RUTHFULLY YOURS

A news issue of Al-Shabaab’s magazine calls on jihadists to emulate the British converts who murdered a soldier on a Woolwich street in 2013, along with a poem warning that jihadists would be “marching” to Maine.

The issue of Gaidi Mtaani also features a lengthy story about late al-Qaeda recruiter and cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose lectures are cited by American terrorists to this day, playing paintball in San Diego in the 1990s.

The Somali terror group, allied with al-Qaeda, has previously urged Western jihadists to draw inspiration from the attack on 25-year-old Fusilier Lee Rigby, who was first struck by a car and then stabbed and hacked by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. London-born Adebolajo, 28, who was raised Christian before converting to Islam, filmed a statement before police arrived at the murder scene, vowing “you people will never be safe.” Both are serving life in prison.

Al-Shabaab’s magazine dubs Adebolajo 2013’s “Muslim of the Year,” declaring “good men are hard to find.”

“In an age stained with defeatism and cowardice, a room full of Mujahid Adebolajo is exactly what today’s world needs,” the article, bylined Abu Maryam, states. “…If a pictures speaks a thousand words, then blood in British streets speak a million words. Knowing that the British Government only understands the language of violence, instead of writing his letter on paper, Adebolajo decided to write his letter on the streets of Southeast London using the blood of a British soldier.”

Adebolajo was “practically teaching the British public and the world in general, the elementary principle of universalism” through the murder, the terror group argued, with eye-for-an-eye reasoning.

“World media and left wing conservatives can deceptively portray Mujahid as a psychopathic slayer if they please, but after watching the video and hearing his words, deep down inside everyone knew he was making perfect sense. Amidst the hustle and bustle of London streets, specifically targeting a British soldier once stationed in Afghanistan clearly expresses the political motives behind the killings and disproves the fallacy that the attack was a haphazard intent to randomly slay Britons,” the article continues.

“It’s quite ignorant and presumptuous of non-Muslims and Muslims alike to think that the driving force of Mujahid’s actions were fueled by an inherent disdain for British culture or values,” the terror group argues, noting that if Adebolajo just wanted to kill fellow Britons there were more people at the scene he could have attacked.

“Their message couldn’t be any simpler, ‘We swear by Allaah the All-Mighty we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.’ These same axioms expressed by Mujahid in England, were reiterated by Nidal Hasan, Mohamed Mirah, and the same concepts that will continue to be personified through bloodshed in Western streets, unless taken seriously.” Hasan killed 13 at Fort Hood in 2009, while Mohammed Merah killed French soldiers and Jewish children during a 2012 shooting spree in Toulouse and Montauban.

Merah was born in Toulouse while Hasan was born in Virginia, keeping with the article’s theme of urging attacks at home by jihadists native to Western countries.

A poem bylined by the same author of the article says to “tell the West we’re a roaring flame/That can’t be doused that can’t be tamed/And until you cease your bombs and planes/We’ll keep marching till we reach the State of Maine.” CONTINUE AT SITE

President Trump is considering designating the global Muslim Brotherhood organization as terrorist. It’s about time.

Two days before he signed the Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) began organizing nationwide protests against the anticipated order, which the mischaracterized the suspension of U.S. visas to Muslim refugees and travelers from only seven out of fifty Muslim-majority countries, as a “ban.” CAIR was immediately joined by progressive Left organizations that protested the election of Donald Trump as President. Thus Left-leaning ill-informed organizations, CEOs of tech companies (How many of their employees are immigrants, or Work-Visa holders from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen?) and Democratic-run-States joined forces with MB-affiliated groups to undermine the power of the President and the security of the nation.

On October 28, 2005, President George W. Bush denounced IslamoFascist movements that call for a “violent and political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion, and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.” The Muslim Brotherhood was not on his list.

On June 6, 2006, this author proposed, in FrontOageMag to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood. The article concluded: “In the interest of preserving freedom in the U.S. while advancing it globally, it is time for our government to thoroughly investigate the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and consider designating it as a terrorist organization.

In the same vein, the U.S should not allow foreign donations to U.S. educational, and public organizations and institutions from Islamic countries that prohibit religious freedom.”

These suggestions, however, were dismissed on grounds that the MB is a “reformist” organization. It took years for many in the West to realize the MB has fooled them into endorsing the oxymoron of “Political Islam.” It took the Muslim Brotherhood, first in Tunisia and Egypt, and with other radical Islamist groups in Syria, Libya, and Iraq to destabilize the Middle East. Only after the MB globalized their murderous ideology and threatened Muslim nations in the Middle East, several Arab countries banned the organization. More recently concerned groups in the West have been considering banning the MB and its affiliates

Below is a version of the June 6, 2006, FrontPageMag article:

The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun)[2] also known as the Ikhwan is a good example of what resident Bush described on October 28, 2005, and what we must protect the U.S. against.

The Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) organization describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and called for the return to original Islam.[3]

Last year, eight members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a demand that their staffers be granted access to top secret classified information.

The signatories to the letter were Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell and Patrick Murphy. All the signatories were Democrats. Some had a history of attempting to undermine national security.

Two of them have been linked to an emerging security breach.

The office of Andre Carson, the second Muslim in Congress, had employed Imran Awan. As did the offices of Jackie Speier and Debbie Wasserman Schultz; to whom the letter had been addressed.

Imran Awan and his two brothers, Jamal and Abid, are at the center of an investigation that deals with, among other things, allegations of illegal access. They have been barred from the House of Representatives network.

A member of Congress expressed concern that, “they may have stolen data from us.”

All three of the Pakistani brothers had been employed by Democrats. The offices that employed them included HPSCI minority members Speier, Carson and Joaquín Castro. Congressman Castro, who also sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, utilized the services of Jamal Moiz Awan. Speier and Carson’s offices utilized Imran Awan.

Abid A. Awan was employed by Lois Frankel and Ted Lieu: members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also on the committee is Castro. As is Robin Kelly whose office employed Jamal Awan. Lieu also sits on the subcommittees on National Security and Information Technology of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Tammy Duckworth’s office had also employed Abid. Before Duckworth successfully played on the sympathy of voters to become Senator Tammy Duckworth, she had been on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.

Gwen Graham, who had also been on the Armed Services Committee and on the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee, had employed Jamal Awan. Jamal was also employed by Cedric Richmond’s office. Richmond sits on the Committee on Homeland Security and on its Terrorism and Cybersecurity subcommittee. He is a ranking member of the latter subcommittee. Also employing Jamal was Mark Takano of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Imran had worked for the office of John Sarbanes who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees, among other things, the nuclear industry. Other members of the Committee employing the brothers included Yvette Clarke, who also sits on the Bipartisan Encryption Working Group, Diana DeGette, Dave Loebsack and Tony Cardenas.

But finally there’s Andre Carson.

Last June, the jihadist terrorist Omar Mateen opened fire at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, killing 49 and wounding several other revelers. It quickly became clear that Mateen was yet another “known wolf” – the term popularized by my friend and colleague Patrick Poole to describe the frequent phenomenon of terrorists who manage to plot and strike against the West notwithstanding that their patent radicalism has put them on the radar screen of law-enforcement and intelligence agents.

I have long argued that the cause of this phenomenon is the restrictions on common sense placed on our agents by political correctness, which essentially blind them to the well-known but rarely acknowledged progression from Islamic scripture to sharia-supremacist ideology (what we call “radical Islam”), to enclaves populated by adherents and sympathizers of this ideology, and inevitably to jihadist terror. This iteration of political correctness has been the backbone of Obama administration counterterrorism strategy, known as “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). Shortly after the Orlando attack, I delivered a speech at the Westminster Institute – entitled, “Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies” – in which I addressed CVE. The new Trump administration is in the process of formulating its own counterterrorism strategy. Below, for what it may be worth, is the portion of my speech that addressed CVE:

Of the nearly 36,000 people who work for the FBI, fewer than 14,000 are investigative agents. National security is a crucial part of the Bureau’s portfolio, but the FBI is statutorily the lead investigative agency in virtually every category of criminal offense in federal law. At most, there are a couple thousand agents assigned full-time to counterterrorism. Those numbers are multiplied somewhat by joint federal-state efforts — the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in several metropolitan areas across the nation. Even so, because the Bureau is an intelligence agency as well as a law-enforcement agency, there are over a thousand terrorism investigations ongoing at any one time. The FBI director indicates that there is activity that must be monitored in all 50 states. Unless there are flashing neon signs of imminent attack, the small number of investigators can only spend so much time on any one suspect.

Of course, that time can be maximized, or wasted, depending on whether investigators know what they’re looking for . . . and whether they are permitted to look for it.

Clearly, the FBI spent a lot of time on Mateen. It sent confidential informants to interact with him, conducted physical surveillance, covertly monitored some of his phone calls, and interviewed him face-to-face three separate times. It concluded that his bark was bad, but his bite was non-existent. Honoring guidelines imposed on terrorism investigations, the FBI closed its case. That is, in addition to concluding that no charges should be filed, the Bureau further decided that additional monitoring of Mateen was not warranted.

In retrospect, this seems reckless. But the FBI is not incompetent, far from it. The agency knew Mateen was worth a heavy investigative investment. The problem is that the FBI answers to the Washington political class. The bipartisan Beltway has long ruled that advocacy of radical Islam is protected by the Constitution. It has long instructed its investigators, preposterously, that seditious beliefs and agitation are immune, not just from prosecution, but even from mere inquiry.

What passes for Obama’s national-security strategy, known as “Countering Violent Extremism,” exacerbates this problem. CVE delusionally forbids the conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on terrorist plotting. The FBI is in the impossible position of trying to conduct investigations that follow the facts wherever they lead, while fearing that such investigations — by illuminating the logical progression from Islamic scripture to sharia supremacism to jihadist terror — will enrage its political masters.