Leatherneck Blogger

72 Muslims from countries covered by Trump ban convicted of terrorism

leave a comment »

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
February 11, 2017

How many is too many? What number of Americans killed by jihadis is enough for the Left? Is there any limit that will make them say, “All right, now we have to call a halt to this” and restrict immigration? Or is open borders the unalterable goal no matter how many Americans die in jihad massacres?

“Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from ‘Trump 7’ mostly Muslim countries,” by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, February 11, 2017:

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump’s “extreme vetting” executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is “no evidence” those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as “students,” and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20

— Yemen: 19

— Iraq: 19

— Syria: 7

— Iran: 4

— Libya: 2

— Sudan: 1

The Center’s director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan, based her blockbuster report on a 2016 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born.

She received further information on many in the report to conclude that 72 of those convicted of terrorism come from the seven nations target by Trump….

NBC News Spreads Fear, Lies With “Ghost Gun” Fake News

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
February 10, 2017

Once again, “investigative reporter” Jeff Rossen is fear-mongering about the firearms industry, this time with an incredibly dishonest article about so-called “ghost guns,” a hysterical term used to describe firearms made from gun parts kits sold both in retail stores and online.

A legal loophole means that anyone, including criminals, can order a so-called “ghost gun” off the web without a background check – a gun with no serial number that can’t be traced.

The guns are built from kits and arrive in pieces, so under existing law, when they’re shipped, they aren’t guns. When assembled by their buyers, they’re lethal – and legal.

Federal officials like Graham Barlowe, the resident agent in charge of the ATF’s Sacramento office, say the loophole is dangerous.

“People that could not pass a background check,” said Barlowe, “are purchasing these unfinished receiver kits and making firearms because they know that if they went to a gun store, they wouldn’t be able to pass a background check.”

Police say criminals are well aware of the availability of “ghost guns,” and they’ve been used in shootings across the country, from Maryland to California.

Jeff Rossen, NBC News national investigative correspondent, went online to see how easy it would be to order these gun kits. He quickly found dozens of websites offering the product, and ordered a rifle kit, which he had shipped to former ATF agent Rick Vasquez in Virginia.

All the parts needed to assemble a gun were in the box when it arrived. It took Vasquez a couple of hours to assemble the weapon.

“This is now a completed semi-automatic firearm,” said Vasquez, showing it to Rossen. Rossen noted that there was no serial number on the finished product, making it untraceable.

Said Vasquez, “That is correct … You cannot trace this firearm.” He and Rossen then took the weapon to a range and fired it, where in Vasquez’s expert opinion, it “work[ed] great.”

Here’s the thing: former ATF agent Rick Vasquez and Jeff Rossen are boldly and directly lying to the viewers/readers of NBC News. I know this from firsthand experience, as I’ve built semi-automatic firearms from the ground up, including AR-15s and an AKM.

You cannot buy “all the parts” for any firearm online and simply slap the pieces together to build a functioning firearm as they mislead viewers, and this is a very easy claim to debunk.

Every firearm made or imported into the United States has a part of the frame or receiver that the ATF recognizes as the actual firearm that carries the serial number. All the other pieces are just parts. It is these other pieces—barrels, stocks, handguards, sights, triggers, etc—that can be bought online or in retail stores as individual parts or in parts kits, but the receiver must either be purchased as a serialized firearm like a whole gun, or it must be manufactured from an incomplete piece of material into a functional firearm.

This is where Vasquez and NBC News are misleading you.

screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-9-11-21-am

The metal part shown about is an unfinished lower receiver for an AR-15 manufactured by 80% Arms. Let me be very clear when I tell you that you cannot simply assemble this into a firearm by slapping other parts onto it.

Someone purchasing an unfinished lower receiver like this must first use machine tools or a CNC machine like the Ghost Gunner II to drill and mill out the fire control group cavity and selector switch holes. If you do not, you simply have a hunk of metal in the outline of a lower receiver that cannot accept a trigger or a hammer or a selector switch, and cannot possibly be fired. This takes time, specialized tools, and knowledge to complete. I know. I’ve put in the time to mill three of them, one of which had to be scrapped because I did it wrong.

screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-9-38-16-am

Building an AK-style rifle is even more complex than building an AR-15, starting with a piece of sheet metal that must be bent into a shape using specialized tools, and then assembled in a process more akin to blacksmithing than gunsmithing.

The author's completed 1986 Polish AKM. Photo by the author.

I know, because I spent two days in a machine shop with AK master builder Jim Fuller to build the rifle you see above, and that was starting with a finished (and serialized) receiver.

At no point in their “fake news” article does NBC news or the serially dishonest Rossen describe the effort that you must manufacturer the receiver from incomplete pieces of metal to have the core of a firearm. Instead, they all but gloss over that reality, and dishonestly assert that you can buy all the completed parts online and simply assemble a firearm with hardly any effort at all.

If you wonder why the American people no longer trust the mainstream media, you don’t need to look any further than this example. NBC News and Jeff Rossen have once again been dishonest in order to sell fear and sensationalism, creating an imaginary “loophole” in the law that simply doesn’t exist.

New York Times Explains Why It Kept ‘Gosnell’ Off Bestsellers List…Despite Being Top Seller

leave a comment »

By Courtney O’Brien
Townhall
February 2017

Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer is one of the top selling releases on Amazon. Yet, the book, which describes in detail the disturbing story of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, apparently wasn’t worthy of The New York Times bestsellers list. While the Times had the book at No. 13 on the “Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction” list, it failed to put it in its rightful place as the 4th bestselling nonfiction title.

You better believe the authors noticed the slight. In a statement to their supporters, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney surmised that the Times had a clear agenda to uphold.

“It’s clear that this is a blatant fake list in a fake news newspaper,” McElhinney said. “It’s not only an insult to the people who have bought this book, but an insult to the readers of the New York Times who buy the newspaper and think they are getting the truth about book sales across America but instead get false facts disguised as a neutral list.”

Newsbusters investigated why the top selling book could possibly be excluded from the newspaper’s prestigious list. The editors admitted that sales aren’t the only factor in their decision making.

The Times’s best-seller lists are based on a detailed analysis of book sales from a wide range of retailers who provide us with specific and confidential context of their sales each week. These standards are applied consistently, across the board in order to provide Times readers our best assessment of what books are the most broadly popular at that time.

Huh? The No. 1 hot new release on Amazon wasn’t considered “broadly popular?”

In her immediate reaction, McElhinney mused that the Times had been concerned about putting a book on its bestseller list that seemed to cast a negative light on abortion.

Their concerns were unwarranted. As the authors explained to me and Christine in an interview last month, Gosnell is not a “pro-life book” – it is a book of journalism.

“We need to teach the New York Times and other fake news outlets a lesson,” McAleer said. “We need to push the sales to such a level that they are forced to acknowledge that the book exists and that the Gosnell story exists. Im devastated by this exclusion after all our hard work. If you tell a story the establishment mainstream media don’t like you have to work ten times harder and even then you can be excluded – the system really is rigged.”

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

February 18, 2017 at 07:00

Would Beyoncé’s Babies Still Be Babies If She Chose Abortion?

leave a comment »

By Nicole Russell
The Federalist
February 2, 2017

The Internet was abuzz Wednesday when Beyoncé announced, via Instagram, she is pregnant with twins. Wearing a bra, underwear, and veil, with a garland of roses as a backdrop, the singer is shown cradling her blossoming belly. At nearly nine million, the photo has broken Instagram’s record for most likes.

As a mother of four who immensely enjoyed each of my pregnancies, I join in congratulating Beyoncé on her wonderful news. Babies are a gift. But I’ve noticed a strange dichotomy among Hollywood stars: While many are pro-choice, and showed up at the Women’s March on Washington a couple weeks ago to voice their opinion as such, others are ecstatic to announce their growing families.

Hollywood might think this is the beauty of America, that every woman has a “choice.” But it’s actually a great illustration of how the abortion industry is hypocritical and logically inconsistent.

Stars Loving Babies

Beyonce’s not the only one proudly sporting her baby bump (as well she should be). A host of gorgeous stars are due this year. From Zooey Deschanel and Kalya Rae Reid to Natalie Portman and Amanda Seyfried, dozens have posted on Instagram, Twitter, or spoken publicly about how excited they are to welcome a baby into the world soon with their partners.

While a few Hollywood stars like Patricia Heaton are openly pro-life, others seem to subconsciously resonate with a pro-life message. When singer Ciara announced on Instagram she was pregnant, she called it “one of the greatest gifts of all that God could give.” Tori Spelling is pregnant this year with her fifth child, saying she “always wanted a big family,” and when Lauren Conrad announced her pregnancy on Instagram she posted an actual photo of her ultrasound picture, showing a clear outline of a tiny baby.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BOukSkwgKAy/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=7

While I applaud and absolutely share in these women’s enthusiasm, it’s hard not to overlook the irony of these announcements. These men and women work in an industry that is rabidly pro-choice, not just promoting a woman’s choice in the matter, but also the myth that babies are fetuses until birth. While many people work in industries where the company’s view might conflict with their personal views, the abortion industry and especially Planned Parenthood collaborates closely with Hollywood stars, such as Amy Schumer and Amy Poehler, to promote their cause.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BP-UnhKl2WO/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=7 

But that’s the point of “choice,” right?

This is not to say that every pregnant woman in Hollywood is pro-choice, but it’s a safe bet most would echo Planned Parenthood’s mantra “Her body, her choice” while cradling their burgeoning bellies. This is how most of Hollywood and liberals in general react to one star supporting abortion at the Women’s March on Washington and another beaming over her pregnant belly for all to see: Yay choice! Yay women’s rights! ‘Murica!

It’s a microcosm, really, of what the rest of the world does, but its size and glaring dichotomies make the logical fallacies that much more obvious. If Lauren Conrad shares an ultrasound picture for all the world to share in her joy of expecting a tiny baby, isn’t the baby actually not a fetus but a baby—always? Not just because she’s excited to be a mom? Or the fact that Beyoncé doesn’t hesitate to announce the joy of being pregnant with not one but two little bundles—isn’t she acknowledging, in not so many words, when life begins?
Yet Planned Parenthood gets chummy with Hollywood women like Lena Dunham—this video of her praising PP and its founder Margaret Sanger went viral recently—using the glitz and glamor of stardom as a megaphone to shout to the average American woman that unborn babies are just fetuses and abortion is just a process. Together with the rest of liberal America they perpetuate the myth among average women that it’s not a baby unless you want it to be. If you want it to be a baby, go ahead and congratulate Beyoncé. If not, join Lena, Amy, and Scarlett, and support Planned Parenthood. This is not only false advertising but unscientific.

The argument about when life begins is the anchor from which liberals hold their position about abortion. It’s the only bit of daylight between Conrad’s ultrasound and Johansson’s speech at the Women’s March on Washington praising Planned Parenthood. Either mothers are pregnant with babies or fetuses. They can’t be one or the other depending on perspective, mother, or enthusiasm.

For example, according to pop culture tabloids, Conrad and Beyoncé are likely in their second trimesters. If they lived in France, they wouldn’t be able to have a legal abortion, since there it’s limited to the first trimester (they could in England up to 24 weeks gestation, which is more than halfway through a pregnancy). If, in a few weeks, they happened to go into labor early, the babies could very well survive outside their mother’s wombs with medical intervention. Yet American women can have an abortion legally in some states until their third trimesters, well past the point a baby could survive outside mom’s womb with medical help. Barbaric, no?

The abortion industry knows this. But they can’t stop the dual narrative because deep down they know: If a woman wants to be a mom, she will rejoice in that pregnancy and call the person living inside her belly a baby.

Look West, Young Women

Hollywood’s dichotomous struggles with life aren’t going to change any sooner than our nation’s decidedly torn views on abortion (According to Gallup, the country is nearly split down the middle.) But that doesn’t mean we can’t point out the positivity about pregnancies to our friends, mothers, and daughters, who might face this choice in their lifetime.

The excited reaction to Beyoncé’s pregnancy announcement shows the whole of Hollywood isn’t debased about babies, but mix that with Madonna’s speech at the Women’s March on Washington and the two events send a distinctly mixed message: You decide if your baby is a baby. You decide if your baby is wanted. You decide if you’re happy with being pregnant.

But Beyoncé didn’t decide her twins were babies any more than she decided to be born with artistic abilities. That’s a simple, obvious message anyone can grasp.

While Planned Parenthood aligns with Schumer to peddle choice and Beyoncé blows up the Internet announcing she’s having twins, liberal ideology insists we accept a contradiction: that an unborn being is a child or not, entirely depending on a woman’s circumstance. The pro-life position has always been the more consistent position, and this might be the only time I’d tell young women to look to Hollywood for proof.

Nicole Russell is a senior contributor to The Federalist. She lives in northern Virginia with her husband and four kids. Follow her on Twitter, @nmrussell2.

 

Written by Leatherneck Blogger

February 17, 2017 at 07:00

5 Things You Need to Know About Linda Sarsour

with one comment

The Clarion Project
February 2, 2017

Linda Sarsour is a controversial activist who co-organized the recent Women’s March protesting the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump. Now she, along with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American Islamic Relations, is suing the president over his recent executive order temporarily blocking travel into the U.S. for nationals of seven Middle-Eastern countries.

Here are five facts you need to know about her.

She Attacked Clarion’s Feminist Movie Honor Diaries

Linda Sarsour was one of those behind the campaign against Clarion Project’s interfaith award-winning movie Honor Diaries, which showcases the struggle of nine women’s-rights activists, some Muslim some not, as they campaign against honor violence and female genital mutilation.

Sarsour spread #DishonorDiaries on Twitter to tarnish the film, saying it was illegitimate because of who made the film.

We don’t need Islamophobes to talk to us and tell the stories of oppressed and abused Muslim women,” she told Al-Jazeera America. “It’s just disingenuous.”

Watch the trailer for Honor Diaries:

She Implied Sharia Governance Would Be Fine

She tweeted that sharia’s prohibition on interest in banking is an indication of how positive a sharia-run society would be, leaving out the hudud punishments and other problematic elements.

She Whitewashed Saudi Arabia’s Ban On Women Driving

In 2014 she tweeted her confusion that Saudi Arabia was being criticized for its driving ban when it has 10 weeks of paid maternity leave for women.

She Said Ayaan Hirsi Ali Doesn’t Deserve to Be a Woman

She tweeted that both Honor Diaries Executive Producer Ayaan Hirsi Ali and ACT For America founder Brigitte Gabriel don’t deserve to be women.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali hit back in an interview with Fox News.

She posed for pictures with a man convicted of working for Hamas

At a Muslim American Society joint event with the Islamic Circle of North America, Sarsour posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour, an alleged former Hamas operative who was jailed by Israel in the 1990s on charges of working with Hamas.

salah-sarsour-500x297

Concealed Carrier Kills Armed Robber In New Orleans

with one comment

By Boob Owens
Bearing Arms
February 11, 2017

A man attempting to rob a T-Mobile store in New Orleans last night didn’t count on an armed customer drawing his concealed weapon and putting him down hard.

A customer foiled an apparent armed robbery at the T-Mobile store on St. Andrew Street, police said, shooting and killing the armed robber.

Right around the time police were investigating the shooting of six people in Central City, officers in the same NOPD district were called to a T-Mobile store in the 500 block of St. Andrew Street.

Chief Michael Harrison said a suspect was attempting to rob the store, when a customer shot and killed the man. Both weapons were retrieved, and the customer is being questioned by police, Harrison said.

Satanic Temple Celebrates Valentine’s Day With “Hugs and Kisses for Satan” Fundraiser for Abortion

with one comment

By Erin Parfet
LifeNews.com
February 10, 2017

A Satanic Temple, a liberal anti-Christian group that self-proclaims to represent “compassion and empathy,” is offering hugs and kisses in exchange for donations that fund two pro-abortion lawsuits filed against the State of Missouri, the International Business Times reports.

“You might want to present a person you approach with a Satanic Valentine’s card as means to courteously explain the event,” the Satanist group told the International Business Times about its efforts to recruit participants.

Pledges are granted based on the number of hugs and kisses received by participants on Valentine’s Day, the Libertarian Republic reported. In the example cited in the article, a participant receiving 20 hugs or kisses at a rate of $1 per hug or kiss pledged by the sponsor would generate $20 in donations for the pro-abortion lawsuits. Prizes will be distributed to those receiving the most hugs, kisses and pro-abortion donation money, the group said.

The Satanic Temple, a Salem, Massachusetts-based organization led by Lucien Greaves, is suing to overturn a Missouri law that requires a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion where a woman can view an ultrasound of her unborn baby and hear the fetal heartbeat; the Satanist group also is challenging a law ensuring women receiving literature that states life begins at conception, the report continues.

“They violate our belief in the inviolability of one’s body,” said the Satanic Temple.

“As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple…my sincerely held religious beliefs are…I, and I alone, decide whether my inviolable body remains pregnant,” the group told the Washington Post.

The lawsuit is based on a woman known as “Mary Doe,” a Satanist whose attorneys believed these provisions in the state law were “designed to dissuade her from the procedure,” Al Jazeera America reported. Both state and federal lawsuits on religious grounds are pending.

Mary Doe describes the Satanic Temple as “an association of politically aware Satanists, secularists, and advocates for individual liberty” that “makes decisions regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others.” Furthermore, “she alone decides whether to remove human tissue from her body,” the Washington Times reports.

However, for a group that cites scientific understanding of the world, there is plenty of science to uphold life as beginning at conception, as cited by numerous scientific and medical sources:

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Your baby starts out as a fertilized egg… For the first six weeks, the baby is called an embryo.” Prenatal Care, US Department Of Health And Human Services, Maternal and Child Health Division, 1990

“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

Furthermore, Canadian Physicians for Life summarized a collection of biomedical and scientific research articles, with scientific sources cited at the end of the piece, to come to the following conclusions regarding fetal pain: “At 16 weeks post-fertilization, in response to painful stimuli, the unborn child will also increase cortisol and B-endorphin production and increase their respiratory rate.

“Thus, there are clear behavioural and endocrine responses to stress very early in fetal development,” the Canadian Physicians for Life continued. “… Thus, it is pertinent that one understands the timing of the development of connections from the peripheral sensory receptors to the cortex. From very early in development, foetuses already appear to have nociceptors throughout most of their body. Starting at 5 weeks post-fertilization, nociceptors appear periorally, and by 12 weeks, are present throughout the body.”

A baby’s brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to form as early as five weeks after conception, the latest science understood by the Mayo Clinic states.

There is no religious argument presented. Simply biomedical and scientific evidence upholding the beginning of life at conception, and the neurophysiological development of a human being fully capable of feeling pain prenatally, based on the best scientific understanding of embryology as it stands today.

Trump administration releases list of terror suspect cases from travel ban countries

leave a comment »

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
February 10, 2017

Leftists are not troubled by facts. Nevertheless, the facts are there. The appeals court ruling was nakedly political; it didn’t even bother to cite, much less attempt to explain away, the statute empowering the President to place restrictions on immigration.

“Trump Admin Releases List of Terrorist Suspect Cases From Travel Ban Countries,” by Cameron Cawthorne, Washington Free Beacon, February 9, 2017:

President Trump responded to his critics who claim his travel ban goes too far by releasing a list of terror cases that involve suspects who traveled to the U.S. from the seven countries listed in his executive order.

Trump signed an executive order two weeks ago imposing a 90-day travel ban on the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, outraging many Americans. A federal judge blocked the order, arguing that there hadn’t been any terrorist-related arrests from the seven target countries since September 11, 2001, Washington Free Beacon reported.

Judge James Robart, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington state, said in court Friday that no foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen–have been arrested in the U.S. for terrorist activity.

Robart asked Justice Department attorney Michelle Bennett to tell him how many such arrests have been made. When the government lawyer did not have an answer, Robart said the number is zero.

Robart’s claim is false. The White House circulated a list providing 24 examples of refugees and other immigrants from Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Libya who have been arrested on terror-related charges, Fox News reported.

The White House document itself names 10 individuals from Somalia, six from Iraq, one from Yemen, two from Sudan, two from Iran, two from Libya and one from Syria. The cases span the last eight years, and include most recently a case in June in which two Somali refugees were jailed for conspiring to commit murder in Syria on behalf of ISIS.

It also includes a case from March of last year, where a Yemeni native who became a U.S. citizen was sentenced to 22 years in prison for attempting to provide “material support” to ISIS and planning to shoot and kill members of the U.S. military who had returned from Iraq.

The dossier also sheds light on a case in January 2016 involving a Palestinian, born in Iraq, who came to the U.S. as a refugee and allegedly tried to provide materials to terror groups abroad. The dossier cited multiple media reports that the suspect told his wife, “I want to blow myself up … I am against America.”…

Yes, It’s Legal To Designate The Muslim Brotherhood A Terrorist Organization

with one comment

By
The Federalist
February 10, 2017

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood would be a serious impediment to continuing the bipartisan, but failed, policy of cooperating with Islamists in the Middle East.
As President Trump moves towards designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization, we’re hearing all the reasons he can’t or shouldn’t.

The latest tactic has been to assert that designating the Muslim Brotherhood is not possible, or simply illegal, because it does not conform with the letter of the law regar

ding Foreign Terrorist Designations. This is a specious claim, but made with such confidence that it requires a serious examination to debunk.

Yes, the Muslim Brotherhood Exists

One of the chief arguments that designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization would be illegal is there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood. A textbook example of this claim comes from Benjamin Wittes in the Lawfare Blog:

The short answer is that the Brotherhood is not in a meaningful sense a single organization at all; elements of it can be designated and have been designated, and other elements certainly cannot be. As a whole, it is simply too diffuse and diverse to characterize. And it certainly cannot be said as a whole to engage in terrorism that threatens the United States.

While Wittes admits that there does exist a single body known as the International Muslim Brotherhood, he claims “it is difficult to assess the strength of the ties between the international organization and the various Brotherhood chapters, because of the organization’s penchant for secrecy.”

Indeed, the International Muslim Brotherhood is so secretive that it published its bylaws on the Muslim Brotherhood’s website in 2010. These bylaws make clear that the leadership of national branches answer to the overall Muslim Brotherhood leadership. The bylaws state that branch “secretary generals must abide by the higher leadership’s decisions,” are obliged to “get approval of the general guidance office prior to making any important political decision,” must file “annual reports” with the higher leadership, and must “pay an annual subscription” to the higher leadership.

The claimed ability to approve policy, enforce common decisions, and closely scrutinize activity, and the transfer of funds from lower members to higher leadership would all seemingly meet the requirement of a single organization. No doubt plenty of district attorneys would long for such an overt statement of hierarchy and cooperation when attempting a racketeering prosecution.

But the argument about the level of the Brotherhood’s cohesiveness is ultimately a distraction. The law governing Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation defines a terrorist organization by citing a separate section of law , 8 U.S. Code § 1182, which reads in part:

(vi) “Terrorist organization” defined As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization—

(I) designated under section 1189 of this title;

(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or

(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).

The key section here is (III), “a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).” So while Wittes cites pro-Islamist experts to argue that the International Muslim Brotherhood lacks demonstrable cohesion or the ability to enforce common policy, ultimately the total level of organization is irrelevant. The only question is whether the organization has engaged, or possesses a subgroup that engaged, in terrorist activities. Here the answer is an obvious yes, given that Hamas is a self-acknowledged subgroup of the International Muslim Brotherhood, and is already a legally designated FTO.

Yes, Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates Engage in Terrorism

Even aside from the role of Hamas as a subgroup of the International Muslim Brotherhood, there is strong evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood engages in “the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).” Those read as follows:

(iv) “Engage in terrorist activity” defined As used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization—

(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;

(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;

(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;

(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for—

(aa) a terrorist activity;

(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization…

The key factor here is (IV), “to solicit funds or other things of value” for “a terrorist organization.” The U.S. government has already successfully argued in court that the Muslim Brotherhood founded Hamas, and that the Muslim Brotherhood created and maintained an international infrastructure to finance and support the Hamas subgroup. Specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood established a “Palestine Section,” which in turn oversaw “Palestine Committees” in each of the Muslim Brotherhood’s branches, in order to raise funds and engage in propaganda (obviously a thing of value) on behalf of Hamas.

 Muslim Brotherhood apologists know that designating the Muslim Brotherhood would be a serious impediment to continuing the bipartisan, but failed, policy of cooperating with Islamists in the Middle East.

Whether U.S. engagement with Islamists is useful is a policy question that can be debated, but it should be done openly. The recent invocation of claims it is “illegal” to designate the Muslim Brotherhood is an attempt to hide behind dubious legal claims, in order to avoid a policy argument on the merits. Such tactics perhaps suggest how weak the apologists’ policy position is.

Kyle Shideler is the director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle has worked for several organizations involved with Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications and briefed legislative aides, intelligence, and law enforcement officials and the general public on national security issues.

Quit Lying to Women About How to Survive Violent Attacks…Please.

leave a comment »

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
February 8, 2017

Demonstrations on violent attacks on women are sterilized and do not represent the realities of what actually happens. Instructors are flat out lying to the person you love most and giving them a false sense of confidence that may lead to an unfavorable outcome. Why is this happening?? Why are there women’s courses that make training more comfortable for them?? Can we stop this please?!

screen-shot-2017-02-08-at-12-14-46-pm

Ryan and Amber do a really good job of pointing out the deep flaws inherent in so many of the unarmed “self-defense training” classes I keep seeing aimed towards women.

The “attackers” in these classes invariably act slowly and deliberately and given first-time students a very unrealistic image of what a violent attack from a predator really looks like. Poorly trained after being presented with an unrealistic model of what a violent encounter will look like, it is highly probable that the person who goes through this kind of unrealistic training is going to be able to react successfully to a real attack where the aggressor is going full speed, using his or her full power, and is using multiple strikes from multiple angles to overwhelm and dominate the targeted victim.

Yes, I do understand just as well as Ryan and Amber do that there needs to be some slower-speed drills and examples shown for new self-defense to be able to understand the physical nature of an attack. The problem is that the vast majority of short-term seminars is that they offer only this kind of scenario in classes. The pace never picks up, and students never get a realistic look at the way a real violent attack happens, much less how to counter it effectively. This leaves students potentially feeling they are equipped to deal with a legitimate attack, when they are nowhere close to being ready to deal with a hyper-violent criminal predator looking to overwhelm the targeted victim with speed, power, and multiple punches and kicks.

If we really care about the ladies in our lives, we’re doing them a great disservice by sending them to this seminars and workshops where that are only setting them up to fail.

 

%d bloggers like this: