to have people who are committed to understanding the culture. That's not happening today."

Repeated calls to the FBI regarding their Muslim sensitivity training programs were not returned. 

However, it is known that the bureau has taken steps to address one potential factor that may have hindered its relationship with the Muslim community: language skills. Citing "a critical need to hire specialized professional support employees to help the agency continue meeting the challenge of global terrorism and homeland security," the FBI has held job fairs at Headquarters in Washington and has made public hiring appeals to attract agents with Arabic and Middle Eastern language skills. A June 18, 2003, General Accounting Office evaluation shows that there has been some progress: "In the priority languages identified to support the FBI's new priorities, 195 contract linguists and 44 language specialists were hired between October 2002 and March 2003." 

The Allegations Resurface

After the controversial 1999 Chicago case, Special Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz continued to climb the ladder at the FBI, and in October 2000, he was sent to the FBI's Saudi Arabia office on temporary duty. The day he arrived, the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in nearby Yemen, and he quickly became involved in that investigation. On February 2001, Director Louis Freeh appointed Abdel-Hafiz to be the Assistant Legal Attachè in Riyadh with a GS 14 ranking, the second highest level an agent can attain. He was still at the post on Sept. 11, 2002, when he received the urgent call to go to Bahrain to interview the Lackawanna suspect. 

Later that year, however, the Chicago controversy re-emerged and with it other troubles. Special Agents Robert Wright and John Vincent went public about Abdel-Hafiz's behavior during the Vulgar Betrayal case and then allegations surfaced involving a second dispute in which Abdel-Hafiz was accused of having refused to secretly record a fellow Muslim a year earlier. Thirty-four-year FBI veteran Barry Carmody, who worked on counterintelligence in Tampa, Fla. alleged that in 1998, Agent Abdel-Hafiz had refused to record a telephone conversation with Sami Al-Arian, a suspect in an investigation of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad. 

Abdel-Hafiz said he first heard about Agent Carmody's complaint in a media report. He says he never refused to record Al-Arian and had, in fact, tried to contact him on behalf of the bureau. Later, when he encountered the suspect by chance at a conference, he wasn't prepared to be wired. He didn't have the equipment or the approval from his superiors, so he wrote up a 302 official report form instead. 

Sami Al-Arian was indicted by the Justice Department in February 2003 for providing material support to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

When reached by FRONTLINE, Barry Carmody was reluctant to discuss the case -- the trial is scheduled for 2004 in Tampa. "I won't do or say anything to jeopardize that trial," he says. Carmody says he knew Agent Wright from an earlier case, and had told him that "there's a man aboard who shouldn't be there," referring to Abdel-Hafiz. When asked if he filed written complaints against Abdel-Hafiz, Carmody says he had "advised" the FBI of his concerns.

The story surrounding Abdel-Hafiz's alleged refusals to twice record Muslim suspects began to get more and more coverage in the news media. ABC News aired an interview with Agent Wright and former Agent Vincent in December 2002, and the Fox News program "The O'Reilly Factor" devoted significant airtime to the story in early 2003.

Internet chat groups picked up the story and messages began appearing with subject lines like, "Muslim FBI Agent Shows Allegiance to Allah, Not America," and "Muslim FBI Agent Turns Against USA."

The FBI suspended Abdel-Hafiz in February 2003. The bureau's reasons, however, did not involve the public charges by Wright and Vincent. According to an April 2003 report in the Dallas Morning News, Bertie Abdel-Hafiz, Gamal's ex-wife, who was bitter about their 1996 divorce and his subsequent remarriage, told the FBI that in November 1989 her husband had faked a break-in at their Roanoke, Tex. home in order to collect $25,000 in insurance benefits. Bertie Abdel-Hafiz's charges prompted the bureau to initiate a criminal inquiry. 

Abdel-Hafiz says his ex-wife's allegations are "false, baseless and fabricated." "I would never have had the backbone to apply for a job with the FBI if I had anything to do with such a despicable crime," says Abdel-Hafiz.

In the course of its investigation, the FBI learned that Abdel-Hafiz had failed to mention a lawsuit filed against the insurance carrier on his FBI application, as required. The application form clearly stated that those "willfully withholding information or making false statements" on the application would be liable for dismissal from the FBI. 

"In July 2002, I was directed by FBI headquarters to travel to Washington," Abdel-Hafiz says. "There they presented me with papers of criminal inquiry against me."

When asked why he didn't include the lawsuit on his FBI application Abdel-Hafiz says, "The question on the FBI application asks if you have ever been a party in a court action. My understanding of that question was a court action is where you physically go to court. I was not even aware that our attorney filed a lawsuit in court." He says that in the course of his career at the FBI he had been polygraphed twice and asked if he had ever provided false information in order to gain employment at the FBI. Both times he answered "no" and both times he passed. 

But later, as part of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation, in Jan. 22, 2003 Abdel-Hafiz's negative responses to a polygraph test asking whether he instructed his wife to file a false police report of a home burglary were determined to be "indicative of deception." 

Abdel-Hafiz says that against regulations, the polygrapher "probed" him before administering the polygraph. "He asked me if I had studied how to beat the polygraph, brought up veiled accusations and told me I should just come clean with the truth because they had a lot of information on me, and put a huge folder before me. They made me agitated and to feel guilty even before they started the test." 

At a meeting at FBI headquarters in February 2003, Abdel-Hafiz was handed a letter advising him of the FBI's intention to dismiss him. They collected his credentials and badge and suspended his clearance. When he returned to the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, Abdel-Hafiz found that the embassy's security officer had sent a memo to all the guards with his and his wife's pictures, advising them that neither was to be allowed into the embassy. He says, "Then the rumors started that I had been fired for spying on the U.S. government."

Abdel-Hafiz was terminated on May 27, 2003 for "lack of candor" and "gross misconduct" for failure to disclose the insurance lawsuit on his employment application. He says that if the FBI's Inspection Division at headquarters denies his pending appeal that he was wrongly terminated, he will have no choice but to file a lawsuit against the bureau for wrongful dismissal based on discrimination. He argues that he had seen many instances in the FBI where questionable matters were dismissed after agents were given an opportunity to explain them.

Even one of his most ardent detractors, former Special Agent John Vincent agrees, "Firing someone over an insurance claim is a little heavy-handed. There's a lot of leeway on the application. If the FBI wanted to keep Agent Abdel-Hafiz after his ex-wife revealed the insurance case to them, they could have. There must be more to his firing than the insurance issue. If they didn't want to [get] rid of him, they wouldn't have."

"The punishment that my family and I are receiving from the FBI is not a punishment appropriate for failure to disclose a lawsuit on a job application; it is a punishment more suitable for treason," says Abdel-Hafiz.

Update

After months of reexaming the factual findings of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz's case as part of his appeal, a three-person Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) convened by the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations made by his former wife.

On Jan. 30, 2004, Abdel-Hafiz was informed by Assistant FBI Director Steven McCraw that he had won the appeal of his termination and would be reinstated, effective immediately. The decision, acknowledged by a senior FBI official as a "highly unusual reversal," surprised many.

"I was stunned," Abdel-Hafiz says. "I was preparing to resort to the courts. Instead, on their own the bureau decided to reverse their decision. It's so much better for me to have the FBI rectify the situation than a judge. I feel very good. Very happy."

Details on what exactly led the Disciplinary Review Board to reinstate the former counterrorism agent after his very public dismissal are not available. A senior FBI official would say only that because personnel matters are governed by various privacy issues, the agency cannot discuss the circumstances surrounding Abdel-Hafiz's reinstatement.

Abdel-Hafiz, surprisingly unimbittered against the bureau, is just glad it's over. "It's regrettable that it took so long and after all those allegations," he says, reflecting on the last 19 months, "but at least in the end someone saw the truth."

Read FRONTLINE's interview with Gamal Abdel-Hafiz.

Marlena Telvick is an independent journalist based in San Francisco. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, FRONTLINE/World, San Francisco Chronicle and the Center for Investigative Reporting. Additional reporting by James Sandler.



Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

BREAKING: America’s Most Powerful Muslim Group Gets Devastating News

BREAKING: America’s Most Powerful Muslim Group Gets Devastating News

Advertisement - story continues below

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group that has been tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, will have to stand trial in federal court over an alleged fraudulent legal representation scheme, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Wednesday.

According to the American Freedom Law Center, the suit had been dismissed in January of last year. However, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling means that the suit is back on and will be put before a jury.

In a statement, the American Freedom Law Center — which is also a party to the lawsuit — said that hundreds of Muslim and non-Muslim clients were defrauded by Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at a now-defunct CAIR chapter.

Advertisement – story continues below

In spite of being the “Resident Attorney,” Mr. Days was not, well, an attorney. This tends to lead to problems, especially when hundreds of people, mostly Muslims, came to him for legal counsel.

“As alleged, CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all,” the AFLC statement read. “Furthermore, the complaints allege that according to CAIR internal documents, there were hundreds of victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.

“According to court documents, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him. But, like many criminal organizations, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct. Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with its Virginia Chapter to conceal and further the fraud.”

Advertisement – story continues below

“This ruling is a significant victory,” said the AFLC’s Robert Mulse. “Not only does it reinstate our claims against CAIR, but it makes plain that we have an incredibly strong case to present to a jury. In short, CAIR has no way out. It is a fraudulent organization, and we will get a chance to prove that to a jury.”

This isn’t CAIR’s first rodeo when it comes to illegal shenanigans either, as the AFLC pointed out.

“CAIR, a self-described Muslim public interest law firm, was previously named as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the federal criminal trial and conviction of a terrorist funding cell organized around one of the largest Muslim charities, the Holy Land Foundation,” the statement read.

“HLF raised funds for violent jihad on behalf of Hamas, and top CAIR officials were part of the conspiracy. In addition, several of CAIR’s top executives have been convicted of terror-related crimes.”

Advertisement – story continues below

If only we could shut down this fraudulent terror front group for good, then we’d finally get somewhere.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you think this organization should be shut down.



Sent from my iPhone

Why Are Prominent Liberals Closeting the Motivations of the Radical Islamic Murderer Who Targeted Gays?

Why Are Prominent Liberals Closeting the Motivations of the Radical Islamic Murderer Who Targeted Gays?

160620-kirchick-liberal-downplay-tease

On August 15, 2012, a gay-rights volunteer named Floyd Corkins entered the Washington, DC headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC), a socially conservative policy group opposing same-sex marriage, brandishing a gun. According to an affidavit filed in the case, Corkins shouted “words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics” before opening fire at a security guard, who ultimately disarmed him. When Corkins was arrested, police found in his backpack 15 sandwiches from Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain whose Southern Baptist owner had, two months prior, famously announced his opposition to same-sex marriage. Corkins told the FBI that he planned to kill as many Council staffers as possible and smash the sandwiches in their faces.

In the aftermath of the shooting, social conservatives blamed liberals for this act of terrorism, citing Corkins’ admission to authorities that the Southern Poverty Law Center’s designation of FRC as a “hate group” had inspired him. “Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues,” FRC president Tony Perkins said at the time. “But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations ‘hate groups’ because they disagree with their public policy.”

Gay rights groups and their allies balked at these accusations, and rightly so, as nothing they had ever said or done encouraged violence against their political adversaries. There had never been an act of “pro-gay” terrorism, much less are there any organizations preaching death to critics of same-sex marriage. This was a singular act committed by a deranged individual, and while it’s certainly fair to take issue with the labeling of FRC a “hate group,” in no way could doing so be construed as condoning murder.

The same can hardly be said about the ideology of Omar Mateen, the 29-year-old Afghan-American who shot up a gay nightclub in Orlando last weekend, killing 49 people. Like Corkins, Mateen was explicit in his motivations, calling 911 in the midst of his murder spree to swear fealty to ISIS, the Islamist group that hurls gay men from high rooftops. “I pledge my alliance to (ISIS leader) abu bakr al Baghdadi,” he wrote in a Facebook post in the midst of his massacre, preemptively refuting the liberal know-it-alls who, like clockwork, would insist that his reasons for killing dozens of gay people were anything other than what he clearly said they were. “May Allah accept me. The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west.”

LGBT Americans are still reeling from last week’s horror, the deadliest mass shooting in American history and the worst terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. We are understandably outraged that such homophobia exists in our society. Yet events in Orlando have generated a state of mass cognitive dissonance within parts of the gay community, as some do their utmost to downplay or deny altogether the role that Islamist ideology played. Too many of us find it easier to lash out at predictable enemies—the National Rifle Association, evangelical Christians, the Republican Party—anyone and anything other than the actual culprits here: a Muslim fanatic acting on the express theological dictates of a politicized religious doctrine embraced by myriad Islamist terror organizations, political movements and governments.

Emblematic of the denial was this fusillade from Glenn Greenwald, who insisted that Mateen “showed no signs of religious fanaticism.” Zack Ford of the Center for American Progress, meanwhile, asserts that “radical Islam” is not “more violent against LGBT people than the conservative Christian sentiment that permeates the U.S.” Lest one dismiss these preposterous pronouncements as the ignorant musings of bloggers without any real political influence, consider that the Justice Department originally released the transcript of Mateen’s 911 call after expurgating it of all references to Islam or the Islamic State, due to what Attorney General Loretta Lynch described, bizarrely, as a desire to “avoid revictimizing” those who were killed. (After that produced an immediate outcry, the FBI reversed course an hour later and released the full transcript). But as long as we persist in the lie that this atrocity had nothing to do with Islam, we’re going to have a lot more victims—LGBT and otherwise—piling up.

Of course, there are Christian and Jewish anti-gay bigots. But there is no worldwide network of Christians and Jews, spurred on by clerics and suborned by states, indoctrinating their flock in eliminationist homophobia and recruiting individuals to murder homosexuals. The same, sadly, cannot be said about Islam, the official religion of dozens of countries that legally proscribe homosexuality, some by penalty of death. In the wake of the Orlando shooting, many liberals are pointing to the near-simultaneous case of James Wesley Howell, a white man apprehended by police before he could shoot up the Los Angeles pride celebration, as evidence of how homophobia isn’t especially endemic within Islamic cultures. But there were no large-scale Christian ideological movements and religious leaders, never mind a would-be revolutionary state, motivating and backing Howell.

Faced with the fact that most Muslim-majority countries criminalize homosexuality (and that nine of the ten that do so with death are Muslim), liberals perfunctorily cite the case of Uganda, a Christian nation whose government also treats gays brutally. That this small African country is mentioned so often as an example of non-Muslim governmental homophobia attests to its outlier status. Nor is Christianity the state religion of Uganda, as Islam is for so many of the majority-Muslim countries that punish homosexuality. As for the world’s only Jewish State, well, it has a thriving gay culture and its Prime Minister has released a video statement of solidarity with the global LGBT community.

Because they are incapable of distinguishing murderous Islamist homophobia from high school bullying, many gay liberals have lashed out at Republican politicians who’ve offered condolences to the Orlando victims, accusing them of having forfeited any right to express solidarity by dint of their past opposition to same-sex marriage. Bizarrely, some have gone so far as to blame American Christian conservatives, rather than Islamist fanatics, for Mateen’s actions. The New York Times has led the pack campaigning to replace Islam with Christianity as the most threatening font of religious homophobia. A remarkable editorial about the massacre that didn’t once mention the words “Islam” or “Muslim” saw fit to condemn “Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.” Elsewhere, in its “Room for Debate” section, the Times asked four experts to answer the question, “Have Christians Created a Harmful Atmosphere for Gays,” an utter non-sequitur after a Muslim walked into a gay bar and murdered 49 people. The disordering of priorities here is breathtaking. If only LGBT folks could muster the same amount of vitriol towards al-Baghdadi and his deranged followers that they did for Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who earned gay left ire for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On live television, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper grilled Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi over her past legal defense of a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, a measure endorsed by 61% of her constituents. Cooper indignantly asked if she thought there was a “sick irony” in Bondi calling herself “a champion of the gay community” after the attack when she has publicly opposed gays’ right to marry. If there’s a “sick irony” in the response to Orlando, it’s the mindset that prefers to interrogate a Republican elected official about the fulfillment of her constitutional duties rather than the hateful ideology responsible for this crime. If gay rights organizations are not to blame for Floyd Corkins, how is Pam Bondi the slightest bit responsible for Omar Mateen?

The urge to conflate anything less than total adherence to the Western gay rights agenda with the barbaric homophobia all too common in the Muslim world essentially equates valid political views, expressed via democratic processes, with Islamist savagery. Apparently, contesting the right of biological men to use women’s restrooms exists on the same continuum as the ongoing genocide of homosexuals in Syria. By the logic of Cooper and the Times, had Sunday’s massacre occurred in early 2012, before President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, he too would be complicit in Mateen’s crimes as someone who contributed to “the corrosive politics that threaten LGBT Americans,” as our paper of record entitled its clueless editorial. All this blame-shifting conjures memories of a certain reaction to the Kennedy assassination, to this day attributed by many liberals to a climate of right-wing “hate” despite the inconvenient fact that it was perpetrated by a communist.

This desire to bury our heads in the sand and equate Judeo-Christian and Muslim homophobia is explained by two factors: familiarity and fear. To achieve legal equality, gays in the West spent the past five decades contending against a Judeo-Christian majority culture. In 2016, we’re utterly unequipped to address homophobia emanating from Islamic communities which, in America and Europe, constitute religious minorities. Secondly, while gay rights advocates have largely won the legal and culture war in the West, the struggle to legitimize homosexuality in the Islamic world has a much longer way to go, against far more ruthless enemies, and the situation is direr than anything almost any living gay person in the West has ever experienced.

The Moral Majority never had a terrorist wing.

Others have pointed to evidence suggesting Mateen was himself gay to claim his horrific acts had nothing to do with Islamist ideology and everything to do with internalized homophobia. Far from being mutually exclusive, however, these two influences are often mutually reinforcing. Given the prevalence of repressed homosexuality in the Muslim world, National Post columnist Terry Glavin observes that being a “vicious, bloodthirsty homophobe” and “a dangerously self-loathing, deeply closeted gay man” are practically “job-application prerequisites” for the aspiring jihadist. Of course, the vast majority of closeted gay men don’t commit homophobic violence. But in Mateen’s case, it was the appeal to mass-murder offered by so many prominent Islamic political leaders, clerics, and even states (such as Iran, whose condolences to the Orlando victims are the most cynical of crocodile tears, considering its own track record of murdering gays), which distinguishes variants of Islam from the homophobia of other religions. A conflicted Catholic, for instance, would be told by his priest to live in celibacy and respect the “dignity of homosexual persons,” not shoot up a bar full of them. And while it’s certainly true that the Orlando attack fits within a broader trend of increasing hate crime against LGBT people, what distinguishes it from those isolated incidents is that it took direct inspiration from a nascent theocratic state with global appeal.

Many gays rightly complain that some media outlets and conservative politicians are obscuring the specifically homophobic nature of the Orlando tragedy, “closeting” the victims by failing to acknowledge their identities as gay men and women. But denying the Islamist motivations of the perpetrator is an obfuscation no less inaccurate, and one far more dangerous.



Sent from my iPhone