‘Shariah-compliant’ Obama blindly fighting terror?

obama_chairBy President Barack Obama’s refusal to put a finger on the Islamic underpinnings of the Paris jihadist attacks killing a total of 17, experts are rendering the Commander-in-Chief powerless to fight an enemy that he will not identify — exposing his weakness and fear of Islam sensed in both the Western and Muslim world.
As a result, experts are saying that the Obama administration has taken America out of the war Islam has waged to gain world dominance — much like anti-war movement in the United States before World War II that wanted to leave Nazi Germany alone, insisting that Hitler was not a direct enemy of America.

And ex-Central Intelligence Agency Analyst Clare Lopez says that the White House is sitting in a similar positon eight decades later by refusing to identify Islam as a threat to America’s existence as a nation and to the world’s freedom as we know it.

“The United States is essentially hors du combat (French for ‘out of the fight’) in the jihad wars — the wars to stay free of Shariah,” Lopez informed WND. “[Obama and his administration] have withdrawn U.S. military forces, withdrawn U.S. power and influence from critical regions, abandoned former allies — Gadhafi, Mubarak, Israel — in order to favor jihadists, whether al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria.”

Lopez insists that because the Obama administration strictly adheres to messaging that does not depict Islamic jihadists as the terror threat, America is in danger.

“[The administration refuses to identify the enemy as] forces of Islamic jihad and Shariah — Muslim terrorism, Islamic jihad — some combination of these that demonstrates we know that authoritative, mainstream, orthodox Islamic doctrine drives and justifies what Islamic terrorists do.”

Currently serving with the Center for Security Policy as its vice president for research and analysis in Washington, D.C., Lopez argues that America cannot fight “what we will not name,” insisting that those under attack in the “Dar al-Harb” (Arabic for territory of war) are unwilling to admit openly that war is taking place. She also notes that it is inaccurate for Western nations to call Muslim terrorist attacks “radical” or “extreme” because jihad is not a diversion from the norm in the religion of Islam.

“But jihad is the norm in Islam,” Lopez stressed to WND. “History shows that it has been for over 1,300 years, and we must acknowledge and confront that if we wish to preserve Western civilization for our children and children’s children.”

Lopez then defined jihad as Muslims know it from Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler in Arabic) found in the classic Manual of Sacred Islamic Law.

“Jihad resurgent — Islamic Jihad — by definition is ‘warfare against non-Muslims to spread Islam,’” Lopez stressed, noting that because the Cold War, colonialism and 20th-century wars are no longer in Muslims’ way, jihad is in “resurgence.”

She warns that because Western nations have bowed down to self-condemnation and rejected the very founding principles that have made them strong, they are headed on a one-way road to submission to Islam.

“The West appears to the enemy to have lost its appreciation for itself and its own principles and willingness to defend them,” Lopez observed. “We need to prove them wrong on this, as soon as possible.”

‘Shariah compliant’

Joy Brighton, who penned Sharia-ism Is Here: The Battle to Control Women; and Everything Else last year, contends that Obama’s refusal to call the Paris terrorist attacks Islamic provides more proof that he has resigned himself to a “Shariah compliant” speech code.

“President Obama defends free speech vehemently, and the press lauds him for this; however, he refuses to use the words ‘Islam,’ ‘radical Islam,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘jihad’ or ‘Shariah’ when condemning the Shariah-driven shootings in Paris,” Brighton informed WND, pointing out that Shariah is Islamic law — a strict code of morality by which all Muslims must submit concerning every facet of their lives (personal, economic, political, criminal).

Brighton also used a piece of Obama’s September 25, 2012 speech to the United Nations General Assembly to demonstrate that the President is well aligned with pro-Muslim messaging.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Obama declared to the U.N. before remembering to save face by mentioning the religion upon which America was founded. “But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Brighton argues that Obama’s Muslim-leaning policies and rhetoric impede his ability to champion free speech, which he claimed he stood for after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” Brighton argues. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

The author directs Americans to look at the totalitarian movements of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and their suppression of free speech to see where Obama’s policies are leading.

“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” Brighton told WND. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”

Brighton extrapolated further to illustrate the link between Shariah and totalitarianism and how they have fed into the current political movement sweeping through the U.N., Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.

“I don’t condemn Shariah law,” Brighton continued. “If you want to pray five times a day because it’s Shariah law, you are practicing your religion. If you want me to pray five times a day, you are not practicing your religion. You have crossed the line and now what you are doing is unconstitutional, because you’re trying to impose the totalitarian edicts of your political movement on me. ‘Shariah-ism’ uses Shariah law to justify the complete control of others.”

A key distinction was then made that many Americans and especially the Obama administration just don’t get or acknowledge.

“Islam is protected under the First Amendment definitions of free speech and free religion,” Brighton noted. “‘Shariah-ism’ is a totalitarian political movement that is not protected under the First Amendment.”

Refusing for a bruising?

Lopez points to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre to demonstrate that “individual jihad” has already come to America. This is another jihadist attack the Obama administration denied and covered up, despite the fact that the Islamic Maj. Nidal Hasan yelled the name of Allah while spraying 13 U.S. military members with fatal shots. Obama called it “workplace violence.” Hasan was praised for his attack by al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki, of whom he claimed to be a follower.

The Boston Marathon was another Islamic cover-up by the Obama administration, as Lopez says that the living Tsarnaev brother (about to go to trial) — who was not fatally shot by police — is another example of fardayn, an Islamic doctrine that demands Muslims around the world to fight whenever other Muslims or Muslim lands are under attack by “infidels.”

She contends that if Muslims are not in the midst of jihad, they must travel to it or wage it at their present locale.

“Both Al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and the Islamic State’s Dabiq (magazine) have been publishing these themes in recent issues,” Lopez reported. “The response both in terms of fighters from dozens of countries going to Iraq and Syria and in terms of those returning from those battlefields and those Muslims who maybe never went but are inspired by those calls to battle has been simply enormous.”

Lopez argues that even though the West cannot change the Islamic principles by which Muslims live, a comprehensive strategy must be implemented if the world does not want to submit to it one day.

“We must defeat it by using every means at our disposal — a whole of civilization response to a whole of Islamic civilization assault,” Lopez insists. “That means we engage with diplomatic measures, economic/financial responses, intelligence operations, legal means, military offensives, political tactics, in cyberspace and most importantly of all in the information battle space, because that is the primary arena of this fight and the one in which we are not even present at the moment.”

She declares that this new war needs to be fought tactically from a number of angles — led by leaders and militias who define and know the enemy and aren’t afraid to offend Islam and use all the innovative resources at their disposal.

“I think we need to begin fighting smart — not just kinetically and not just massively, but in a sophisticated way, that understands we are in a new era of asymmetric warfare that demands new strategy,” Lopez concludes.

—- Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.

British Courts to Adopt Sharia Law

by Arutz Sheva staff 

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills, reports the Telegraph. 
The “ground-breaking guidance” by The Law Society will allow solicitors able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude non-Muslims altogether.
The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s courts, will also bar children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.
Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from inheritance under Sharia principles, which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, told the Telegraph the guidelines would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
Some lawyers, however, described the instructions as “astonishing”, and Baroness Cox, who leads a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise the matter with ministers.
“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”
The guidelines were “quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales,” reveals the Telegraph.   They suggest “deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as ‘children’ to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.  They recommend that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hand responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.
In recent years, London has been dealing with militant Muslim groups that terrorize parts of the city in an attempt to impose Sharia law on them.  Local media report, on occasion, about confrontations between Islamists and innocent passersby in Muslim areas of the city, where signs have been put up demanding compliance with Sharia law.


Some 150 Israeli Arabic-speaking Christians on Sunday demonstrated outside the European Union mission in Tel Aviv, demanding that the international community stop nitpicking against Israel and start combatting the severe persecution of Christians everywhere else in the Middle East.

“Nations, organizations and international missions are quick to raise an accusing finger against Israel at every opportunity,” said Father Gabriel Nadaf, spiritual father of the Israeli Christian Recruitment Forum, which organized the rally.  Those same nations and organizations “don’t lift a finger against the ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East,” the priest continued.

Father Nadaf went on to explain that from Syria to Egypt to Iraq to the Palestinian Authority, Christians on a daily basis suffer intimidation, harassment, desecration, coercion, torture, rape, physical abuse and murder.   “According to the statistics, a Christian is murdered every five minutes in the Middle East, and the Western world is silent about this,” he lamented.

In messages posted to its Facebook page during the Tel Aviv rally, the Israeli Christian Recruitment Forum insisted that “there is no place but Israel that is safe for Christians in the Middle East!”

While the rally was largely ignored by the mainstream Western media, the Israeli press took great interest, and forum spokesman Shadi Khalloul, a veteran of the IDF, was interviewed by various television and print media outlets.   Khalloul has spoken numerous times with Israel Today regarding the Christian awakening within Israel, and the bonds of brotherhood than bind local Christians to the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

Last month, Israel’s Knesset took the first important step toward recognizing local Christians as an independent minority separate from the Arab Muslims.  Both Nadaf and Khalloul say this is necessary, since local Christians were here before the Arab Muslim conquest around 600 AD.

A growing number of Israelis, including lawmakers and opinion shapers, are likewise waking up to the strong Christian minority in their midst, a minority that has been long neglected, but which is now beginning to boldly take its place alongside the Jews.



Screen Shot 2013-06-10 at 7.52.34 PM

An Urgent Prayer Request for Our Country

Syrian president Bashar el Assad, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah of Lebanon are fully responsible for the death of United States Ambassador Christopher Stevens. President Obama has known that fact since the minute he first learned about the attack.

Stevens, from his Benghazi base, was stockpiling weapons – and resourcing the expert fighters who could use them – to topple Assad’s rule in Syria. On September 11, 2012, Assad powerfully punched back, raiding the Benghazi compound which housed the armament for his own destruction. Though Assad’s reprisal resulted in the loss of four American lives, including Stevens, he forcefully conveyed that he would not be thrown out of the ring.

The Syrian uprising is not a simple “the good guys vs. the bad guys” action-packed conflict. While there is plenty of action, there are no good guys. There are, however, two opponents that have been duking it out for hundreds of years, the Sunnis and the Shiites. In the Sunni corner, we have U.S. President Barack Obama, championed primarily by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt. Their combatants, the Shiites, include Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah – the Lebanese militia controlled by Iran and Syria – along with Shiite sentinel, Russia.

Under President Barack Obama’s direction in the 2011 Arab Spring, the Sunnis had already ousted evil dictators from countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. It appeared to be pro-democracy freedom-fighting at its finest. It wasn’t. The overthrown governments were quickly replaced with Muslim-Brotherhood-aligned, Sunni

Islamic theocracies. And the next country on the list for overthrow was Syria. But unlike the easier targets of Mubarek, Ben Ali, and Gaddafi, Shiite Syrian leader Bashar Assad has the powerful allies of Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.

The Assad regime was fully aware of the shrouded activity in Benghazi, fully aware that Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the man credited for the assassination of Gaddafi, was much more than an ambassador. Though serving in Tripoli as the U.S. Ambassador to transition a tribal Libya to Sunni Islamic rule, Stevens covertly used Benghazi as his base of operation for the next phase of Arab Spring: overthrowing Assad in Syria. From his Benghazi compound, which was not an embassy or a consulate, Stevens stored and supplied weapons for thousands of hired, rebel fighters – many of which were al-Qaeda – headed to Syria.

In August, 2012, team Sunni provoked team Shiite on their home turf in Tehran at the Non-Alignment Movement Summit. After making several diplomatic attempts to end the illicit smuggling of guns and gunners by Obama and the Sunnis into Syria, Iran became insulted when Egyptian President Morsi demanded removal of Syrian President Assad. Following this ultimatum, Morsi arrogantly snubbed the fundamental Shiite beliefs held by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. This was the last straw…

The threatened Shiites forcefully and strategically retaliated by attacking the Benghazi compound. Why? They were seeking to expose the Sunni agenda of President Barack Obama to the American electorate during Obama’s re-election campaign, Iran was confident that this bold retribution would prevent Obama’s second presidential term, and squash the Sunni initiative in Syria.

On the morning of September 11, 2012, Christopher Stevens and his aide, Sean Smith, were meeting at the Benghazi headquarters with Turkish Consul General, Ali Sait Akin, and his associates. Turkey was the staging ground through which the Syria-bound guns and rebels were smuggled. Thirty-four additional Syrian opposition supporters were also in attendance. Shortly after Mr. Akin & Co. made a substantial “financial contribution” and left, the compound was struck by a highly-organized assault by Hezbollah fighters around noon, Libyan time. The eyes of the Middle East, as well as any online observer of Libyan and Middle Eastern press, watched the brazen, broad daylight attack of Benghazi.

Eight hours following the noon onset of the ambush, after learning that all thirty-four captives and slain Americans had been relocated from Benghazi Medical Center because of the potential threat to the hospital, after U.S. drones began circling above the compound- after eight horrific hours- U.S. President Barack Obama issued his first order: “Do whatever it takes to secure American lives…”

If Americans knew what really happened, if their mainstream media uncovered and exposed Obama and his Sunni agenda, Obama would not be the current American president, but a prosecuted American citizen. If his orchestration and support of Arab Spring, including Syria, were revealed, President Obama, who has hidden much more than Benghazi from the American people, would finally be held accountable for his actions. If it became public knowledge that – while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was ignoring the body of her American Ambassador Christopher Stevens, she was ordering that all of Stevens’ classified information in Tripoli be destroyed – then Ms. Clinton’s presidential aspirations might be imprisoned. And the families of Stevens, Smith, Woods, and Doherty would definitively know what difference it does make when the daylight of truth shines on the darkness of night.

The only eye-witnesses, the thirty-four various nationals who participated in Stevens’ meeting on the morning of September 11, 2012, could provide testimony exponentially more illuminating than the scripted smoke of the one-day Congressional performance of Benghazi whistle blowers. However, their interest in exposing the truth, and their whereabouts, is extremely unlikely since they were undoubtedly complicit with the Sunni scheme.

But Benghazi was just the beginning. Assad and his gang continue to hit each country supporting the Syrian uprising:
* On April 15, 2013, two bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon in America.

* Two Iranian-linked terrorists were apprehended just days following the Boston bombing when their plan to derail a Canadian passenger train in Toronto was thwarted.

* A car bomb injured two guards at the French Embassy in Tripoli on April 23, 2013; France financially supported the Syrian opposition.

* British Prime Minister Cameron met with Russian President Putin on May 10, 2013, and with President Obama on May 13, 2013. On May 22, 2013, a British soldier was publically beheaded by terrorists.

* Dozens are killed from a car bomb near the Syrian border in Reyhanli, Turkey on May 11, 2013.

* President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan meet on May 16, 2013 followed by violent riots in Istanbul, where bombings as recent as June 5, 2013 have occurred.

Assad and his Shiite contingency are preparing for a knockout round at the tentatively scheduled Geneva talks, where their repeated strikes bring authority to the table. As tensions between Israel and Syria intensify, as Syria is purported to have received its first shipment of S300 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia, all the key players are keenly conscious that an attack against Syria, the dominant subject of the upcoming talks, is an attack against Russia. The stakes are shockingly high, and there is no indication of either faction, Sunni or Shiite, backing down. Meanwhile, as the controlled and calculated fires of IRS and the Associated Press capture the American attention, keeping them distracted and clueless, a catastrophic wildfire awaits. World War III could readily ignite, and the Benghazi blazes were simply the match.

Copyright © 2013 Global Faith Institute, All rights reserved.

Major Stephen Coughlin: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

by SHEIKYERMAMI on JULY 14, 2012

Some of you might remember that Maj Stephen Coughlin lost his job at the DHS through MB operative Hesham Islam, a mole who managed to smear him as a ‘racist-bigot-Islamophobe’ and some kind of ‘crazy Christian zealot with a pen’.

image004 Here some links to the backstory:  Pentagon Taqiya: Hesham Islam’s Big Lies

OMG! Key Pentagon Counter Jihad Specialist Fired

Pentagon aide Hasham Islam remains a key adviser on Muslim affairs to Mr. England and faced no punishment or even criticism for recently calling Joint Staff counterterrorism analyst Stephen Coughlin a“Christian zealot with a pen” because of his views on the linkage between Islamic law and terrorism.

The more that’s uncovered about Hesham Islam, the Muslim at the Pentagon that got the specialist on Islam, Steve Coughlin,  fired the more terrible questions that are raised.


Andrew Bostom on the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global jihadism. (More Bostom here)   The whole sordid affair is well documented here on Atlas Shrugs.

A message from Vlad Tepes:

It is about an hour and sixteen minutes, and I know that no one has that kind of time. So I am asking you, please, make some coffee, send out for a pizza, whatever you have to do to be able to sit for a while and watch this. It is of critical importance to all peoples and nations who have any illusions of being able to maintain individual liberties, free speech, the right to criticize irrational religious authority, at least islamic authority, and any sense of equality before the law. The OIC based at the UN has made huge strides in its ability to get nations like the USA for example to try and do an end-run around its own 1st amendment rights and create programs to humiliate and shame US citizens who dare speak out against Islamic atrocities and retrograde beliefs.

This really is an important document. This brief was given to key people within the US admin but various Obama appointees made sure that it was no longer available. So some really excellent people in the US of A arranged to have it brought to you directly since it was no longer able to get where it was designed to go.

Please also spread this link as far and wide as you can. This one counts.


An offer you can’t refuse:

Thursday, 12 July 2012

Onerous contract

For Prophet, if not for pleasure, I often dip into the website Khilafah.com, whence came the hadith of the shoelace of fire. Today I stumbled across their Islamic Khilafah, A Manifesto for Change. Aimed at fellow Muslims rather than gullible infidels, this shamelessly advocates a worldwide Islamic Caliphate as the “only solution”. But while refreshingly free from taqiyya, it nevertheless borrows the clichés of politics and management-speak, not least in the title of one of its chapters: An Effective Visionary Executive. Lest the silliness of this title give false reassurance – aren’t the Muslims as absurd, and as harmless, as our own corporate drones? – it pays to remember that words we think we know do not mean the same in Islam.  Here are a few examples:

“Innocent” as in “Muslims are forbidden from killing innocent people” = “Muslim”. Non-Muslims are never innocent.

“Peace” = “submission”, that of the whole world to Islam

“Knowledge” as in the much-quoted “Seek knowledge even as far as China” = religious knowledge. In practice, since only one religion is allowed, this means Koranic knowledge

“Freedom” as in the Arab Spring to which the Manifesto for Change pays tribute = freedom from secular rule and all opposition to Islam. Effectively, free rein – and free reign – to Islam.

Armed with my inner English to Muslim-English dictionary, I read the first paragraph of the Effective Visionary Executive chapter:

The Shari’ah puts extensive executive powers in the hands of the Khaleefah thus empowering him to make radical and far-reaching decisions in the long term interests of the people. There is a contract (bayah) between the people and the Khaleefah, where the people pledge obedience and the Khaleefah pledges to rule by Islam.

A contract? Something has been lost in translation. Bayah means something like “oath of allegiance”. To translate it as contract, with all the latter word’s connotations of common law, fair dealing and Englishness, is incompetent at best, or plain disingenuous.

A contract, as any schoolboy ought to know, requires offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations and consideration. Does the empowered Khaleefah pass these tests?

Well, there is an offer, to be sure, one that the offeree cannot refuse, on pain of death or crippling poll-tax and humiliation. An invitation to threat, perhaps?

Acceptance? Indeed – in the form of inshallah fatalism. What cannot be cured must be endured.

Intention to create legal relations? Certainly if one takes the pledge one had better intend it, as there is no way out other than death.

Consideration? That’s the stumbling block. Islam has no consideration, whether of feelings or of peppercorns.

In conclusion, the Islamic contract fails on the fourth test, and will always be frustrated.

DNC to Hold 2-Hour Islamic Prayers Before Convention

(The Blaze) – The host committee for the Democratic National Convention is raising a number of eyebrows after choosing to proceed with featuring Islamic “Jumah” prayers for two hours on the Friday of its convention, though Democrats earlier denied a Catholic cardinal’s request to say a prayer at the same event.

Watch the promotional video via the Bureau of Muslim Affairs, which claims it is hosting the event “at the Democratic National Convention.”

The first two minutes are rather dry, but around 2:04 a muezzin sings the call to prayer with an American flag background, and the video “picks up” considerably:

Up to 20,000 people are expected to attend the Friday prayers and Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), said the purpose of the event is to hold political parties accountable for the issues faced by Muslim-Americans.

In particular, the event will target the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.

And while Muslim-Americans undeniably face distinct challenges, those who are well-informed on the dangers of radical Islam are expressing their doubts.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, wrote:

The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj [are not] moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims. Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

Their jummah (group) prayer is…about empowering their Islamist and MB sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

Democratic National Convention to Host Islamic Jumah Prayers with Jibril Hough, Siraj Wahhaj

The mosque of Jibril Hough, mentioned by Dr. Jasser, is owned by the North American Islamic Trust, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial as one of the entities “who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Siraj Wahhaj, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC, is often considered a “moderate” because he was the first Muslim to give an invocation in the U.S. Congress, but as Robert Spencer notes, he has a number of troubling ties to dangerous radicals. In the early 1990′s the man reportedly sponsored talks by “the Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and New Jersey mosques, and told his followers that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.”

Wahhaj elaborated, according to bestselling author Brigitte Gabriel, to say: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

He continued: “Take my word. If 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

When an imam like Siraj Wahhaj says “it his duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the US Constitution with the Quran…we need to speak up!” Dr. Jasser reiterated in response, adding that Americans “should be concerned” if this is who the DNC is “consorting with.”

Robert Spencer speculates that the Democrat National Committee is simply so “in thrall to multiculturalism” that “few, if any” are even aware of the radical connections.

“To raise any concerns about such a speaker would be ‘Islamophobic,’ violating every rule of the anti-American, anti-Western ethos that prevails among so many Democrats today,” Spencer writes.

He concluded: “There is about as much chance of that as there is of the Democrats ditching Obama and nominating David Horowitz as their candidate for President of the United States.”

*The “Charlotte in 2012” page was established by the city of Charlotte to help coordinate the DNC. It advertises itself as “the official location for all the latest news, information and ways to get involved.” It is also the official website for the host committee. Additionally, all events listed on the site have to go through an approval process.


HSBC allowing money laundering by Cartels, Islamic Terrorists

HSBC Eecutives testified at a hearing on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Global banking giant HSBC failed to prevent billions of dollars worth of money transfers that Senate investigators believe were linked to drug cartels and terrorist groups, according to a report released Monday.

The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said London-based HSBC (HBC) failed to review thousands of suspicious transactions and properly vet clients over the past decade.

Among other issues, the report notes that in 2007 and 2008, HSBC’s Mexico unit shipped $7 billion in cash to the bank’s U.S. affiliate, a volume of shipments that law enforcement officials said could reach that size “only if they included illegal drug proceeds.”

HSBC Mexico had a number of high-profile clients linked to drug trafficking, the report says, as well as “a huge backlog of accounts marked for closure due to suspicious activity, but whose closures were delayed.”

The report also found that HSBC worked extensively with Saudi Arabia’s Al Rajhi Bank, some owners of which have been linked to terrorism financing, according to a CIA report quoted by the subcommittee. Some evidence suggests Al Rajhi’s “key founder” was “an early financial benefactor of al Qaeda,” the report says.

HSBC’s U.S. affiliate supplied Al Rajhi with nearly $1 billion worth of U.S. banknotes up to 2010, and also worked with two banks in Bangladesh that some evidence links to terrorism financing as well.

“From an oversight perspective, the failure of accountability here is dramatic,” said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the subcommittee.

The Department of Justice is also investigating HSBC over the issue. A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment, citing the ongoing probe.

Wall Street’s latest sucker: Your hometown

The report also said HSBC’s U.S. affiliate handled nearly 25,000 transactions involving Iran between 2001 and 2007, despite U.S. sanctions against the country. Other HSBC affiliates making transfers to the U.S. frequently stripped information from the transactions that linked them to Iran in order to evade scrutiny.

Some HSBC executives in the U.S. were aware of this practice as far back as 2001, the report says. An outside review commissioned by HSBC found nearly $20 billion worth of transactions between 2001 and 2007 that may have been subject to U.S. sanctions.

The report came ahead of a hearing by the Senate subcommittee Tuesday that featured testimony from HSBC executives and government officials from the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Regulators also came in for criticism in the report — in particular, the OCC, HSBC’s primary overseer. The subcommittee said the OCC allowed HSBC’s anti-money laundering deficiencies “to fester for years” before finally taking action in 2010, requiring the bank to improve its internal controls.

“Its record of enforcement at HSBC resembles a lapdog rather than the watchdog that we sorely need,” Sen. Tom Coburn, the subcommittee’s ranking member, said Tuesday.

HSBC said in a statement ahead of the hearing that it “takes compliance with the law, wherever it operates, very seriously.”

“We will acknowledge that, in the past, we have sometimes failed to meet the standards that regulators and customers expect,” HSBC said. “We believe that this case history will provide important lessons for the whole industry in seeking to prevent illicit actors entering the global financial system.”

The bank added that it has beefed up its compliance efforts over the past year, increasing its due diligence requirements for affiliates and devoting more resources to the issue. Speaking at the hearing, HSBC compliance head David Bagley said he planned to step down as part of the reform process, although he will remain at the firm in a different capacity.

The Senate subcommittee noted that HSBC was “fully cooperative” with the investigation, providing documents from around the world beyond what was legally required.

We are being destroyed from within!

Meet Halim Dhanidina: Recently appointed as a California Superior Court Judge by Governor Jerry Brown. This judge is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and is also a Hamas Activist.

He is California’s first Muslim Superior Court Judge. On his resume you will find that he led the Muslim Brotherhood founded Student Group. Thank you governor for placing the fox in the chicken coop.

Governor Brown is an Islamist Collaborator.  He is knowingly providing illegal support to the Muslim Brotherhood in California,  and providing knowingly tacit support to Hamas.

As the President often says, “let me be clear,” Dhanidian record as a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney (14 years) is not a matter of concern or question. His relationship to and support of both the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, both Islamic groups whose declared intent is to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law. It is not an understatement to recognize both as terrorist organizations

Halim Dhanidina would be embraced by this writer and other Americans if he would denounce his ties with and support of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Muslim Students’ Association and any other Islamic groups that seek to bring Sharia law to America.

Do we learn nothing from the past? Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer will be tried next month on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. The insanity of this administration is clear when it insist that Hasan’s horrendous acts be considered as workplace violence, instead of what they are, terrorist acts committed by a person whose religion drives him to take the lives of 13 people and alder the lives of untold thousands.

Halim Dhanidina can be compared to Maj. Nidal Hasan in that he embraces the same faith and supports the radical elements of that faith who seek to overwhelm America from within.

How long will it take Dhanidina, as a sitting judge of a California Superior court, to make judgments that will reflect his sentiments with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas? Have we not learned from Fort Hood?

Governor Brown has recently appointed a Muslim Superior Court Judge with proven ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, and he has done this with the  tacit approval of other California government officials who also have been provided the federal evidence proving they are providing  taxpayer support to federally identified terrorist organizations. Governor Brown and other California politicians have made the same “politically correct” mistakes that this current administration has made.

California government officials show their disregard for not only federal anti terrorist legislation and federally accepted evidence proving this assertion, but these same elected officials continue to provide financial support to the Muslim Students Association (MSA-Hamas) and their da’wa to the detriment of all Americans.
Below is part of the federally accepted evidence proving that these elected officials are knowingly providing public funds which support terrorists.
First is pictured some evidential receipts generated when 80+ experts within our network provided each official by certified and signed receipt the pertinent  federally accepted court evidence from the HLF trial, selected criminal legislation, an explanation of the federal Equal Access Act (must be used to censure the MSA) and the transcripts of several intelligence briefings provided to Congress.
Interesting insights and observations:  Dhanidian was a member of one of the largest Muslim gangs in the U.S. – the Muslim Brotherhood-founded Muslim Students Association.Dhanidina earned his law degree at UCLA, where he served as the co-chair of the Asian Pacific Islander Law Students Association. He earned his bachelor’s degree at Pomona College, where he founded the first Muslim Students’ Association, and currently sits on the Board of Governors of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association Los Angeles.The Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council said it had advocated for Dhanidina’s appointment for more than a year. “Dhanidina’s appointment is an important step in ensuring that California’s leaders accurately reflect the communities present in our great state,” said Aziza Hasan, MPAC’s Southern California Government Relations director, in a press statement.

Will he repudiate the anti-American, anti-Israel MPAC? They lobbied for him for more than a year. He is either a member or supports MPAC. Will he lock up jihadis, honor killers, and those who assault non-believers as quickly as he does gang bangers? More on the this new California judge’s organization the MSA:

The Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada, or MSA (also known as MSA National), was established mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in January 1963 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Nyack College theologian Larry A. Poston writes that “many of the founding members of this agency [MSA] were members of, or had connections to,” the Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-i-Islami. The three most significant founders of MSA were Ahmed Totanji, Jamal Barzinji, and Hisham al Talib, all of whom were MB leaders of Iraqi descent.

The creation of MSA resulted from Saudi-backed efforts to establish Islamic organizations internationally in the 1960s, for the purpose of spreading its Wahhabist ideology across the globe. Stating that its mission is “to serve the best interest of Islam and Muslims in the United States and Canada so as to enable them to practice Islam as a complete way of life,” MSA presents itself as an apolitical, religious and cultural organization.

And remember this video post, Muslim Student Association Pledge of Allegiance: Jihad is my spirit, I will die to establish Islam:

Conservatives for Shariah – Is this Believable?

Jun 18, 2012
by Frank Gaffney, Jr.

“The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online. The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman … caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.”

Steve Chapman

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East has caused many Americans to reflect on that group’s stated ambition to impose worldwide the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine known as shariah. Particularly unsettling is evidence of the group’s goal in America, namely of “destroying Western civilization from within,” as documented in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas in 2008.

But for some prominent conservatives, such facts are not just inconvenient. They – and any who point them out – must be denied, ignored or suppressed.

The latest examples involve a pair of articles published in two of the Right’s most prominent online outlets: Townhall and National Review Online. The former recently distributed an essay by Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman (http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2012/06/10/the_bogus_threat_from_shariah_law/page/2). He was joined on June 13 by Matthew Schmitz in NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302280). Both caricatured the “bogus” threat of “creeping shariah” as a figment of the superheated imagination of its American opponents.

Schmitz went further, wrongly describing shariah as “not one rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural, and ethical understandings.” In fact, shariah as practiced by mainstream Islam is, indeed, one very rigid legal system that has simply been enforced to varying degrees around the Muslim world. Its Brotherhood and other adherents are now aggressively seeking to impose conformity with all of its tenets in Egypt, in Iraq, in Indonesia and, in due course, here. Schmitz even went so far as to describe those determined to resist that last prospect as “anti-Muslim bigots” who are “undermin[ing] our national security.”

Specifically, Messrs. Chapman and Schmitz find fault with those of us supporting state-level legislation aimed at countering stealthy civilization jihad in U.S. courts. It is known as American Law for American Courts (ALAC) – a statute already enacted in four states and under consideration in many more. ALAC prevents foreign laws, including but not limited to shariah, from being used in court to deny constitutional rights. Incredibly, the authors contend that such laws are a threat to religious freedom in this country.

Unfortunately, these pundits are not the only conservatives hostile to admonitions about shariah’s advent in America. As documented in a new Center for Security Policy online curriculum entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), some are actually enabling the Brotherhood’s influence operations. This is done through sponsorship of its operatives, facilitating their access to other conservatives and promotion of their agendas.

Sadly, still other conservatives appear determined to remain willfully blind to such behavior. They have engaged in purges from some of the Right’s conclaves. They have also sought to suppress warnings and assiduously deny that the Brotherhood is “inside the wire” – including, in at least one instance, a formal condemnation for raising the alarm.

The good news is that five leading Members of Congress have recently joined theranks of those determined to expose the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence operations and counter their effect on government policy and the danger they pose to our Constitution and freedoms. They are: Rep. Michele Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus; Rep. Louie Gohmert,Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee; and Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee.

In a joint press release dated June 13, each of these influential legislators made clear their view that the Muslim Brotherhood represents a serious threat here in America. They expressed a determination to establish the nature and extent of the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” inside the United States and to counter it.

To that end, the Members of Congress last week drew on evidence presented in the Center for Security Policy’s course to ask the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Judiciary, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate the extent and impact of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of their agencies. They requested that the IGs provide their findings within ninety days.

In addition, Congressman Frank Wolf, Chairman of the House Appropriations State, Commerce and Justice Subcommittee, is pressing the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the FBI’s stated policy of not dealing in non-investigative contexts with one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s most notorious fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). This effort took on even greater urgency in light of the revelation earlier this month by a White House official that the administration had had “hundreds of meetings” with CAIR.

Conservatives and other Republicans face, in short, a time of choosing. Are they going to ignore the real and present danger posed by shariah and its adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood? Will they therefore be recorded by history as having enabled, whether directly or indirectly, such stealthy threats to our republic and its government society?

Or are prominent conservatives going to help our countrymen of all political stripes understand the challenge we face and lead in developing and executing strategies for defeating it?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

Al Qaeda chief’s wife wants jihad taught to kids

New post on Creeping Sharia

Reiterating what she said in 2009, Wife of AQ’s Zawahiri: Muslim sisters obligated to support jihad. This time via Al Qaeda chief’s wife wants jihad taught to kids. Sanaa, Yemen: The wife of Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri has congratulated Muslim women for the role they have played in the Arab Spring and urged them […]

Read more of this post

Victory in Georgia over Sharia Law

Guy Rogers, executive director of Act! for America reports a very significant victory out of Georga.

Act! for America chapter leader Mike Midas led a successful effort to get the following language included in the Georgia Republican Party platform:

A Resolution opposing the use of Sharia Law in Georgia Courts

WHEREAS, Article VI defines the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Georgia Republican Party supports legislation to prohibit any court, administrative agency or other tribunal from enforcing a Sharia law in Georgia courts if doing so would violate a right guaranteed to Georgia citizens.

This is no small deal. It sends a clear message to Republican elected officials in Georgia that the GOP grassroots want action on sharia law.

You may recall that just a few weeks ago the Kansas legislature overwhelmingly passed its version of “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC).

ACT! for America led that grassroots effort that resulted in over 30,000 phone calls and emails to Kansas state legislators!

In 1978 I attended my first political party state convention. Since then I have worked in dozens of political campaigns, grassroots organizations, and non-profit organizations.

Based on over 30 years of experience, one thing I can say with absolute certainty—the kinds of victories ACT! for America continues to win don’t “just happen.”

Imagine for a moment if Brigitte Gabriel had never launched ACT! for America. There would be no chapters. No grassroots network. No “central nervous system” organizing and distributing information and resources. No national grassroots organization fighting the threat of radical Islam. No lobbyist on Capitol Hill.

And no victories.

Friends, this is a team effort—and in this struggle, there is no substitute for victory. We’re winning these victories because we have a nationwide TEAM that is working together. Some people give their time. Some give their money. But none of us, not even Brigitte, can do this alone.

We recently launched our Spring Pledge Drive with an appeal for $11 monthly gifts and $37 single gifts. This fundraising drive is absolutely critical to our continued successes in pushing back against radical Islam.

We don’t have Saudi Arabia’s petro-dollars to fund what we do. We don’t have a George Soros doling out tens of millions of dollars to us. We are dependent on every contribution, no matter how large or small. These contributions put the “gas” in the ACT! for America “tank.”

Editor’s Note: I have included this post for two reasons. It is important to realize that we are  beginning to make significant progress against attempts to bring Sharia Law to America, and secondly, Act! for America is movement that is worth supporting and becoming involved with.