Let’s Hope the Comey Memo is Coffin Nail in Deep State


John R. Houk

© April 20, 2018

 

The FBI has declassified portions of the notorious James Comey Memo which allegedly spurred the appointment of Robert Mueller by Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. For purposes of this blog post, here is a Scribd version:

 

I never watch the Leftist Media spin doctors because they lie. I have watched the Conservative implications of this Comey Memo on Fox News. And most of those commentators suggest President Trump was being what all we Conservatives were already aware; viz., the President and Russia had no connection to each to scam Trump’s election victory. Indeed, the Memo implicates a lot of collusion amongst the Obama DOJ and FBI. Sadly, there are many Obamanites still lingering around the DOJ/FBI. The lingering Obamanites explains the obstructionism that has prevented Congress from acquiring subpoenaed documents.

 

VIDEO: Hannity – Comey memos released.. ALL GOOD news for President Trump – 4/19/18

 

Posted by Trump Fan Network

Published on Apr 19, 2018

 

And Mark Levin on Hannity about Comey Memos:

 

VIDEO: Mark Levin on Comey Memos and More. This is Good.

 

Posted by Rshill7

Published on Apr 19, 2018

 

Uploaded under “Fair Use” provisions for discussion and commentary at http://PolitiBrew.com

 

Below is a Daily Wire post written by Ryan Saavedra who sources Mollie Hemingway primarily and a bit of Daily Caller adding perspective that the current DOJ/FBI is free enough of Obamanite corruption to act upon.

 

JRH 4/20/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

PUBLIC ENEMY #1: Reports Suggest CNN Helped Orchestrate Setup Of Trump

Trump CNN Backdrop

 

By RYAN SAAVEDRA

April 20, 2018

Daily Wire

 

Memos written by former FBI director James Comey reveal that CNN may have helped orchestrate a possible setup of then-president-elect Donald Trump.

 

According to multiple published reports, the memos seem to indicate that a meeting Comey had with Trump was prompted by pressure from CNN and then was used to launch the media frenzy over the anti-Trump dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist writes:

 

In multiple memos, Comey specifically mentioned that CNN had the dossier and wanted a “news hook” that would enable the network to report on its most salacious allegations even though they had not been verified.

 

Writing on the conversation he had with Trump, Comey wrote in a classified memo: “I said the Russians allegedly had tapes involving him and prostitutes at the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow from about 2013.”

 

As Hemingway notes, no reports had been published by any media outlet at the time Comey met with Trump and briefed him on the allegations contained in the dossier.

 

“I said media like CNN had [the allegations] and were looking for a news hook,” Comey specifically told Trump and noted in his memo. The Daily Caller reports:

 

Four days after that meeting, CNN published a story revealing the existence of a salacious report alleging the Russian government had compromised Trump. The CNN story was referring to what’s now known as the dossier — an unverified 35-page report written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

 

“I explained again why I had thought it important that he know about it,” Comey wrote in another classified memo on January 28, 2017. “I also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it.”

 

CNN’s January 10, 2017 report on the salacious and unproven allegations contained in the dossier was extremely significant, as Hemingway explains:

 

Extremely well-placed sources told CNN that the Obama administration’s top intelligence appointees had briefed Obama, Biden, and Trump all about a dossier they took incredibly seriously and considered credible. And it sounded really bad, as the headline [of CNN’s report] indicated.

 

“Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump,” CNN reported in an article written by Jake Tapper, Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, and Carl Bernstein. What’s notable about the authors is that CNN’s Perez had undisclosed ties to Fusion GPS, the firm that compiled the Democrat-funded dossier. Perez later falsely reported that the Republicans were the ones who funded the dossier, even after the facts had been made public which proved he was not telling the truth. Hemingway continues:

 

BuzzFeed published the actual dossier within minutes of CNN’s story going live, showing the world that the dossier was riddled with salacious gossip that lacked even a possibility of corroboration.

 

Among the most important facts revealed in Comey’s memos, which the Justice Department released on Thursday, is the fact that there were seven memos compiled by Comey, four of which were classified. This is significant because Comey leaked four memos to his friend for him to turn around and leak to the media, which means that at least one of the memos had to have been classified.

 

As noted by Hemingway and the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, one of the biggest takeaways from Comey’s January 6, 2017 memo is that Comey indicates in the memo that the briefing was the idea of then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

 

“I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to [Trump] about alone or in a very small group,” Comey wrote. “I then executed the session exactly as I had planned.”

 

Comey then went on to tell Trump that CNN had the allegations and was looking for a “news hook” so they could publish the salacious and unproven allegations.

 

“I said it was important that we not give them the excuses to write that the FBI has the material or [REDACTED] and that we were keeping it very close-hold,” Comey wrote in his memo. As The Federalist and The Daily Caller both noted, CNN ran the story just a few days after Comey’s meeting with Trump.

 

Given Clapper’s connection to Comey’s meeting with Trump, Hemingway notes an important finding from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) final report on Russia. The committee’s report found:

 

Finding #44: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, now a CNN national security analyst, provided inconsistent testimony to the Committee about his contacts with the media, including CNN.

 

Hemingway continues:

 

So Comey, at Clapper’s expressed behest, told Trump that CNN was “looking for a news hook” to publish dossier allegations. He said this in the briefing of Trump that almost immediately leaked to CNN, which provided them the very news hook they sought and needed.

 

The briefing on January 6, 2017 was the catalyst for a series of events that ultimately led to where the Russia investigation currently sits. The briefing was immediately leaked to CNN, which attempted to legitimize the dossier, and in the process ignited a media firestorm. Hemingway concludes:

 

During the freakout, Comey deliberately refused to say in public what he acknowledged repeatedly in private — that the President of the United States was not under investigation. He even noted in his memos that he told the president at least three times that he was not under investigation. Comey’s refusal to admit publicly what he kept telling people privately led to his firing.

 

That led to Comey leaking multiple memos in order to get a special counsel appointed out of revenge.

 

Hemingway’s assertion that Comey leaked the memos out of revenge is not without factual basis. During an interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie this week, Comey admitted that he had an “obvious” bias against Trump because “he fired me.”

____________________________

Let’s Hope the Comey Memo is Coffin Nail in Deep State

John R. Houk

© April 20, 2018

_____________________________

PUBLIC ENEMY #1: Reports Suggest CNN Helped Orchestrate Setup Of Trump

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, THE DAILY WIRE

 

Ryan Saavedra is a staff writer at The Daily Wire who covers a range of subjects, particularly focusing on media bias, politics, and the convergence of politics and culture. 

 

Social Media Exclusion of Conservative Thought


John R. Houk

© April 18, 2018

 

If you are a stalwart American Conservative you are fully aware the largest social media platforms have been operating a stealth war that favors Leftists (aka Liberal, Progressive but maybe better described as Moonbat, Snowflake, etc.). With this understanding of Social Media, I received an email from ACT for America notifying readers that PayPal is now not allowing donations via its online platform evidently citing the erroneous “hate-speech” label on lists from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is as close to a Leftist Communist organization as it can be without admitting so.

 

Left-Wing organizations such as the SPLC are heavily invested in fundamentally transforming American away from American-Christian values into a brainwashed society that believes and acts as the State would have society (i.e. YOU) believe.

 

I am pretty vocal as a mouthpiece to preserve the fundamental Rights that have inalienably been endowed by the Creator of all that exists and intended to be protected by the Founding Fathers’ founding documents that define citizens of the USA as Americans.

 

I am vocal but small potatoes as far as the Leftist multi-conglomerate Social Platforms are concerned. Take heed, once the Leftist controlled Social Media giants deceptively limit and remove the dissemination of Conservative thought, the small potato bloggers will soon follow. Start massively complaining to these giants, because advertisers are interested in targeting potential Conservative customers as much as Liberal customers. Barring that, pray some Conservative geeks develop a social platform that is competitive and simple to use as the geeks that lean Left.

 

Find ways to donate to Conservative organizations being stifled by Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter and PayPal. In the meantime, support the small potato Conservatives who would be the next target if not already so. On a personal level, I’ve been in Facebook jail thrice, Google+ jail once, I’ve had a couple Youtube videos removed with a warning about my channel’s existence, yet I have escaped Twitter and Paypal’s notice to date.

 

I operate three blogs but only one has a PayPal buttonSlantRight 2.0, Paypal has graciously allowed my NCCR blog (WordPress platform) a donation link and if you visit the Overblog platform (European origin) – you could use this “Support SlantRight 2.0” support this small potato Conservative voice.

 

ACT’s email emphasizes how Left Oriented Social Media giants are targeting Conservative and Counterjihad organization using hate lists as those developed by the SPLC as an excuse to target Conservatives and Counterjihadists. Because of what PayPal has done to ACT for America, here is an embedded link to support ACT’s work in educating Americans about threats to their lives and communities: DONATE to ACT for America. This donation link by-passes PayPal.

 

Below is the ACT email. The email included the entire text of a WND.com post about this war on Conservatives. However, I am cross posting from WND rather than the email.

 

JRH 4/18/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

ACT for America is Under Attack!

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent 4/18/2018 6:09 AM

 

Dear John,

 

A new study published from our friends at the Media Research Center confirms what we already knew. Conservative organizations are facing an existential threat from tech companies that are founded and run by leftists. You see, companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google are more than just tech companies, they also control how and when we get our news.

 

Further, tech companies partner with leftists including the Southern Poverty Law Center to attack organizations, like ACT for America, who have been wrongly labeled a hate group. Cited in this article below is a specific example of how leftists used the SPLC to pressure Paypal into dropping us as a client. Because of these scare tactics, we can no longer accept donations through Paypal – a leftist run tech company.

 

The left’s mission is to silence any ideas differing from their own and with control of the most influential tech companies in the world – they are off to a great start.

 

For Freedom,

ACT for America

+++++++++++++++++++

CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT FACES EXISTENTIAL THREAT FROM TECH, STUDY SHOWS

‘If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off’

 

By BOB UNRUH

April 16, 2018

WND

 

CENSORED

 

A new study from the Media Research Center says conservatives, and their ideas, right now are facing an existential threat from tech companies founded and run by liberals who have decided that only their voice should be heard on disputed issues.

 

“The conservative movement is facing a threat to its very existence – a new, insidious form of media censorship,” the MRC report, available starting Monday, said.

 

“Media bias has always been an enemy of the right. Liberal journalists relied on talking points and talking heads that agreed with for their stories. Conservatives were typically ignored or even targeted by old-school media monopolies but while conservatives were excluded, their organizations were still allowed to function and even flourish. The internet gave the right new tools to go around traditional media – websites, email, video and social media. Conservatives’ power online continued to grow as groups expanded their base of supporters and were even able to flourish online.

 

“Now, all of that is under threat,” the report states.

 

How?

 

It’s not complicated. If the liberals who run the big companies, like Facebook, Google, Youtube and Twitter, all suppress conservative speech, and the report concludes they are, no messages that contradict leftist propaganda will be heard.

 

“Like it or not, social media is the communication form of the future – not just in the U.S., but worldwide. Just Facebook and Twitter combined reach 1.8 billion people. More than two-thirds of all Americans (68 percent) use Facebook. YouTube is pushing out TV as the most popular place to watch video. Google is the No. 1 search engine in both the U.S. And the world,” the study finds.

 

And those organizations are not about transparency and fairness.

 

“War is being declared on the conservative movement in this space and conservatives are losing – badly. If the right is silenced, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideas and conservative media.

 

“It’s the new battleground of media bias. But it’s worse. That bias is not a war of ideas. It’s a war against ideas. It’s a clear effort to censor the conservative worldview from the public conversation,” the study said.

 

Among the key findings in the study is that Twitter leads in censorship – and Project Veritas even caught staffers boasting on hidden camera they had been censoring conservatives through a technique known as shadow banning.

 

There, users think their content is being seen widely, while Twitter deliberately suppresses it.

 

On Facebook, its trending feed has been caught hiding conservative topics.

 

A 2016 Gizmodo story warned of the bias, with testimonies from former employees they’d been instructed to “hide conservative content.”

 

“On the other hand,” the study said. “the term ‘black lives matter’ had also been placed into the trending section even though it was not actually trending.”

 

Google’s search functions, the study said, simply help Democrats.

 

“Google and Youtube’s corporate chairman Eric Schmidt is known to have helped Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign,” the study said. “The company’s search engine had deployed a similar bias in favor of Democrats.”

 

And YouTube simply shuts down conservatives’ videos. That deprives them of monetization first, but also the publicity that successful videos generate.

 

“YouTube moderators must take their cues from the rest of Google – from shutting down entire conservative channels ‘by mistake’ to removing videos that promote right-wing political views. YouTube’s special creators for change section is devoted to people using their ‘voices for social change’ and even highlights the work of a 9/11 truther.”

 

Further, tech companies partner with leftists including the Southern Poverty Law Center, and more, to try to further their campaigns.

 

It cites the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League.

 

“Both claim to combat ‘hate,’ but treat standard conservative beliefs in faith and family as examples of that hatred. George Soros-funded Propublica is using information from both radical leftist organizations to attack conservative groups such as Jihad Watch and ACT for America, bullying Paypal and other services to shut down their funding sources.”

 

Twitter’s “Trust and Safety Councli” [sic] has 12 liberals as members. Only one conservative.

 

And the “fact-checkers” that the companies, whose empire encompasses $3 trillion, use? All “anti-conservative,” the report says.

 

A strong commitment to transparency and fairness with a dedication to free speech likely is the only solution, the study notes.

 

The companies “must stop pretending” that disagreeing is the equivalent of “hate speech,” and the bias must be removed.

 

That means groups that routinely label core conservative values as “hate” need to be addressed.

 

“Tech companies can’t expect conservatives to trust a system that is so blatantly one-sided,” it said.

 

Included in the study was a quote from Niall Ferguson, Hoover Institute senior fellow: “Nothing has changed politics not only in the U.S., but worldwide more than the advent of companies like Facebook. Forty-five percent of Americans now get news from Facebook …. Mark Zuckerberg, who runs Facebook, has the power to tweak the algorithm that determines what gets into your news feed and my news feed. And that is an awesome power … because let’s face it Mark Zuckerberg’s politics are liberal politics. He has no desire to see 2016 happen again.”

 

The study, by Ashley Rae Goldenberg and Dan Gainor, documents, “The problem starts deep inside the liberal corporate cultures of the companies. Eric Schmidt recently stepped down as head of both Google and Youtube. While still in that role, he aided the Hillary Clinton campaign. … Zuckerberg has been a strong proponent of the Dream Act and LGBT issues.”

 

Then their employees reflect those biases.

 

Facebook workers donated 99 times more to Hillary Clinton than President Trump. For Google, it was 63 times.

 

A survey showed 89 percent of very conservative, 74 percent of conservative and 69 percent of libertarian workers are “hesitant of being themselves while at work for fear they might lose their jobs.”

 

Sen. Ted Cruz, the study notes, warned just weeks ago that if the companies are a neutral public forum, they cannot allow censorship. If they are not a neutral public forum, “the entire predicate for immunity under CDA (Community Decency A[c]t) is claiming to be a neutral public forum, so you can’t have it both ways.’

_________________________

Social Media Exclusion of Conservative Thought

John R. Houk

© April 18, 2018

________________________

ACT for America is Under Attack!

We could not have accomplished any of this without your support.

 

ACT for America · 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 190, #614, Washington, DC 20004, United States

___________________________

CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT FACES EXISTENTIAL THREAT FROM TECH, STUDY SHOWS

 

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

Support WND with your contribution!

 

Would you like to help WND? With your support, we can continue the vital task of shining a bright journalistic light on today’s lawless and out-of-control government, as well as our increasingly corrupt culture, and on all those who threaten Americans’ happiness, wellbeing and security. In an age when truth is increasingly hard to come by, WND is dedicated to making sense out of the increasingly chaotic and dangerous world we live in. Many important stories never see the light of day … until WND breaks the story.

 

As you know, WND.com is one of the world’s largest and most successful independent, English-language news websites, with an estimated 6 million readers.

 

But what you might not know is that it very difficult for a news website to make money on the Internet. Many content sites – including some large, high-profile ones – have gone out of business. And many others are struggling with establishing reliable revenue streams that can support the expenses necessary to produce a quality, 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week content site.

 

WND relies on revenues from store products and from advertising. But it needs the third leg that traditional causes have always enjoyed – donations. Your contribution is essential to our success. Your contribution will help build a stronger, more effective news service.

 

There is no penalty for readers who do not support us in this way. Many of you support us in other ways – through purchase of products, patronage of advertisers, etc. Frankly, just having you as readers is rewarding for us. But a voluntary donation is one more option for those who want to help and can help.

 

Countless readers have told us they have dropped subscriptions to their local daily newspaper after finding WND. Would you be willing to donate to us what you paid your daily newspaper? Would you be willing to pay half? How about just $3 a month? If every one of our 6 million unique WND readers donated just $3 a month, we would be growing fast enough to dramatically expand our reporting.

 

Please use the READ THE REST

 

Are you Falsely Accused of Inexplicable/Illogical Fear?


John R. Houk

© April 17, 2018

 

It’s time to address phobias – again. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of phobia:

 

an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Apparently, i.e. listening to the Left, Social Conservatives, Conservatives understanding Islamic revered writings and Counterjihadists all over the political spectrum are peopled filled with “inexplicable and illogical fear.”

 

People that believe the Word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible) and condemn the homosexual lifestyle because God calls the practice an abomination in the Old Testament and deserving death unless the homosexual lifestyle is repented by looking up to Jesus the Redeemer in the New Testament are vilified as homophobes. The problem I have with the epithet “homophobe,” is that Biblical Christians DO NOT have an inexplicable and illogical fear of those who practice a homosexual lifestyle.

 

Rather the view of a Biblical Christian is lining up with God in loathing the practice which as an unrepentant action separates one from the Presence of God. Incidentally, a spiritual state restored by believing in the price paid in death of Jesus Christ and enabling eternal life in the Presence of God participating by faith in the Resurrection to glorified Life by the man-God (both natures in one) Jesus Christ.

 

Christians (AND any non-Christian not a Muslim) must understand the revered writings of Islam deal in exacting death to anyone who does not submit to the authority of Islam. This especially the case in a region where Islam is the basis for the rule of law. In non-Muslim dominated areas, the Muslim is entreated to tolerate the inferior infidels until such a time Islam is the dominant theo-political reality.

 

It is at this point that a Leftist and Muslim apologist will scream my assertion is a lie and thus I must be a racist hater Islamophobe (expressing hatred out of an “inexplicable and illogical fear” of all things Islam).

 

Let me be clear! As a Christian I have zero fear of Muslims or of the theo-political ideology of Islam. Rather I loath the doctrine because in its essence the theo-political Islamic revered writings promote all things that separate humanity from God by denying the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. FURTHMORE, Islamic revered writings deny that God Almighty emptied His Divine prerogatives to be born a human to be the perfect sinless man enabling His life to be the price that Redeems humanity from the inherited fallen-sin nature bequeathed by the first man Adam who switched allegiance to Satan by disobeying God.

 

As opposed to the Truth of the Holy Bible I linked to above, Islamic revered writings deny it all claiming Muhammad’s lying words (or if Mo heard from a spiritual being, Muhammad’s gullible allegiance to a devil disguised as an angel of light) are superior to Holy Spirit (3rd Person of the ONE True God) inspired Holy Scripture.

 

Most egregious example – Quran 23: 91 – various translations:

 

Sahih International: Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].

 

Yusuf Ali: No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!

 

Muhammad Sarwar: God has never given birth to a son and there is no other god besides Him. If there were, each god would have taken away his creatures and claimed superiority over the others. God is too exalted to be as they believe Him to be.

 

Mohsin Khan: No son (or offspring or children) did Allah beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! Glorified be Allah above all that they attribute to Him!

 

This Quranic Surah is only a small example of Islam’s specific antipathy of the Christian faith.

 

More treatment of non-Muslims that decide submission is oppression at the hands of Muslims – Quran 9:12-14 (QuranBrowser.org – under Yusuf Ali):

 

9:12

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

9:13

Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

9:14

Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

 

Quran 9: 28-33 (QuranBrowser.org – under Shakir):

 

9:28

O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

9:29

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

9:30

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

9:31

They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

9:32

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.

9:33

He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.

 

The Quran, Hadith and Sira are full of this hatred and oppression at non-Muslims. Although the early suras instructed Muslims to respect the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) the later suras in date (NOT chronologically) reflects Mo’s disappointment in Jews and Christians rejecting Muhammad as a false prophet. Ergo, respect degenerated into oppression followed by destruction if there was any refusal to submit to allah as a convert or a subhuman existence. Sounds more like human emotional directives rather than divine prophecy.

 

The Word’s of Jesus in false prophets:

 

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. – Matthew 7: 13-20 NKJV

 

And this God-Breathed Word found in 1 John:

 

2 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a]Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

 

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. – 1 John 2: 18-19; 4: 1-3 NKJV

 

Do I have an inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam? NOPE!

 

I have a very explicable and logical loathing of Islam. The very tenets of Islam are aggressively antipathetical not only against Christians, but against ALL people who want nothing to do with the Islamic despotic totalitarian theo-political ideology.

 

You may wonder what motivated me to clarify my thoughts on how “phobia” is a sadly misused application to stalwart Biblical Christians. The motivation is derived from an email I received from Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America expressing displeasure with Senator Cory Booker’s grilling of Mike Pompeo during the Senate nomination hearing for becoming Secretary of State. In the course of the grilling Booker equated Brigitte Gabriel and Pompeo as Islamophobes.

 

In response to Booker’s grilling, Gabriel penned a response explaining her contempt for being wrongly called an Islamophobe.

 

Just as a side thought. Gabriel is in the camp that only Radical Muslims need be exposed. That is a fair point as an American supporting the 1st Amendment of Religious Freedom.

 

Unfortunately, Gabriel and others in her camp are failing to see the big picture pertaining to Islam and the theo-political religion’s history of overt conquest and stealth eradication of cultures and faiths that are contrary to Islamic tenets. The more accepted Islamic tenets are become, the greater the potential that Islamic domination occurs ending the very Constitutional Rights guaranteed as inalienable.

 

With that minor divergence of thought between and Brigitte Gabriel, below is here Townhall article written on 4/14/18.

 

Here is the email intro from Brigitte Gabriel dated 4/16/2018 11:30 AM:

 

Dear John, 

 

Last week, during the Secretary of State Nomination Hearings, Senator Cory Booker decided to use his time as a way to advance his own political career. I lived in an 8×10 bomb shelter for almost a decade because of Islamic terrorism. Yet, Cory Booker and the fake news media had the audacity to call me an Islamophobe and a Hate Monger on the Senate floor.

 

These shameful, baseless lies will not slow me down. As someone who has lived through terrorism, and experienced it firsthand – I will not be silenced by these leftist scare tactics. Over the weekend I published an op-ed on Townhall.com to give my perspective on what happened.

Thank you for support. I hope you enjoy my article!

 

Un-apologetically Patriotic,

Brigitte Gabriel

 

 

JRH 4/17/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

Pompeo and I Are Not Hate Mongers

 

By Brigitte Gabriel

Apr 14, 2018 12:01 AM

Townhall.com

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.

 

Cory Booker – sourpuss

 

Senators grilling CIA Director and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo threw out a number of charged words in an attempt to taint his reputation. Senator Cory Booker used words like “anti-Islam,” “Islamaphobe,” and the other absurd and completely unfounded clichés to describe myself, my organization, ACT for America, and anyone else whose beliefs do not conform to their politically correct fantasyland that have worked with patriots like Mr. Pompeo to expose terrorist activities both within the United States and abroad.

 

For the last fifteen years I’ve been traveling the world, exercising freedom of speech, as is my human right, in an effort to educate others about the threat of terrorism and radical Islam. I expose the truth behind a warped ideology that legitimizes decapitation, stonings, rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, and a number of other abhorrent human rights atrocities. All of these appalling acts are frequent in one particular part of the world, the Islamic world. Radical Islamists will openly cry out “Allahu Akhbar,” before committing a terrorist attack, or any of the other human rights violations aforementioned, as if their God would be pleased with their barbaric actions. I’ve got news for these politically correct senators trying to score cheap political points by slandering both myself, and patriotic officials like Mr. Pompeo; this is not a partisan issue, it’s a human issue.

 

But the fact that I’ve dared to call out these terrorists, and spoke the truth about the roots of their radical rage, has placed me, and those who associate with me, in the crosshairs of political smear merchants. Cliché accusations of “Islamophobia” thrown at myself and my organization, still seem to be the only defense for far-left frauds.

 

The term “hate group,” is another term the radical left has used to attempt to delegitimize others. The definition of this term includes “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings?  Yes. Do any of these locations ring a bell? Fort Hood, Texas (Nidal Hasan – NOV, 2009); the Boston Marathon bombing (APR, 2013); Charlie Hebdo massacre, Paris (JAN, 2015); the multiple restaurant and Bataclan concert massacres, Paris (NOV, 2015); the San Bernardino Christmas Party massacre (DEC, 2015); the Brussels simultaneous airport and subway attacks (MAR, 2016); the Pulse Nightclub massacre, Orlando, FL (JUN, 2016) ; Nice, France, Bastille Day truck massacre (JUL, 2016). They are all places where horrendous terrorist atrocities were committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed.

 

Senator, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to human rights atrocities makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I submit that I, and everyone else with any common sense or moral compass, would fall into this category.

 

I am not, however, fearful of moderate, Western loving Muslims, and consequently, I’ve worked with them, and continue to do so.  Most Muslims are as concerned as I am about the radicalized element of Islam, and how terrorists all over the world are perverting their hope of living in peace.  ACT for America has more than a million members from all walks of life. We work with moderate Muslims, members of the LGBTQ+ community, Republicans, Democrats, and anyone willing to stand for what is right in the face of evil, and the enabling of it by the regressive left.

 

We defend the defenseless, those who have been terrorized for being “infidels.”  Our organization works to protect women, children, homosexuals, and anyone else endangered by the radical elements that threaten their very dignity and existence in the name of their religion.

 

As for the moniker, “hate group,” let’s be clear, there is nothing hateful about patriotism. There is nothing hateful about defending the defenseless. There is nothing about opposing hatred, only enabling it the way that an appalling number of senators on Capitol Hill, in conjunction with the media, and anti-American political organizations do so continuously.

 

For years, true hate enablers, like the outrageously biased Southern Poverty Law Center, have recklessly labeled dozens of mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups,” which has led to violent and dangerous attacks on such organizations. In fact, the SPLC has been named in court as the cause of an act of domestic terrorism, when one of their loyal followers, who soaked up their dangerous propaganda like a sponge, shot up the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C. Yet, the mainstream media still uses this disgraced organization as a neutral arbiter of hate?  On what authority do they make these proclamations?

 

Another group which frequently traffics in false accusations such as “hate group” is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is an organization whose spokespersons have been linked to terrorist groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have been designated as a terrorist organization in Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates, which itself abides by Islamic law. Let me guess, the United Arab Emirates is also “Islamophobic?”

 

Apparently, a Muslim brotherhood front-group like CAIR can throw out accusations such as “hate group,” but accurately calling them a terrorist organization, and stating facts about their leadership and members is a bridge too far. Give me a break.

 

This week, in an ironic twist, the American Defamation League sent a letter to senators, yet again making this false claim about myself, and ACT for America. These days, I suppose facts are considered the new hate speech. Should anyone be surprised? The only ammunition these anti-free speech bullies have is to cry bigotry whenever facts contradict their feelings. I’ve been defamed many times over the years, and had my life and that of my family’s threatened, with public figures like the media’s favorite jihadist Linda Sarsour calling for the mutilation of my, and FGM survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s, body.

 

We’re living in a dangerous time more akin to the Twilight Zone than reality. A time when the aggresors are the victims, and opposition to hate is considered hateful.

 

For the record, ACT for America is a grassroots national security grassroots advocacy organization focused on protecting our nation’s security, western democratic values, and basic human rights. ACT for America has never, and will never, tolerate any bias, discrimination, or violence against anyone, based on their religion, gender, race, or political persuasion.

 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again-political correctness must die so that freedom and truth can live.

___________________________

Are you Falsely Accused of Inexplicable/Illogical Fear?

John R. Houk

© April 17, 2018

____________________________

Pompeo and I Are Not Hate Mongers

 

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you

 

Examine Fatouros Deep State Posts


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© April 16, 2018

I found two posts from  Dee Fatouros on her blog The Realistic Observer which were actually cross posts themselves. Typically, I shy away from cross posting Fatouros blogs because she promotes in many of the same circles that I run in. I gotta tell ya, the info on these posts are extremely relevant yet you will not hear the details on the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM). If you hear or read it, the actual data will be twisted, informers vilified and/or issue downright lies exonerating the Deep State actors.

 

Here’s the thing, the data presented on the two posts are actually sourced from actual entities rather than the infamous “anonymous source”. The most relevant source being the Inspector General’s (IG) very recently released report examining probable criminality in the DOJ and FBI from Obamanites before and after the election of President Trump. This report centers on Andrew McCabe nefarious activities and is entitled, “A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe”. Here’s a link to a Fox News upload of the report to Scribd.

 

Fatouros’ cross posts are from (in order of date) DC Whispers and The Last Refuge. I’m using The Realistic Observer version in my cross post because that is how I discovered them.

 

The Last Refuge post links to a Youtube video that is recommended to go viral because of the important info therein. I liked the roughly 15-minute video so much that I am sharing the actual video on my blog. Mysteriously to me, the audio unceremoniously terminates as if there was more to be said roughly two-minutes before the end of the full length.

VIDEO: BOMBSHELL: McCabe OIG Report and Loretta Lynch 

 

Posted by Tracy Beanz

Published on Apr 15, 2018

 

Support me on Patreon (THANK YOU!!) http://patreon.com/tracybeanz Support me on Paypal: tracybeanz@aol.com

Follow me on twitter/gab/dtube/bitchute @tracybeanz

 

INFO:

 

OIG REPORT: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/justice-department-review-means-eric-garner-case/story?id=43085124

 

Prince Interview: https://youtu.be/Xg1r3BAPVbo

 

Timeline: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11zG0hTTsrejbrTlWPubhmwsRJo6i_EZ29jwq282_uSo/edit#gid=0

 

Giuliani: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5185914034001/?#sp=show-clips

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/31/mccabe-learned-about-clinton-emails-on-weiner-laptop-month-before-fbi-alerted-congress-report-says.html

 

And now, the double cross post of The Realistic Observer.

 

JRH 4/16/18

Please Support NCCR

******************************

More malfeasance from the Barack, Hillary, Bill triad

 

Posted by  Dee Fatouros

April 15, 2018 6:38:00 AM 

The Realistic Observer

By DC Whispers

Rub a dub dub, three crooks in a tub

 

IG Report Outlines How Obama DOJ Worked To Shut Down Investigation Into Clinton Crime Syndicate 
Posted on April 14, 2018

 

Lost in the haze of the Syria bombing, the Establishment Media’s purposeful ignorance, and the ongoing ripples following the stunning FBI raid on the offices of President Trump’s longtime attorney, is the scathing outline by the Inspector General regarding how the Obama Department of Justice aggressively shut down what was to be a widespread investigation into the Clinton Foundation looking into allegations of widespread financial crimes.

Talk about obstruction of justice!

Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitten [sic] caught the Clinton Foundation information within the IG report and is doing his best to get the word out even as the Establishment Media covers the eyes and ears of the American public in order to keep that information largely unknown:

 

 

There were rank and file FBI agents said to be increasingly frustrated that their efforts to investigate the Clinton Crime Syndicate were being halted at every turn. This move to insulate the Clintons (and likely the Obama White House) from damage was overseen at the highest levels of the FBI and Obama DOJ. These same high-level Deep State figures are the very same ones who have been orchestrating the ongoing attacks against President Trump – attacks that likely continue to be orchestrated by the Obama/Jarett Machine with input from the Clintons. (Like what took place during the secret tarmac meeting between then Obama AG Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton. Top officials at the FBI refuse to hand over documents regarding that meeting due to their being “highly classified” even though both Lynch and Clinton claim they just talked about the weather and their grandkids.)

The Deep State continues to believe it controls the narrative. It’s up to all of you to prove them wrong.

Original Article:  DC Whispers

+++++++++++++++++

When the going gets tough, bad actors turn on each other

 

Posted by Dee Fatouros 

April 15, 2018 7:53:00 PM 

The Realistic Observer

Posted on April 15, 2018 by sundance 

 

Comey & McCabe-Left, Lynch-Center & Crooked Hillary & Obama-Right

 

There is no honor among thieves trying to cover their own posteriors. The following article contains many links and gives a very detailed inside view of the DOJ and FBI machinations prior to the 2016 election. 

 

Trail of James Comey’s Dirt on Loretta Lynch Discovered Within IG Report on Andrew McCabe…
Posted on April 15, 2018 by sundance [The Last Refuge]

 

A very interesting development is unfolding as a result of internet researcher TracyBeanz [Twitter HERE – YouTube HERE] and some insightful dot connecting by those following.

The outline begins via a relatively under-reported accusation about former Attorney General Loretta Lynch by former FBI Director James Comey in his upcoming book.

According to ABC News Comey writes in “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” that he became the public face of the investigation partly because of a mysterious development which he felt could cast “serious doubt” on Lynch’s independence.

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

It seems rather odd for James Comey to be making such an accusation against Loretta Lynch in the book. Why add that aspect? ..and why do so without expanding the details?

Well, keep in mind, that at the time the book was written, Mr. Comey had no idea exactly where the ongoing Inspector General investigation might lead; nor did he know the timing of release. Hence, the notation without expanded citation is likely explained.

However, with part of the OIG report released, within the Andrew McCabe background there’s a trail of evidence to the AG involvement James Comey was eluding toward.

On page six of the IG report (point number 4) we find a conference call between Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and the FBI field office in New York where the subject of the Weiner/Abedin/Clinton laptop findings overlap with: the Clinton Foundation (CF) investigation; the Clinton Email investigation; pressure for Asst. Director McCabe to recuse himself, and Washington DC via Loretta Lynch using DOJ Main Justice leverage from the Eric Garner case against the NY FBI office and New York Police Department.

From the OIG report:

4. The Attorney General Expresses Strong Concerns to McCabe and other FBI Officials about Leaks, and McCabe Discusses Recusing Himself from CF Investigation (October 26)

McCabe told the OIG that during the October 2016 time frame, it was his “perception that there was a lot of information coming out of likely the [FBI’s] New York Field Office” that was ending up in the news. McCabe told the OIG that he “had some heated back-and-forths” with the New York Assistant Director in Charge (“NY-ADIC”) over the issue of media leaks.

On October 26, 2016, McCabe and NY-ADIC participated in what McCabe described as “a hastily convened conference call with the Attorney General who delivered the same message to us” about leaks, with specific focus being on leaks regarding the high-profile investigation by FBI’s New York Field Office into the death of Eric Garner. McCabe told us that he “never heard her use more forceful language.” NY-ADIC confirmed that the participants got “ripped by the AG on leaks.”

According to NY-ADIC’s testimony and an e-mail he sent to himself on October 31, McCabe indicated to NY-ADIC and a then-FBI Executive Assistant Director (“EAD”) in a conversation after Attorney General Lynch disconnected from the call that McCabe was recusing himself from the CF Investigation.

(Page #6 and #7 – IG Report Link)

What makes this explosive is the timing and how reporting in 2016 was explaining this specific call and the outcome therein.

On September 28th, 2016, Andrew McCabe was made aware of information the New York Police Department and FBI has obtained from a captured laptop belonging to Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner. The laptop was evidence in the Weiner “sexting” case involving a minor; however, the laptop also contained thousands of State Department documents from Hillary Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s wife.

Some of the extracted laptop evidence was turned over to the DOJ Southern District of New York (SDNY) where Preet Bharara, a Clinton-Lynch ally, is United States Attorney.

Text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok (Inbox) and FBI Special Counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page (Outbox):

 

Page-Strzok Texts – NYPD

 

[The letter to “Congress” at the end of the text exchange relates to notification of the re-opening of the Clinton investigation – Actual date of notification 10/28/16]

According to later reporting, FBI Director James Comey was not notified of the laptop issues for two to three weeks, after 9/28/16. However, in late October and early November, there were reports from people with contacts in New York police and FBI, about Washington DOJ officials interfering with the Weiner laptop investigation.

On the same date (October 26th, 2016) as the Lynch, McCabe and NY FBI phone call, former NY Mayor Rudy Giuilani [sic] was telling Fox News that an explosive development was forthcoming. Two days later, October 28th, 2016, Congress was notified of the additional Clinton emails.

However, a few more days later, November 4th, 2016, an even more explosive development as Erik Prince appeared on radio and outlined discoveries within the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner laptop that was being blocked by AG Lynch.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)

An earlier Grand Jury in New York had refused to return an indictment against the police in the Garner case. As an outcome of that grand jury finding, and as an outcome of their own investigation, the local FBI office and Eastern District of New York DOJ office was not trying to pursue criminal charges against the NYPD officers involved. This created a dispute because federal prosecutors and FBI officials in New York opposed bringing charges, while prosecutors with the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in Washington argued there was clear evidence to do so.

On October 25th, 2016, Loretta Lynch replaced the New York prosecutors:

New York Times (Oct. 25) – The Justice Department has replaced the New York team of agents and lawyers investigating the death of Eric Garner, officials said, a highly unusual shake-up that could jump-start the long-stalled case and put the government back on track to seek criminal charges.

With that move on Oct. 25th, 2016, AG Lynch was now in position to threaten criminal prosecutions against the NYPD, and repercussions against the NY FBI and EDNY using the Garner case as leverage, just like Erik Prince outlined in the phone interview above.

Additionally, we see confirmation from the IG report, the Garner case was brought up in the next day (Oct 26, 2016) phone call to the NY FBI field office; just as Erik Prince outlined. Obviously Prince’s sources were close to the events as they unfolded.

The NY FBI and Eastern District of New York (EDNY) were threatened by Washington DC Main Justice and FBI, via Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe to drop the Clinton/Abedin/Weiner laptop investigation matters, or else the Garner DOJ Civil Rights Division would be used as leverage against the NYPD. And Loretta Lynch had SDNY U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as the enforcer waiting for her call.

And so it was…

“Had it become public, the unverified material would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” Comey writes, according to ABC. He calls the material a “development still unknown to the American public to this day.” (ABC Link)

 

Comey & Lynch wearing Clinton-Kaine campaign shirts

 

Additionally, this excerpt from the Comey book is laughable:

“I never heard anyone on our team — not one — take a position that seemed driven by their personal political motivations. And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I thought came from a political bias. Never,” Comey writes in his book. “Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected, agonized, played devil’s advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major decisions.” (LINK)

16. Please share my video on the topic, where I play the interviews, etc. – It really helps me… SPREAD THIS TWEET!! https://t.co/nH7ITZx2YC

— Tracybeanz (@tracybeanz) April 15, 2018

Lastly, I cannot help but be reminded of a post-election event where an FBI official from the same NY field office had her vehicle broken into and a laptop stolen which included “National Security information”. Everything was recovered, except the laptop.

Um, hey everyone, the Eric Garner case was handled by the EDNY. I was in the SDNY. Nice try @Barnes_Law https://t.co/3niXJHRbke 

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) April 15, 2018

@PreetBharara I don’t think you are looking at this right. AG Lynch was threatening to take the case and give it to you. YOU were the threat Lynch was using against the EDNY [who she (and McCabe) saw as a risk]. So what does that say about you? https://t.co/IFbZSbNZNJ

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) April 15, 2018

Original Article: The Conservative Tree House

______________________________

Examine Fatouros Deep State Posts

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© April 16, 2018

________________________________

The Realistic Observer – “Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses. –Plato”

 

ALL Senators and Representatives for the 50 States : Contacts Information

 

Dr. Shaw Promotes Valuable D.C. Counterjihad Conference


Dr. Leslie Shaw, PhD

 

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2018

 

I received an unsolicited email from a Dr. Leslie Shaw, an Associate Professor teaching at the Paris campus of ESCP Europe (acronym for: École supérieure de commerce de Paris). This Is a business college located at various metropolitan cities across Europe.

 

I’m not sure how Dr. Shaw discovered me, but I’d like to believe it was one of the three blogs I post at. The nature of the email was to inform the date of a Counterjihad Conference to be held at Washington DC. The Conference stand is “to break the taboo and tackle head-on the campaign being waged by political Islam to make Western business Sharia-compliant.” The Conference is sponsored by the Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management (FIRM).

Dr. Shaw’s email is actually a forward from him to FIRM Europe (and probably other recipients not listed) on 3/28/18. Here is the forwarded portion of the email sent to me by Dr. Shaw:

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

On Thursday 26 April 2018 Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management is hosting a conference at the US Capitol to break the taboo and tackle head-on the campaign being waged by political Islam to make Western business Sharia-compliant.

 

In France corporates are gradually overcoming a reluctance to discuss this issue out of fear of accusations of Islamophobia but in the USA the core value of religious freedom is being used by Islamists as an instrument to stifle debate.

 

The conference will include speakers from France, the UK, Belgium, Hungary and Israel as well as from the USA.

 

Admission is free. Participants may make a donation towards the cost of organizing this event, the goals of which are to raise awareness of and explore ways to combat the encroachment of political Islam in the corporate sector.

 

Details in the attachments and links:

 

https://firmeurope.com/events

 

https://firm.eventsmart.com/events/islamic-radicalism-workplace-2/

 

This event is the second in a biannual series that will alternate between Paris and Washington. The next conference will be held at the National Assembly, Paris on 15 November 2018.

 

Best regards,

Leslie Shaw
Associate Professor
—————–
Paris Campus/République

79 avenue de la République – 75543 Paris Cedex 11 – France

 

Dr. Shaw sent two PDF promo attachments with the email. Thanks to the magic of conversion software, below is the text of those PDFs. After the two PDFs, I’m cross posting a Clarion Project interview with Dr. Shaw the FIRM sponsored conference, Political Islam in the Workplace. 

 

JRH 4/12/18

Please Support NCCR

***********************

FIRM

London Center for Policy Research

American Center for Democracy

 

PRESENTING A GROUNDBREAKING CONFERENCE

 

Political Islam in the Workplace

Thursday 26th April 2018

 

On Thursday 26 April 2018 at the United States Capitol, Washington DC from 3pm to 9pm FIRM, London Center for Policy Research and American Center for Democracy are hosting the world’s most informed experts on Islamic radicalism and executives from flagship corporates.

 

They’ll be coming together in one room for America’s first Political Islam in the Workplace conference.

 

A wide range of topics will be covered;

 

  • from religious accommodation to detection of radicalization

 

  • from lethal attacks on soft targets to lawfare against employers

 

  • from micro-financing of jihad to security and protection of employees and customers and everything in between!

 

We’re curating an incredible group of people who are working tirelessly to find solutions to the global scourge of Islamic radicalism. Admission to hear them speak and ask them questions is by registration and we’re vetting every prospective attendee to make sure we have the right people in the room.

 

This event is a unique opportunity for lawmakers and professionals from the public and private sectors to learn from leading experts on this crucial topic, share experiences, exchange best practises and better equip themselves to deal with the security, legal and HR challenges posed by the growing threat of Islamic radicalism to free enterprise and democracy.

 

To apply

 

  1. Go to our website – https://firmeurope.com/

 

  1. Submit your email

 

  1. Click registration link on Events page

 

All conference attendees will receive a copy of our report.

 

++++++++++++++++++

London Center for Policy Research

FIRM

American Center for Democracy

 

Political Islam in the Workplace

 

03:00 – 03:30 | Registration

 

03.30 – 04.00 | Welcome and opening address

 

  • Eli Gold

 

  • Leslie Shaw – Islamic Radicalism in the Workplace Survey Results

 

04.00 – 05 :30 | Panel 1 – Political Islam and the Workplace

 

  1. Rachel Ehrenfeld – The Islamist Economic Warfare against the West

 

  1. Pierre Spain – Islamist Infiltration of Labor Unions at Paris CDG Airport

 

  1. Herbert London – Political Correctness and An Inability to Recognize the Threat

 

  1. Philippe Chansay-Wilmotte – Freeing Business from the Shackles of Political Islam

 

 

05:30 – 06:30 | Dinner and networking break

 

06:30 – 08:00 | Panel 2 – Managing the Threat

 

  1. Zoltán Ladányi – A Blueprint for Regulating Religion in the Workplace

 

  1. Joseph Trindal – Addressing Radicalization as another Insider Threat in Sensitive Job Categories

 

  1. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin – The Workplace Jihadi’s Inside-Out World

 

  1. Frank Figliuzzi – Lessons Learned: Case Studies from the Corporate World

 

 

08:00 – 08:15 | Keynote

 

  • To be announced

 

08:15 – 08:30 | Closing remarks

 

  • Eli Gold

 

  • Leslie Shaw

 

Speakers

 

  • Philippe Chansay-Wilmotte – Lawyer at Brussels Bar with extensive experience working for governments, including Islamic governments.

 

  • Rachel Ehrenfeld – Director of American Center for Democracy and Economic Warfare Institute.

 

  • Frank Figliuzzi – Chief Operating Officer, ETS Global Risk Management, Inc; NBC News National Security Analyst; Former Director, Corporate Investigations and Assistant Chief Security Officer, the General Electric Company; Former FBI Assistant Director of Counterintelligence.

 

  • Eli Gold – Senior Vice President, London Center for Policy Research; Senior Fellow, Soran University; Former President and Chairman, The Harbour League.

 

  • Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin – External Expert, Universidad de Granada; Psychoanalyst, Arabist, Counter-Terrorism Expert.

 

  • Zoltan Ladanyi – LPN Global Security Solutions.

 

  • Herbert London – President, London Center for Policy Research; Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Former President, Hudson Institute; Professor Emeritus and former John M. Olin Professor of Humanities, New York University.

 

  • Leslie Shaw – Associate Professor, ESCP Europe Business School.

 

  • Pierre Spain – Corporate Director, Delta Air Lines (rtd).

 

  • Joseph Trindal – Director of Programs, Engility Corporation; Leading Department of Justice ICITAP and OPDAT programs; Former President, InfraGard National Capital Region; Former President and Chief Operating Officer, Akal Security.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

Is Islamism a Problem in America’s Workplaces?

 

By CLARION PROJECT 

March 29, 2018

Clarion Project

DAGENHAM, ENGLAND – JANUARY 13: An employee works on an engine production line at a Ford factory on January 13, 2015 in Dagenham, England. Originally opened in 1931, the Ford factory has unveiled a state of the art GBP475 million production line that will start manufacturing the new low-emission, Ford diesel engines from this November this will generate more than 300 new jobs, Ford currently employs around 3000 at the plant in Dagenham. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

Workers at a Ford factory in the UK (Illustrative photo: Carl Court/Getty Images)

 

The first conference in the U.S. on the subject of Political Islam in the Workplace will take place in Washington, D.C. on April 26, 2018  The event is co-sponsored by Forum on Islamic Radicalism and Management (FIRM), London Center for Policy Research and American Foundation for Democracy. Clarion Project spoke to event co-ordinator Dr. Leslie Shaw of FIRM:

 

Clarion: Back in 2016, CAIR described this planned conference as Islamophobic. Can you comment on that?

 

Leslie Shaw: CAIR’s opinion is driven by sectarian self-interest and promotion of a socio-political agenda.

 

Clarion: But the conference focuses only on Islamic and not other forms of radicalism.

 

Shaw: We are looking at one segment of a wide phenomenon. Other forms of radicalism exist — Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, left-wing, right-wing, animal rights activists, anti-globalists, eco-warriors, neo-luddites — but Islamic radicalism poses a greater threat than all of the others put together.

 

Clarion: Why political Islam in the workplace specifically?

 

Shaw: There is a plethora of conferences on the subject of radicalism in general and Islamic radicalism in particular, but they are usually restricted to specialists in certain areas. I attended a conference in Brussels on April 22 on the challenge of jihadist radicalization in Europe. There were over 250 people there and over 20 speakers but not one person from the business world. We want to open the subject up to corporations, because they are in the front line.

 

Clarion: Can you explain how?

 

Shaw: Corporations are soft targets for terrorist attacks, but aside from the threat of violence, they are also easy prey for Islamists deploying nonviolent tactics in pursuit of their goals.

 

Islamist employees may not end up committing acts of terrorism, but their behavior is certain to generate significant workplace conflict that undermines productivity and workforce cohesion. A recent survey of over 1,000 French managers revealed that 65% had to handle faith-based problems on an occasional or regular basis, ranging from absenteeism through collective praying to refusal to work with a female colleague.

 

So, in addition, to the security dimension, it is also an issue for human resources. In France, for example, Islamic radicalism is a growing phenomenon among employees in the City of Paris, the Paris Airport Authority, the Paris Transit Authority and the public education sector. It is also a problem in private firms. The French government is currently seeking to partner with the private sector to deal with the threat.

 

You are getting the same thing in the USA with the explosion in lawsuits filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against employers. These are more often than not instigated by CAIR.

 

Clarion: Isn’t that a legitimate Civil Rights Act Title VII issue?

 

Shaw: I think the spirit of Title VII has been perverted to further a political and ideological agenda. When an employer hires a worker, he is buying that person’s time. In a manufacturing plant operating with a lean production schedule, you can’t have a worker walking off the assembly line at times determined by a third party. When you take a job, you follow the employer’s rules.

 

Clarion: But not all demands for religious accommodation are radical.

 

Shaw: Our working definition of a radical is somebody whose determination to adhere to his principles or religion causes disruption in the workplace. A vegetarian should not apply for a job in a slaughterhouse and then file a Title VII complaint because it conflicts with his moral principles. A Muslim should not take a job in a brewery if it conflicts with his religion.

 

Clarion: Aren’t you concerned that such views could be branded as Islamophobic?

 

Shaw: The purpose of the conference is to debate these issues in an open forum. Any point of view can be countered by a rebuttal.

 

Clarion: You held a similar conference in Paris in November 2017. What was the response?

 

Shaw: Extremely positive. It was attended by senior executives from flagship European and U.S. corporations as well as delegates from the gendarmerie, national Police, military, intelligence, counter-terrorism and corporate security. People appreciated the fact that we tackled the subject in a direct manner.

 

Clarion: What differences do you see in the U.S. and European approach to the problem?

 

Shaw: In Europe, corporatations are gradually overcoming a reluctance to discuss these issues out of fear of accusations of Islamophobia, but in the USA the core value of religious freedom is being used by Islamists as an instrument to stifle debate.

 

Clarion: How can people access the survey you are conducting?

 

Shaw: The survey is not accessible to the public. It’s not an opinion poll. We are sending it directly to executives in various companies and sectors. If anybody wants to complete it, they can contact us at firm.europe@gmail.com. We vet them before sending the link to make sure they are bona fide corporate officers.

 

Clarion: How does one register for the conference?

 

Shaw: People can apply to attend by clicking here (our website https://firmeurope.com) All applicants will be vetted and we will send them instructions on how to register. The list of participants will be classified.

 

Clarion: What have you discovered while organizing this conference?

 

Shaw: Apart from analysts and the security community, people are scared of Islamic radicalism.  The academic and media establishment won’t touch it because of political correctness. Corporations are seeking help to mitigate the threat but behind closed doors. They won’t come out and discuss the issues in public. It is an Orwellian fear that plays into the hands of the global Muslim Brotherhood and its satellite organizations.

 

Clarion: Are you planning more conferences?

 

Shaw: Yes. The next one is on November 15, 2018 at the National Assembly, the French parliament. The conference will be a biannual event alternating between Paris and Washington.

 

Clarion: How will corporate attendees benefit from the conference?

 

Shaw: First, they will have the reassurance that they are not alone in facing the threat. Second, the conference will demonstrate that corporations can acquire tools to assess the risks, mitigate the threat, minimize the economic costs, vet personnel and potential hires, and shield themselves from litigation.

 

The business community has a right to openly, fearlessly and objectively discuss the real challenges posed by Islamic radicalism in the workplace and share their best practices and experience in dealing with it.

 

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding the subject of Islam, on both sides. We need to cast a real eye on what is going on and take steps to ensure that our socio-economic model and values remain intact.

 

Lawmakers have a key role to play in this process so that businesses are not at the mercy of religious pressure groups eager to hijack our freedoms for their own ends.

_____________________

Dr. Shaw Promotes Valuable D.C. Counterjihad Conference

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2018

_____________________

Is Islamism a Problem in America’s Workplaces?

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

More About Clarion Project on About Page

 

The Gaza Clashes: What’s Really Happening


There is one Constant Conservatives can rely on. Leftists lie and Arab pretenders calling themselves Palestinians lie. The proof in the pudding is every incident involving Israel and the lying pretenders is reported with twisted partial truth to no truth whatsoever.

 

JRH 4/9/18

Please Support NCCR

****************************

The Gaza Clashes: What’s Really Happening

 

By DANIEL POMERANTZ 

 APRIL 9, 2018

HonestReporting

Palestinian prostestors burn tires during clashes with Israeli security forces on the Gaza Israeli border east of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip on April 6, 2018. Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90  

 

Since March 30, there have been intermittent protests, riots, and even armed attacks at the Gaza border.

 

Much of the media coverage has been so poorly informed or even outright misleading, that it can be almost impossible to understand what’s really happening. Israel has, in many cases, been made out to be a violent aggressor intentionally killing peaceful protesters.

 

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

That’s why HonestReporting will be actively monitoring, analyzing and communicating throughout these events.

 

Here, for your use and information, is what we’ve seen so far:

 

Re-cap of events

 

  • On April 1, we posted this explanation and analysis of the events up to that date. It was immediately clear that the “protests” also included molotov cocktails, burning tires, rock throwing, and in one case even live gunfire at the IDF.  There were ongoing attempts by rioters to breach the border fence and enter Israel.

 

  • Of the 30,000 Palestinians present, 16 were reportedly killed by IDF sniper fire. The figure later increased to 19.

 

  • It was well known since April 1 that at least ten of the casualties had clear affiliations to terror groups, including Hamas. An analysis of open-source information from Palestinian media brought that number up to 15, and HonestReporting was the first to publish that new information on April 5.

 

  • Another protest/riot on April 6 brought 20,000 people and new violence: including the burning of what may have been 10,000 tires, and further attempts to both attack IDF soldiers and to  infiltrate Israel under the resulting smokescreen. Meanwhile, and this is not a joke, Hamas is now blaming Israel for what it claims is a “shortage” of tires in Gaza. Seriously. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

 

Palestinian Protesters

 

  • A number of Palestinians criticized Hamas for publicizing the deaths of its members, including holding military funerals and rallies. The main objection can be summarized as follows: by revealing that so many of the deaths were actually terrorists, Hamas undermines the PR illusion that this was a “peaceful protest.”

 

 

International investigations?

 

Fatou Bensauda, CC by Max Koot Studio

 

In the meantime, numerous international parties, including UN Secretary General António Guterres and EU chief Federica Mogherini have begun calling for an international investigation into the actions of the IDF.  Whether Israel adequately investigates itself, and whether the allegations have sufficient gravity are likely to be the key issues in determining whether the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes a case.

 

If the ICC does prosecute a case, Israel is not the only party under the microscope:  Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda has noted that Hamas or other Palestinian bodies could be subject to investigations related to war crimes for their use of civilians in covering violent activities.

 

The UN and EU, on the other hand, are primarily political bodies and can choose to launch their own investigations merely if their members wish to: without any regard to standards of international law.

 

When the dust settles and the burning-tire-smoke clears, international investigations will likely be the big remaining question.

 

In the meantime, the IDF has already appointed Brig. Gen. Moti Baruch, head of the General Staff’s Doctrine and Training Division to lead the IDF’s own investigation.

 

The latest updates

 

Some of the critical facts and images from Friday’s flare-up have made the mainstream news, yet some of the most informative have remained conspicuously absent.

 

Take, for example, this image round-up by Israellycool’s Aussie Dave: including telling, often dramatic pictures of events, some of which have not been published by any international news source.

 

Another telling scene was captured in this photo of a swastika flying alongside Palestinian flags, with tire-smoke all around:

 

 

 

 

A few nay-sayers on Twitter tried to claim the image was photo-shopped, until they came face to face with this video of the same:

 

Proof Swastika Not Photoshopped video

http://s22592.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WhatsApp-Video-2018-04-06-at-21.41.40.mp4?_=1

And speaking of tire-smoke: in this particularly shameless tweet, the Palestine diplomatic office in the US preposterously claims that Hamas’s own tire-fire is actually an Israeli nerve agent.

 

 

Here is some additional video of tires and fires throughout the area.

 

Next time you hear about Palestinians throwing “stones,” keep in mind that in at least some cases, this is what they are really talking about:

 

 

Just outside Gaza, JPost’s Seth Frantzman caught up with Richard Kemp, former commander, British forces, Afghanistan. Kemp took the media to task pointing out that they don’t necessarily fully understand events even if they’re physically close up. Specifically, Kemp clarified that this is not a “peaceful demonstration” as is often portrayed by the media but rather:

 

…a deliberate and specific intent by a major terrorist organization, recognized around the world as terrorists, to penetrate the border of the State of Israel.

 

Arab world reacts

 

Though reactions are mixed, at least some residents of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and other Arab countries, took to social media to lambaste Hamas for its exploitation of the inhabitants of Gaza. Meanwhile, despite a show of support at the official level, it seems Palestinians in the West Bank were largely apathetic to the events in Gaza. Notably, top Palestinian Authority cleric Mahmoud al-Habbash declared:

 

[Hamas is] sending Gazans to their deaths for good headlines… [is] trading in suffering and blood [and] no longer fools Palestinian people.

 

And though it’s not in the Arab world, as long as we’re talking reactions we should give credit where it’s due: Reuters was one of the few publications to ask Israelis living near Gaza what they think. Here’s one example:

 

“I’m sorry about what is happening there. I know the situation is very, very difficult,” Israeli farmer Daniel Rahamim said about economic hardship in Gaza, the Palestinian enclave ruled by Hamas, an Islamist group that advocates Israel’s destruction.

 

“But I don’t talk about a peace deal anymore. Maybe we can achieve a long-term ceasefire,” Rahimim, 63, said as he irrigated his crops. He said his 24-year-old daughter, still “traumatized by rockets” left the area after the demonstrations started.

 

Finally, if there was any doubt about the real point of these protests and riots, Hamas leader Yehya Al-Sinwar was crystal clear:

 

Yehya al-Sinwar quote on killing Jews (Hamas Leader)

 

As these events unfold, HonestReporting will continue to monitor, analyze and hold the media to account.

 

Watch this space.

 

If you see biased or inaccurate media coverage of these events, take action and demand fair coverage from your media. Let us know by informing us through our Red Alert page.

While you’re here, help us continue producing the analyses, articles, videos and hot news reaching thousands of viewers and holding the media accountable. Support us by DONATING HERE

_____________________________

About HonestReporting

 

HonestReporting monitors the news for bias, inaccuracy, or other breach of journalistic standards in coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It also facilitates accurate reporting for foreign journalists covering the region. HonestReporting is not aligned with any government or political party or movement.

 

HonestReporting believes that a fully informed public is essential to progress and understanding in conflict resolution. It is not enough to correct inaccurate reporting and expose breaches of journalistic ethics. HonestReporting, through its MediaCentral project, provides support services for journalists based in or visiting Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the region to insure the free flow of information.

 

HonestReporting’s work serves the public interest by fighting misinformation. At the same time, it provides agenda-free services to reporters, including translation services and access to news makers to enable them to provide a fuller picture of the situation. Honestreporting has over 140,000 subscribers and its MediaCentral project handles over 1,000 inquiries from journalists each year.

 

Our Guiding Principles

 

  1. We believe Israel is entitled to fair treatment by the world press according to the same standards applied to any other country.

 

  1. We believe that public opinion is significantly shaped by media coverage.

 

  1. We believe that biased coverage of Israel distorts the public’s understanding of Israel and its motives, creating an obstacle to a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

  1. We believe people have as much right to criticize Israel as any other state. However, when criticism turns to demonization or delegitimization, it is no longer legitimate criticism.

 

  1. We believe that the media must be transparent, relevant, accurate, balanced, and ethical. Journalists, editors and publishers must be held accountable for slanted coverage.

 

  1. We support the working definition of anti-Semitism as adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in May 2016. We note the fact that this definition stipulates that “Manifestations [of anti-Semitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”

 

To learn about how we objectively define media bias, see The Eight Categories of Media Bias.

 

Our Strategy

 

Monitoring the Media: HonestReporting combats the false depiction of Israel in READ THE REST

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber


Act for America emailed an excerpt of an article from The Federalist with the email subject line “The Muslim Brotherhood is Rattled”. The Federalist article by Ben Weingarten highlights that John Bolton’s appointment as National Security Advisor has rattled the transnational Islamic terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood (aka Ikhwan to many Arab speaking people) because Bolton has had the correct assessment that the terrorist network indeed should be on the State Department’s designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

 

Here is the Act for America email intro:

 

The left has made it their mission to smear anyone who opposes violent jihad, and cast them as “Islamophobic.” Recently, former ambassador John Bolton has been the target of such attacks because of his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) to the President. This is not only an attempt to discredit John Bolton, it is an attempt to protect the Muslim Brotherhood from finally being designated a terrorist organization.

 

As patriotic American’s we must stand up and not only support the appointment of Ambassador John Bolton, but also tell Congress it is time, once and for all, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Click here to tell your local Members of Congress enough is enough.

 

JRH 4/6/18

Please Support NCCR

***************************

John Bolton

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality.

 

By Ben Weingarten

APRIL 5, 2018

The Federalist

 

The attacks on former ambassador John Bolton following his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.

 

First there were the hysterical cries of “neocon warmonger!” This would come as news to the NSA-designate, who was never a “liberal mugged by reality” but a self-identified “Goldwater conservative” from the start; explicitly rejects the belief in democracy-building as imperative to achieving America’s national interest under democratic peace theory; and suggests, exaggerating for effect, that following the removal of Saddam Hussein, as soon as practicable he would have told the Iraqis, “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”

 

Although the “neocon warmonger” moniker is inapt, to say the least, maybe it is not such a bad thing if our enemies buy this line. In fact, this may be part of President Trump’s strategic rationale as a dealmaker for elevating a “peace-through-strength” realist portrayed as a cantankerous cowboy to the top of the National Security Council.

 

Then followed another narrative: Bolton is not only a real-life Dr. Strangelove, but worse. He is actually an adroit bureaucrat—“crazy and dangerous.” Then-senator Joe Biden, a man prone to malapropism, actually put it best when, in Bolton’s retelling, Biden said of him in 2005: “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent. I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”

 

But the truly revelatory attacks concern Bolton’s positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful partly because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.

 

Opposing Jihadis Isn’t the Same as Opposing Islam

 

Bolton has been cast as an “Islamophobe” for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists. The charge of “Islamophobe” is a baseless, intellectually dishonest, and lazy slur. Although it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, it goes without saying that there is nothing to indicate Bolton harbors an irrational fear of Islam, and everything to indicate he holds the very rational belief that we must defeat Islamic supremacists who wish to subject us to their tyrannical rule or destroy us.

 

“Islamophobe” is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The “tell” is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.

 

As the representative par excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.

 

Either We Work With Terrorists or We Don’t

 

Recall that the national security and foreign policy establishment has long held that as a “political Islamist” group, the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic partner. The theory is that we have to choose between violent and seemingly peaceful Islamic supremacists, ignoring the fact that their differences are tactical and strategic, not ideological. They are all still Islamic supremacists.

 

Most infamously, the Obama administration supported the ascension of Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to president during the Arab spring, with predictably horrific consequences in particular for the nation’s Christians that persist even in the era of the much-maligned counterjihadist Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

 

Such disastrously naïve policy pushes ignore that the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. It’s the ideological fountainhead from which violent jihadist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda and ISIS spring. The “political” element of the Muslim Brotherhood is, if anything, more pernicious precisely because its adherents do not goose-step, guns in hand, in the public square.

 

No, the political arm engages in political and ideological warfare, tactfully seeking to impose its will through policy and subterfuge. “Social welfare” activities provide a convenient cover for the group’s ultimate aims. As the Brotherhood put it in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America:

 

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

 

On account of the Brotherhood’s nature and activities, it has been designated as a terrorist organization from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A bill first introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015, calling for the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on designating the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization in America, lays out several other reasons the group merits this, including:

 

The [group’s] explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts

 

The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves

 

The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the…Holy Land Foundation case [the largest terror financing case in U.S. history] …

 

Do What We Like or Get Smeared as a Bigot

 

On the campaign trail and in its early days the Trump administration indicated an interest in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But within months it shelved these plans. What happened? The Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber deployed.

 

The Brotherhood undertook an extensive lobbying and information operation designed to dissuade the administration’s plans, reportedly backed by millions of dollars. The U.S. foreign policy establishment quickly proliferated articles and comments in prominent mainstream publications defending the Muslim Brotherhood against charges of being a jihadist group, adding that designated it as such would be impractical and impracticable. Notably, The New York Times went so far as to print an op-ed in the Brotherhood’s defense written by Clinton Foundation-linked Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad.

 

In the midst of this flurry of articles, it leaked to the media that the CIA and State Department both produced memos against Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation.

 

Concurrently, counterjihadists throughout the Trump administration were subjected to a barrage of attacks. Many would ultimately be sidelined, though some like Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo survived. He, like Bolton, is being attacked as an Islamophobic bigot as well.

 

Bolton recognized at the time that these events were not random. During a July 2017 interview he noted:

 

There’s been an amazing campaign. It’s always amazing to me how these stories and op-eds and lines of chatter appear simultaneously, all very well-coordinated…The argument being the Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated organization, not every part of it is devoted to the support of terrorism. Some of them do humanitarian work and so on; a declaration that the entire Brotherhood is a foreign terrorist organization would actually buttress the cause of the jihadis; so, therefore, don’t do anything.

 

Bolton’s riposte?

 

Let’s take the notion inherent in that argument as having some validity, that there are pieces of the Muslim Brotherhood that don’t qualify under the statutory definition we have of a foreign terrorist organization…My response to that is, ‘Okay, we need some careful drafting based on the evidence we have now that excludes some affiliates, some components of the Muslim Brotherhood from the designation.’ I’m prepared to live with that, of course, until we get more complete information.

 

This position is what really draws the ire of the Brotherhood echo chamber. CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the previously mentioned largest terror financing case in U.S. history, published a press release condemning the appointment of “Islamophobe John Bolton” as NSA, citing corroborating articles from such non-biased sources as Think Progress, The Nation, Islamophobia.com, Vox, and Huffington Post.

 

As I have written previously, CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi ties are numerous and longstanding, involving not only its founders and present leaders to Hamas, but its harboring of apologists for Islamic terrorism, and alleged impeding of counterterrorism efforts.

 

Bolton’s endorsement of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization illustrates a keen understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the Islamic supremacist threat that the national security and foreign policy establishment lacks. It is a proxy for a worldview that if followed to its logical conclusion would turn our largely futile efforts to beat back jihadists over the last 17 years on their head. This view takes Islamic supremacists at their word in their desire to impose upon us the Sharia-based, totalitarian theopolitical ideology to which they adhere. Hence the pushback.

 

Applying this worldview would lead to decisions antithetical to the progressive Wilsonian internationalists and political Islamists on myriad issues in the Middle East, including:

 

  • Treatment of Israel versus the Arabs

 

  • The Iran deal

 

  • Iran policy more broadly, including appropriate measures against its proxies in Syria and Lebanon

 

  • Qatar’s bellicosity

 

  • Turkey’s behavior under Islamic supremacist Erdogan

 

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who self-evidently wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality. This specious and slanderous smear campaign reflects all the better on the appointment of Bolton as NSA.

 

Photo Gage Skidmore / Flickr

________________________

Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.