Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Preferred Communities

Oakland Muslim: “I’m going to place a bomb in a gay club,” also wanted to murder 10,000 people

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 31, 2017

We tried to sound a warning on this, and were vilified for doing so. When AFDI ran ads highlighting the mistreatment of gays in Islamic law, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which is its city council, issued a resolution condemning not that mistreatment, but our ads. Gay advocates such as Theresa Sparks and Chris Stedman attacked us for daring to call attention to the institutionalized mistreatment of gays under Islamic law. Their gay advocacy doesn’t extend to standing up to Sharia oppression of gays, even though that oppression is far more virulent and violent than anything from “right-wing extremists” in the U.S. And you can’t blame them: given the Leftist/jihadist alliance, it’s clear that if they spoke out against Sharia mistreatment of gays, they would no longer be invited to the best parties, and might even be branded as “right-wing.”

More on this story. “I-TEAM EXCLUSIVE: Oakland man allegedly planned Bay Area terror attacks,” by Dan Noyes, KGO, July 24, 2017:

WEST OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) — Investigators say a West Oakland man told an undercover agent he wanted to “redefine terror” and kill 10,000 people in support of the terror group ISIS.

The ABC7 I-Team obtained a recording of Amer Alhaggagi’s detention hearing from December. Here are some of the most explosive accusations.

In an exclusive interview with the head of the San Francisco FBI and from federal court recordings obtained by the ABC7 I-Team, new details are emerging in the government’s terror case against Amer Sinan Alhaggagi.

Alhaggagi was arrested back in November 2016 on aggravated identity theft charges. But when he went to court a month later, his defense attorney asked for his release on bond in an unusual hearing closed to the public for a case that was ordered sealed by a federal judge. We obtained an audio recording of that detention hearing.

His defense attorney told the court the defendant was in many ways a typical American youth who might need counseling. He asked the judge to fashion a bond arrangement that would have Alhaggagi freed with electronic monitoring.

But a federal prosecutor revealed details of another case, one Alhaggagi had not been charged in, and convinced Federal Magistrate Kandis Westmore to order the defendant be held in custody.

RELATED: Oakland man indicted on terrorism charges after allegedly promoting ISIS rhetoric online

On Monday, FBI Special Agent in Charge John Bennett emphatically reiterated the government’s position in an exclusive interview, telling ABC7’s Dan Noyes, “This was a case of grave importance for us. This was a clear and present danger for public safety here in the Bay Area.”

The I-Team was first tipped off to the case almost a year ago, but the FBI asked us to delay reporting the story on behalf of national security and a fear the suspect would flee.

While most of the media reports since Alhaggagi’s indictment last week focused on his use of social media to promote ISIS, the FBI’s top guy in the Bay Area says it went well beyond that.

FBI agents began communicating with Alhaggagi online more than four months before he was arrested. The prosecutor told the court the first clue to his identify was when, “He said he wanted to plan to start a huge fire in an area near where he lived and he specifically mentioned the Berkeley Hills as a potential target.”

The 22-year-old was born in Lodi and grew up in the East Bay. He attended Berkeley High and was living [sic] an apartment complex in West Oakland at the time of his arrest. Prosecutors say by the time he was arrested, he had been communicating with a confidential source working for the FBI and they allege Alhaggagi [sic] spent months planning attacks and discussing his willingness to kill and be killed for ISIS….

In that December 2016 court hearing, prosecutors revealed Alhaggagi talked about plans to sell cocaine laced with rat poison in Bay Area nightclubs. The undercover agent says he was looking for information on the exact mixture of strychnine and cocaine to use in that scheme. He showed the agent an ISIS bomb-making manual he downloaded on a computer and he sent the agent photographs of guns he said he obtained.

“He then told confidential source number one, ‘I live close to San Francisco, that’s like the gay capital of the world. I’m going to handle them right, LOL,’ meaning laughing out loud. ‘I’m going to place a bomb in a gay club, Wallah or by God, I’m going to tear up the city.’ And I quote, ‘The whole Bay Area is going to be up in flames,’” the federal prosecutor explained to Judge Westmore in his argument to have Alhaggagi detained.

He also told the court how Alhaggagi took the undercover agent, posing as an ISIS supporter from Salt Lake City, on a tour of the Bay Area including the Cal Berkeley campus. The feds say he wanted to plant backpack bombs at the dorms and went along with the undercover agent to set up a storage unit where he would store supplies for his plans.

The FBI’s investigators say one sign of how serious he was about his support for ISIS came when he showed up at a meeting with the undercover agent at the storage unit with three backpacks to be used to carry bombs.

Alhaggagi’s lawyer released a statement Friday saying, “Amer is not anti-American and does not support ISIS or any other terrorist organization. He is completely nonviolent and he took no actions to harm anyone.”

She described him as “a very young and naive man,” and said, “it appears he allowed himself to be drawn into conversations that he should have been far more suspicious of.”

The federal prosecutor says he tried to get a job with the Oakland Police Department.

He told the court, “If he was unable to make bombs himself, then his intent was to get employed by a police department and steal weapons from the police department once employed there and in that context, he said and I quote, ‘I’m going to redefine terror.’”…

That tip Noyes got last year was a law enforcement bulletin cautioning police the suspect could be armed and wearing an explosive belt. Prosecutors say Alhaggagi boasted about his plans saying he was confident he could kill 500 people but his real goal was to kill 10,000.

His family released a statement describing him as peaceful and kind. They insist he is not and never has been radicalized and they said he grew up in this country and loves it here.

Google’s new “hate speech” algorithm is anti-Semitic and pro-jihad

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 30, 2017

As I revealed here several days ago, Google has bowed to Muslim pressure and changed its search results to conceal criticism of Islam and jihad. Search results that Muslim leaders (whose motives Google apparently never questions or investigates) have made sure that sites such as Jihad Watch are buried in search results, with numerous site dissimulating about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat appearing above it.

And now this, which comes as no surprise given the fact that those who are manipulating Google are Muslims, and anti-Semitism is deeply embedded with the Qur’an.

Find out the full extent of what is happening in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“Google’s New Hate Speech Algorithm Has a Problem With Jews,” by Liel Leibovitz, The Tablet, July 26, 2017 (thanks to the Geller Report):

Don’t you just hate how vile some people are on the Internet? How easy it’s become to say horrible and hurtful things about other groups and individuals? How this tool that was supposed to spread knowledge, amity, and good cheer is being use to promulgate hate? No need to worry anymore: Google’s on it.

Earlier this year, Silicon Valley’s overlords introduced Perspective API, the latter being nerd-speak for Application Program Interface, or a set of tools for building software. The idea behind it is simple: because it’s impossible for an online publisher to manually monitor all the comments left on its website, Perspective will use advanced machine learning to help moderators track down comments that are likely to be “toxic.” Here’s how the company describes it: “The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation.”

That’s a strange sentiment. How do you measure the perceived impact of a conversation? And how can you tell if a conversation is good or bad? The answers, in Perspective’s case, are simple: machine learning works by giving computers access to vast databases, and letting them figure out the likely patterns. If a machine read all the cookbooks published in the English language in the last 100 years, say, it would be able to tell us interesting things about how we cook, like the peculiar fact that when we serve rice we’re very likely to serve beans as well. What can machines tell us about the way we converse and about what we may find offensive? That, of course, depends on what databases you let the machines learn. In Google’s case, the machines learned the comments sections of The New York Times, the Economist, and the Guardian.

What did the machines learn? Only one way to find out. I asked Perspective to rate the following sentiment: “Jews control the banks and the media.” This old chestnut, Perspective reported, had a 10 percent chance of being perceived as toxic.

111Maybe Perspective was just relaxed about sweeping generalizations that have been used to stain entire ethnic and religious groups, I thought. Maybe the nuance of harmful stereotypes was lost on Google’s algorithms. I tried again, this time with another group of people, typing “Many terrorists are radical Islamists.” The comment, Perspective informed me, was 92 percent likely to be seen as toxic.

What about straightforward statements of facts? I reached for the news, which, sadly, has been very grim lately, and wrote: “Three Israelis were murdered last night by a knife-wielding Palestinian terrorist who yelled ‘Allah hu Akbar.’” This, too, was 92 percent likely to be seen as toxic.

44You, too, can go online and have your fun, but the results shouldn’t surprise you. The machines learn from what they read, and when what they read are the Guardian and the Times, they’re going to inherit the inherent biases of these publications as well. Like most people who read the Paper of Record, the machine, too, has come to believe that statements about Jews being slaughtered are controversial, that addressing radical Islamism is verboten, and that casual anti-Semitism is utterly forgivable. The very term itself, toxicity, should’ve been enough of a giveaway: the only groups that talk about toxicity—see under: toxic masculinity—are those on the regressive left who creepily apply the metaphors of physical harm to censor speech not celebrate or promote it. No words are toxic, but the idea that we now have an algorithm replicating, amplifying, and automatizing the bigotry of the anti-Jewish left may very well be….

Wasserman Schultz seemingly planned to pay Muslim IT suspect even while he lived in Pakistan

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 30, 2017

“Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house” and “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again, [he] will … kidnap my family members back in Pakistan,” his stepmother, Samina Gilani, claimed.

This man “could read all emails sent and received” by Wasserman Schultz “and see all files on the staff members’ computers.”

This is an immense scandal with multiple implications, and cries out for a full and thorough investigation. But there will almost certainly not be one: too many powerful people involved, with too much at stake. And that in itself demonstrates again why a full investigation is needed.

“Wasserman Schultz Seemingly Planned To Pay Suspect Even While He Lived In Pakistan,” by Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller, July 29, 2017:

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seemingly planned to pay cyber-probe suspect and IT aide Imran Awan even while he was living in Pakistan, if the FBI hadn’t stopped him from leaving the U.S. Monday. Public statements and congressional payroll records suggest she also appears to have known that his wife, a fellow IT staffer, left the country for good months ago — while she was also a criminal suspect.

In all, six months of actions reveal a decision to continue paying a man who seemingly could not have been providing services to her, and who a mountain of evidence suggests was a liability. The man long had access to all of Wasserman Schultz’s computer files, work emails and personal emails, and he was recently accused by a relative in court documents of wiretapping and extortion.

Records also raise questions about whether the Florida Democrat permitted Awan to continue to access computers after House-wide authorities banned him from the network Feb. 2. Not only did she keep him on staff after the ban, but she also did not have any other IT person to perform necessary work that presumably would have arisen during a months-long period, according to payroll records.

Wasserman Schultz employed Pakistani-born Awan and his wife Hina Alvi, and refused to fire either of them even after U.S. Capitol Police said in February 2017 that they were targets of the criminal investigation. She said police wouldn’t show her evidence against the couple and, without it, she assumed they might be victims of anti-Muslim profiling.

Awan booked a round-trip ticket to Pakistan in July and planned to depart Monday, July 24 with a return ticket in six months. He was arrested at Dulles Airport during his attempt to leave….

The office’s insistence that his termination was prompted by the Monday arrest — and not the House Sergeant at Arms banning him and his wife from touching congressional computers or his six months in Pakistan — suggests that had he boarded the flight without incident he would still be on payroll.

“Does that mean if he had boarded the flight as planned the office would have been paying him for six months while he was abroad?” TheDCNF investigative group asked Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman Thursday. “Why would it do that?” The spokesman did not respond.

Awan’s wife, Hina, left the country under similar circumstances March 5, after withdrawing the couple’s three kids from school without telling Virginia education officials, packing up all of her possessions, and hiding $12,000 in cash, according to an FBI affidavit. She allegedly had hundreds of thousands of dollars waiting in Pakistan for her — money the FBI says Awan had obtained partly through mortgage fraud and had wired overseas using a false explanation.

Two days later, on March 7, House records show Hina was cut from Wasserman Schultz’s payroll.

Though Hina bought a round trip ticket with a return in six months, the FBI said it “does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”…

Hina and Awan were both IT aides whose jobs required access to the network, but the House Sergeant-At-Arms banned them from accessing it beginning Feb. 2. Awan and Hina were her only IT staffers, and payroll records through the latest available period, March 31, indicate that no other IT staffer or vendor was added to the payroll after their ban.

A House source said Awan was seen in the House office building multiple times after the network ban. “Imran Awan is working in an “advisory” role for Wasserman Schultz, her spokesman said, “providing advice on technology issues.”

The spokesman wouldn’t say who did the office’s computer work after the ban, if not Awan.

As IT administrators, the suspects could read all emails sent and received by the lawmaker and see all files on the staff members’ computers, numerous House IT aides said. WikiLeaks shows that Awan also had the password to Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.

In public court documents filed in Fairfax, Va., Awan’s stepmother accused him of wiretapping and extortion. “Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house” and “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again, [he] will … kidnap my family members back in Pakistan,” his stepmother, Samina Gilani, claimed in the documents (p. 21) filed April 14….

Break out the champagne: State Department officials quitting over “complete and utter disdain for our expertise”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 30, 2017

We can only hope that with the departure of these failed State Department officials, their failed policies will be swept out along with them. Chief among these is the almost universally held idea that poverty causes terrorism. The United States has wasted uncounted (literally, because a great deal of it was in untraceable bags full of cash) billions of dollars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries in the wrongheaded assumption that Muslims turn to jihad because they lack economic opportunities and education. American officials built schools and hospitals, thinking that they were winning over the hearts and minds of the locals.

Fifteen years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, no significant number of hearts and minds have been won. This is partly because the premise is wrong. The New York Times reported in March that “not long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton economist, tested the widespread assumption that poverty was a key factor in the making of a terrorist. Mr. Krueger’s analysis of economic figures, polls, and data on suicide bombers and hate groups found no link between economic distress and terrorism.”

CNS News noted in September 2013 that “according to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, ‘Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.’”

Yet the analysis that poverty causes terrorism has been applied and reapplied and reapplied again. The swamp is in dire need of draining, and in other ways as well. From 2011 on, it was official Obama administration policy to deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. This came as a result of an October 19, 2011 letter from Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and later served in the Obama administration as head of the CIA. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups demanded that the task force “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and moreto ensure that all that law enforcement officials would learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn.

Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were removed from coounterterror training. Today, even with Trump as President, this entrenched policy of the U.S. government remains, and ensures that all too many jihadists simply cannot be identified as risks, since the officials are bound as a matter of policy to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Trump and Tillerson must reverse this. Trump has spoken often about the threat from “radical Islamic terrorism”; he must follow through and remove the prohibitions on allowing agents to study and understand the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat.

The swamp needs draining indeed. This news from the State Department, and the New York Times’ grief over it, are good signs that the U.S. is on its way back on dry land.

“The Desperation of Our Diplomats,” by Roger Cohen, New York Times, July 28, 2017:

WASHINGTON — On the first Friday in May, Foreign Affairs Day, the staff gathers in the flag-bedecked C Street lobby of the State Department beside the memorial plaques for the 248 members of foreign affairs agencies who have lost their lives in the line of duty. A moment of silence is observed. As president of the American Foreign Service Association, Barbara Stephenson helps organize the annual event. This year, she was set to enter a delegates’ lounge to brief Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on its choreography before appearing alongside him. Instead, she told me, she was shoved out of the room.

Stephenson, a former ambassador to Panama, is not used to being manhandled at the State Department she has served with distinction for more than three decades. She had been inclined to give Tillerson the benefit of the doubt. Transitions between administrations are seldom smooth, and Tillerson is a Washington neophyte, unversed in diplomacy, an oilman trying to build a relationship with an erratic boss, President Trump.

Still, that shove captured the rudeness and remoteness that have undermined trust at Foggy Bottom. Stephenson began to understand the many distressed people coming to her “asking if their service is still valued.” The lack of communication between the secretary and the rest of the building has been deeply disturbing.

An exodus is underway. Those who have departed include Nancy McEldowney, the director of the Foreign Service Institute until she retired last month, who described to me “a toxic, troubled environment and organization”; Dana Shell Smith, the former ambassador to Qatar, who said what was most striking was the “complete and utter disdain for our expertise”; and Jake Walles, a former ambassador to Tunisia with some 35 years of experience. “There’s just a slow unraveling of the institution,” he told me….

South Dakota: Muslim pleads guilty to firearms charge after brandishing guns outside Christian event

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 27, 2017

Jaber also said “Be terrified,” and “be afraid” several times, as he pulled out gun after gun.

“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know, whom Allah knows…” (Qur’an 8:60)

This was not an “anti-Islam” event, it was a Christian conference.

“Man pleads guilty to charge arising from anti-Islam event,” Associated Press, July 25, 2017

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – A South Dakota man charged with making terroristic threats outside an anti-Islam event has pleaded guilty to a federal firearms charge.

Forty-six-year-old Ehab Jaber of Sioux Falls streamed a Facebook Live video from the April event. He held up guns while saying “if you want to be afraid, be afraid.” He wore a T-shirt saying “I am Muslim” and “I am only dangerous if you are stupid.”

A federal grand jury in May indicted him on a charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. State prosecutors also have charged him with making terroristic threats and possessing methamphetamine, after initially declining to charge him….

Minneapolis: After Muslim cop shoots unarmed woman, investigators search her home

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 27, 2017

Were they looking for something they could use to exculpate Mohamed Noor, the “diversity” hire who shot her? After all, the shooting has cast into sharp relief the consequences of keeping incompetent cops on the police force for their symbolic value. Are Minnesota authorities trying to save face by finding a way to blame the victim?

“Authorities Searched Damond’s Home; Law Prof Believes That Could ‘Cause An International Incident,’” KSTP, July 25, 2017:

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigators were granted permission to search Justine Damond’s home hours after she was shot and killed by a Minneapolis police officer, according to court records.

A criminal law expert can’t understand why.

“I don’t understand why they’re looking for bodily fluids inside her home,” said Joseph Daly, an emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, referring to one of two recently-released search warrant applications.

“Whose bodily fluids are they looking for? Is she a suspect? I don’t understand why they’re looking for controlled substances inside her home. I don’t understand why they’re looking for writings inside her home. The warrant does not explain that to me.”

“When I read that search warrant, I really cannot find probable cause to search her home,” he continued.

According to court documents, investigators applied for the warrant on the following grounds:

The property or things above-described was used as a means of committing a crime
The possession of the property or things above-described constitutes a crime.
The property or things above-described is in the possession of a person with intent to use such property as a means of committing a crime, or the property or things so intended to be used are in the possession of another to whom they have been delivered for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their being discovered.
The property or things above-described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.

Asked if that means the BCA considers Damond to be a suspect, spokesperson Jill Oliveira replied via email:

“No, an individual involved in the incident.”

Daly, who said he has served as a visiting professor at the University of Queensland in Damond’s native Australia, believes concerned members of the public in both countries will be outraged by the BCA’s request to search the home….

Chechen top dog Kadyrov: “We don’t have any gays. If there are any, take them to Canada.”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 16, 2017

Kadyrov denies killing them, as has been widely reported. But if they really don’t have any, that’s likely what happened to them.

“Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov says there are no gay men in his country,” by Ceren Senkul, Sky News, July 15, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has denied claims that gay men are killed in his country, denying that any even exist there.

Rejecting allegations of human rights abuses, Mr Kadyrov said: “We don’t have those kinds of people here”.

Novaya Gazeta newspaper reported in April that more than 100 gay men had been locked up and tortured in the Russian republic.

Meanwhile, one man told Sky News how he was forced to flee Chechnya after police turned up at his home looking for him.

However, in a TV interview Mr Kadyrov dismissed the claims as “nonsense”.

He said: “We don’t have any gays. If there are any, take them to Canada”.

The Chechen leader described those making the allegations as “devils”, adding: “God damn them for what they are accusing us of”.

It is not the first time Mr Kadyrov has made such claims.

When reports of violent persecution of gay men first surfaced a few months ago, the Chechen leader said his republic “does not have the phenomenon called non-traditional sexual orientation”.

He added: “Its people have lived for thousands of years according to different rules laid down by Allah.”…

Muslim lunges at cops with knife, sword, tells neighbor to bow to Allah

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 23, 2017

“In that incident, neighbor Daniel Stults testified Thursday that Ketchman ordered him to get on the ground and bow before his god.”

MLive doesn’t consider it relevant enough to tell you, but Rodger Ketchman calls himself Rodger Abdul-Latif Ketchman, and is apparently a convert to Islam. That would certainly be consistent with his behavior toward the police and his neighbors, as once again we see a convert to Islam think his new Religion of Peace calls for violence. Why do so many converts to Islam misunderstand Islam in this way?

“Man shot by SWAT lunged at officers with knife, sword, police testify,” by Darcie Moran, MLive.com, July 21, 2017 (thanks to the Geller Report):

PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI – A man taunted police officers by waving and rubbing together the edges of knives in a small Ypsilanti apartment before he was shot by a member of Washtenaw Metro SWAT in a January encounter, police testified Thursday, July 20.

Two cases against Rodger Ketchman, 33, of Ypsilanti were bound over to circuit court following preliminary examinations Thursday at Washtenaw County’s 14A-1 District Court.

Ketchman initially faced charges of first-degree home invasion, carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent and malicious destruction of a building costing $20,000 or more in damage for the incident on Jan. 13, 2017.

By the conclusion of the Thursday examination, however, he faced 14 new charges related to the encounter with police – seven counts of felony assault and seven counts of resisting, obstructing or assaulting a police officer….

Police were initially called to the Ypsilanti apartment building in the 700 block of Lowell Street when Ketchman began banging on his neighbor’s door with a crowbar, neighbor Emerald Cox, testified.

“He was saying, ‘I’m going to kill you,’” she said.

Cox said she’d had previous encounters with Ketchman, claiming he came to her door on Christmas Eve to ask if she and her family were part of the CIA.

She also said she saw him attack a neighbor with a crowbar on Jan. 12, an incident for which he is charged in a separate case with assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent.

In that incident, neighbor Daniel Stults testified Thursday that Ketchman ordered him to get on the ground and bow before his god.

On Jan. 13, he knocked off Cox’s doorknob with the crowbar, she testified.

When she called police, then-Ypsilanti Officer Tommy Porter – now with the Hazel Park Police Department – and Ypsilanti Officer Anthony Schembri responded….

The two officers attempted to coax Ketchman out of his apartment, Porter said, but he kept yelling and said he wanted the officers to watch him wash his genitals.

He also told them they were trespassing, and said he would fight them and defend his property, Porter said….

When Ketchman opened the door with a knife and sword over his head, two SWAT members deployed their less-lethal weapons….

House rejects proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines” that could be used by terrorist groups

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 14, 2017

Choosing denial and willful ignorance instead of knowledge of the motivating ideology of the jihadis who have vowed to destroy us. That’s just asking to be defeated.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Muslim Brotherhood-linked Rep. Keith Ellison.

Yes, you are. And there is a reason for that: 30,000 jihad attacks committed in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings since September 11, 2001. No one religion has anything approaching that kind of record of death and destruction. So why shouldn’t we put extra scrutiny on that religion?

Ellison added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion.”

No. The free exercise of any religion is not a license to break existing laws. The free exercise of religion is not a free pass to commit treason or subversion or sedition.

The amendment would have required the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

There is nothing “unorthodox” about jihad violence in Islamic law and doctrine. But even this tepid recommendation was too much for the short-sighted 217 cowards of the House, who have passed up an opportunity to strengthen our defense against the global jihad.

“House rejects controversial study of Islam,” by Rachael Bade and John Bresnahan, Politico, July 13, 2017:

The House on Friday rejected a controversial GOP proposal identifying “Islamic religious doctrines, concepts or schools of thought” that could be used by terrorist groups — something opponents say is unconstitutional and will lead to the targeting of Muslims.

More than 20 centrist Republicans joined with Democrats to defeated [sic] the amendment, 208 to 217. Drafted by conservative Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the proposal called for the Pentagon to identify Islamic leaders who preach peaceful beliefs versus those who espouse extremist views.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism from Muslim lawmakers serving in Congress, Muslim interest groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the proposal would unfairly target Muslims. They don’t trust the Trump administration to conduct the analysis.

“If you have an amendment that says we’re going to study one religion and only one, we’re going to look at their leaders and put them on a list — only them — and you are going to talk about what’s orthodox practice and what’s unorthodox, then you are putting extra scrutiny on that religion,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who is Muslim.

Ellison, who met with Franks to try to persuade him to withdraw the proposal, added: “You are abridging the free exercise of that religion. This is the wrong way to do what he’s trying to do.”…

“Right now, there is a certain spectrum within the Islamist world that is at the root of the ideological impulse for terrorism,” Franks said. “Ironically, Muslims are the prime targets of these groups. To suggest that this is anti-Muslim is a fallacy, and I think that anyone who really understands it knows that.”

Franks also took issue with Ellison’s suggestion that the amendment infringes on the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom, pointing out that he is the chairman of the International Religious Freedom Caucus.

“We’ve worked very hard to protect the religious freedom for everybody,” he said. “But it is important that we empower America to identify those heroic Muslims within the world that will help us begin to delegitimize this ideology of global jihad.”

The amendment would require the Defense Department to conduct “strategic assessments of the use of violent or unorthodox Islamic religious doctrine to support extremist or terrorist messaging and justification.”

The proposal requires the assessment to identify religious doctrines and concepts that extremists use to recruit potential terrorists, radicalize them and ultimately justify their heinous acts.

It also asks Pentagon officials for “recommendations for identifying key thought leaders or proponents.”

The proposal also requires the Pentagon to identify Islamic schools of though that could be used to counter jihadist views, as well as leaders who are preaching these sorts of doctrines….

 

Sansour Wants Jihad? Give Her Jihad

with one comment

By William L. Gensert
American Thinker
July 13, 20117

Linda Sarsour, a pro-sharia, progressive Islamic activist and former Director of the Arab American Association who also helped organize January’s National Women’s March (the one with the pink vagina hats) recently called for “jihad” against the “tyrant” Donald J. Trump in a speech to the Islamic Society of North America.

Sarsour said, “We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East and the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

She also said in the speech, “When I wake up every morning and remember who is sitting in the White House, I am outraged.”

Wow, she must be tons of fun at a party.

Of course, Sarsour explained how Americans are just too stupid to understand the nuance in her call to jihad.  No, no, no, you silly little American dolts, she wasn’t calling for violence, you don’t understand — it’s Trump who is calling for violence by insisting he serves out the presidential term he was duly elected to serve.  His refusal to resign or commit suicide, or whatever gets him out of office is the real violence here.  I’m afraid that most progressives agree with her.

Well if she wants jihad, I say we give it to her.  We are in a battle for the very soul of the nation.  Accept her declaration as is without being percipient to the underlying threat and we will be well on our way to losing.  It’s not just us who will lose, it’s the entire world — there is no one nation or even group of nations with the moral clarity and bravery to replace America as the last best hope for humanity.

If we accept her call to jihad as nonviolent, then calling for jihad against her personally is not a call to violence either.

There are many good Muslims in America today, who are grateful for the opportunity this nation gives them to live a better life.  Still, it seems to me that some Muslims come to this country and refuse to assimilate (Sarsour says they shouldn’t). They want Americans to change for them and then when people refuse, the get angry and call for jihad.  They want our women in tents and veils with their genitals mutilated, while all LBGTs are thrown to their death from the rooftops.

In short, they want us to obey sharia law.  Sharia gives infidels (anyone not a Muslim) three choices to coexist with Islam (the religion of peace): convert, pay, or die.  If this was their game plan, than they should have never come here.  Yet, the left champions their right to not assimilate and backs their desire to force us to change our nation, our society, and our values to accommodate them.  In other words, liberals think there is nothing wrong the extinguishment of Western civilization as embodied by America.

Sorry, but America is doing just fine the way we are.  It’s not us who need saving, at least not yet.

President Donald Trump gave a speech extolling the value of Western civilization and culture to the world and the entire progressive media and academic enterprise reacted in an apoplectic frenzy.  Yet, Sarsour calls for jihad against our president and of course, those same people are either silent or submissively bend over backward to be apologists for the religion of peace.  That’s the thing with this particular form of apologia (for Islam, of course), it needs morons to follow or good men to not fight back.  Remember, to paraphrase Edmund Burke, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

One way to look at the left is they are good people who are merely misinformed — but that is wrong. They really do hate America and Americans.  They seem to think that anytime someone brings up Western civilization or the virtues of the Republic of America, it should be followed by an apology or at the very least an opening of veins.  Progressives want power and control, and in order to get it, they are willing to force the nation to commit cultural and national suicide.  This is why they have no problem with Sarsour’s call to violence against the president.  Trump won’t apologize for America.  He stands up for America.  Hence, he must be a racist and a fascist.

Instead of trying to radically transform the nation in the image of Venezuela, proponents of this ideology should simply partake of the real thing and go live in that spectacularly failed socialist experiment.  Maybe they want to lose a few pounds.

One thing I can tell them is they should bring their own toilet paper and a gun because an American in Caracas today is prey, a soon-to-be carcass — hey, people gotta eat.

Barry gave his best effort at achieving the radical transformation of the nation into a socialist paradise.  Then he tried to foist his mini-me, Hillary, on the nation but Americans were smarter than that.  They saw her as an arrogant, entitled, outright criminal masquerading as a politician who nevertheless, was so unlikeable  that “unnamed sources” high in the Clinton campaign have said even her husband didn’t vote for her — but that’s just silly; everyone knows Bill wanted her to win so he could date again.

“Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?” Trump asked — and it’s the right question at the right time.

Critics have labeled the speech “nationalist,” “xenophobic,” and “racist.”  Yet if that were so, then why did the Poles love it — are they nationalistic, xenophobic, and racist as well?  To the left, if a speech is not an expiation of America’s sins or repentant for the country’s success it is nationalistic and racist.

Trump is not overly concerned with decorum.  He is his own man, a man who endeavors to live his life by his own rules and that means he will never accept the role of victim or patsy.  He hits back, and he is not afraid to defend this nation’s way of life and has no problem stooping to the level of his enemies to do so.  As would most Americans until very recently, .

However, conservatives seem to hold themselves to a higher sense of propriety; they will not fight as progressives do.  With progressives — and make no mistake, Sarsour is a progressive in good standing — everything is game, your family, the ones you love, the way you look, even the number of scoops of ice cream you have with your pie ala mode.  Either do as they say or be destroyed.

Once Trump became President, it quickly became apparent to him how he was going to be treated by the very antipathetic liberal polity and media.  He faced an existential choice with regard to his presidency, accept it in passive pajama-boy fashion, probably resulting in a one-term presidency not long remembered and of little note, but paradoxically get better press, or fight and accomplish as much as he could, while keeping as many promises as possible.

Trump understands the time is now to fight back against the outrageous behavior of the left.  Sarsour needs to be called out for exactly what she is: a radical Islamic supremacist intent on taking this country into sharia hell.  Progressives need to be told that Americans love America as the epitome of Western civilization it is.

Calling out people like Sarsour for their commitment to violence and standing up for our nation’s exceptionalism as Trump did in Poland should be the rule for our leaders and not the exception.

%d bloggers like this: