Silicon Valley Censorship

Authored by Samuel Westrop via The Gatestone Institute,

• If it is ever "toxic" to deem ISIS a terrorist organization, then -- regardless of whether that is the result of human bias or an under-developed algorithm -- the potential for abuse, and for widespread censorship, will always exist. The problem lies with the very concept of the idea. Why does Silicon Valley believe it should decide what is valid speech and what is not?


• Conservative news, it seems, is considered fake news. Liberals should oppose this dogma before their own news comes under attack. Again, the most serious problem with attempting to eliminate hate speech, fake news or terrorist content by censorship is not about the efficacy of the censorship; it is the very premise that is dangerous.


• Under the guidance of faulty algorithms or prejudiced Silicon Valley programmers, when the New York Times starts to delete or automatically hide comments that criticize extremist clerics, or Facebook designates articles by anti-Islamist activists as "fake news," Islamists will prosper and moderate Muslims will suffer.

Google"s latest project is an application called Perspective, which, as Wired reports, brings the tech company "a step closer to its goal of helping to foster troll-free discussion online, and filtering out the abusive comments that silence vulnerable voices." In other words, Google is teaching computers how to censor.

If Google"s plans are not quite Orwellian enough for you, the practical results are rather more frightening. Released in February, Perspective"s partners include the New York Times, the Guardian, Wikipedia and the Economist. Google, whose motto is "Do the Right Thing," is aiming its bowdlerism at public comment sections on newspaper websites, but the potential is far broader.

Perspective works by identifying the "toxicity level" of comments published online. Google states that Perspective will enable companies to "sort comments more effectively, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information." Perspective"s demonstration website currently allows anyone to measure the "toxicity" of a word or phrase, according to its algorithm. What, then, constitutes a "toxic" comment?

The organization with which I work, the Middle East Forum, studies Islamism. We work to tackle the threat posed by both violent and non-violent Islamism, assisted by our Muslim allies. We believe that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

Perspective does not look fondly at our work:

Google"s Perspective application, which is being used by major media outlets to identify the "toxicity level" of comments published online, has much potential for abuse and widespread censorship.

No reasonable person could claim this is hate speech.

But the problem does not just extend to opinions. Even factual statements are deemed to have a high rate of "toxicity." Google considers the statement "ISIS is a terrorist group" to have an 87% chance of being "perceived as toxic."

Or 92% "toxicity" for stating the publicly-declared objective of the terrorist group, Hamas:

Google is quick to remind us that we may disagree with the result. It explains that, "It"s still early days and we will get a lot of things wrong." The Perspective website even offers a "Seem Wrong?" button to provide feedback.

These disclaimers, however, are very much beside the point. If it is ever "toxic" to deem ISIS a terrorist organization, then -- regardless of whether that figure is the result of human bias or an under-developed algorithm -- the potential for abuse, and for widespread censorship, will always exist.

The problem lies with the very concept of the idea. Why does Silicon Valley believe it should decide what is valid speech and what is not?

Google is not the only technology company enamored with censorship. In June, Facebook announced its own plans to use artificial intelligence to identify and remove "terrorist content." These measures can be easily circumvented by actual terrorists, and how long will it be before that same artificial intelligence is used to remove content that Facebook staff find to be politically objectionable?

In fact, in May 2016, the "news curators" at Facebook revealed that they were ordered to "suppress news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network"s influential "trending" news section." And in December 2016, Facebook announced it was working to "address the issue of fake news and hoaxes" published by its users. The Washington Free Beacon later revealed that Facebook was working with a group named Media Matters on this issue. In one of its own pitches to donors, Media Matters declares its dedication to fighting "serial misinformers and right-wing propagandists." The leaked Media Matters document states it is working to ensure that "Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists." Media Matters also claims to be working with Google.

Conservative news, it seems, is considered fake news. Liberals should oppose this dogma before their own news comes under attack. Again, the most serious problem with attempting to eliminate hate speech, fake news or terrorist content by censorship is not about the efficacy of the censorship; it is the very premise that is dangerous.

Under the guidance of faulty algorithms or prejudiced Silicon Valley programmers, when the New York Times starts to delete or automatically hide comments that criticize extremist clerics, or Facebook designates articles by anti-Islamist activists as "fake news," Islamists will prosper and moderate Muslims will suffer.

Silicon Valley has, in fact, already proven itself incapable of supporting moderate Islam. Since 2008, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) has granted $330,524 to two Islamist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief. Both these groups are designated terrorist organizations in the United Arab Emirates. SVCF is America"s largest community foundation, with assets of over $8 billion. Its corporate partners include some of the country"s biggest tech companies -- its largest donation was $1.5 billion from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The SVCF is Silicon Valley.

In countries such as China, Silicon Valley has previously collaborated with the censors. At the very least, it did so because the laws of China forced it to comply. In the European Union, where freedom of expression is superseded by "the reputation and rights of others" and the criminalization of "hate speech" (even where there is no incitement to violence), Google was ordered to delete certain data from search results when a member of the public requests it, under Europe"s "right to be forgotten" rules. Rightly, Google opposed the ruling, albeit unsuccessfully.

But in the United States, where freedom of speech enjoys protections found nowhere else in the world, Google and Facebook have not been forced to introduce censorship tools. They are not at the whim of paranoid despots or unthinking bureaucrats. Instead, Silicon Valley has volunteered to censor, and it has enlisted the help of politically partisan organizations to do so.

This kind of behavior sends a message. Earlier this year, Facebook agreed to send a team of staff to Pakistan, after the government asked both Facebook and Twitter to help put a stop to "blasphemous content" being published on the social media websites. In Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death.

Google, Facebook and the rest of Silicon Valley are private companies. They can do with their data mostly whatever they want. The world"s reliance on their near-monopoly over the exchange of information and the provision of services on the internet, however, means that mass-censorship is the inevitable corollary of technology companies" efforts to regulate news and opinion.

At a time when Americans have little faith in the mass media, Silicon Valley is now veering in a direction that will evoke similar ire. If Americans did not trust the mass media before, what will they think once that same media is working with technology companies not just to report information Silicon Valley prefers, but to censor information it dislikes?

Hero Imams?

Authored by Khadija Khan via The Gatestone Institute,

• More than 60 Islamic leaders and imams -- from France, Belgium, Britain, Tunisia, and of different Islamic faiths -- in a move that may be unprecedented, are touring Europe to denounce Islamic terrorism and to pay homage to the victims of terror in Europe by visiting many of the sites of terror attacks.


• The idea seems to have shaken extremists to the core. They have been sending these imams death threats.


• It is therefore high time, as mankind faces a crucial turning point, that people will pull together and support any voices of peace such as those of the marching imams, and restrain any hands that would try to sabotage their noble mission.

More than 60 Islamic leaders and imams -- from France, Belgium, Britain, Tunisia, and of different Islamic faiths -- in a move that may be unprecedented, are touring Europe to denounce Islamic terrorism and to pay homage to the victims of terror in Europe by visiting many of the sites of terror attacks.

It is ironic that while the "liberal" world has been busy in Canada lavishing millions on the "Foreign Terrorist Fighter" Omar Khadr, and in the US pampering extremists such as Linda Sarsour -- an apologist for ISIS and Islamist terrorism who calls for a "jihad" on the president, and whose tweets include racist comments such as "How many times to we have to tell White women that we do not need to be saved by them? Is there a code language I need to use to get thru?" -- that the press has largely ignored these courageous Islamic leaders. They have travelled from six major European countries and launched a peace march in Europe to show the masses that some Muslims, at least, do condemn terrorism and want nothing to do with terrorists who murder in the name of Islam.

Many consider their efforts a brave stand to win back the trust of those in the West who are justifiably angry about the recent wave of terrorist attacks in United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Israel, Germany, the United States and across much of the world.

These imams, from different Islamic faiths, have done an extraordinary job in unequivocally denouncing the terrorists by visiting the sites of terror attacks to pay homage to victims of terrorism in Europe.

Hassen Chalghoumi (pictured at center on January 8, 2015), the imam of Drancy Mosque in suburban Paris, is leading a peace march of more than 60 Islamic leaders and imams, to denounce Islamic terrorism and pay homage to the victims of terror in Europe. (Photo by Marc Piasecki/Getty Images)

The idea seems to have shaken extremists to the core. They have been sending these imams death threats.

It is not only violent extremists, however, who pose threat to peace efforts and the West. At least what they do can be seen. Possibly more harmful are non-violent Muslims, such as Linda Sarsour, who, in order to prey upon naïve admirers of other cultures, continue to feed to the world a narrative of Muslim victimhood, apparently to try to whip up hostile sentiments.

Sarsour for instance, recommends launching a jihad against the current US administration by calling its members "white nationalists", "fascists", and "Islamophobes". She has also been sending her warm wishes to Assata Shukar, a woman who murdered an American policeman, then, after escaping from prison, fled to Cuba.

It is painful to see such people stoking the fire to support extremists -- especially while heroic imams go on a peace mission, only to face threats from extremists.

It is also painful to watch such extremists invoke well-worn words such as jihad and sharia -- words the meaning of which is known all too well in the Muslim world -- and then later try to paint these words -- presumably for gullible Westerners -- as symbols of warm-and-fuzzy non-violent "resistance".

Even though it is partially true that in Islam, jihad is considered a struggle against oneself to eliminate the evils within oneself, if you speak to anyone in the Muslim world and ask what jihad is, that is not the answer you will get.

There are hadiths [the deeds and saying of the Prophet Muhammad], taken literally by hardline Muslims, that order the need for jihad against infidels:

The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.... (Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985)

or:

I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah. (Hadith Muslim 30)

There are verses in the Quran that state:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (Quran 2:191-193)

So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward. (Quran 4:74)

What is not addressed is how a majority of Muslims have been radicalized over the years by extremist clerics who know nothing about peace. They have apparently adopted a literal interpretation of many versus to take over the non-Muslim world and impose on mankind an Islamic version of religion.

It is also ironic that extremists can take time from their busy schedules to send death threats to these peaceful imams, but never have any problem with people such as Sarsour -- perhaps because they are not in her cross-hairs and possibly share the same ideology.

Organizations that are supposedly "non-violent" such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), nevertheless represent an ideology, the sole purpose of which is to impose Saudi, Taliban, or Iran-like Sharia law on the world.

Both the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, as well as Britain"s Islamic Relief and 80 other organizations, for example, were added to the United Arab Emirates" list of designated terrorist organizations in 2014. Presumably, all are the fonts from which violent Islam grows. Many on the list, such, as Hezbollah and Boko Haram, already are violent.

These views in Islam no longer have anything to do with the great mystic philosophers, such as Rumi, Saadi and Ibn el Arabi, who considered even the weakest soul an extension of Allah, thus demanding love and respect for all, and with no ambitions of ruling anyone or taking control of the world.

Anyone who is trying to sell Islam and Sharia, which represent an extremist ideology, as something non-militant, only exposes himself or herself as trying to fool the world.

It is also important to keep in mind that extremists consider peaceful Muslims apostates. Mansoor Hallaj for example, who was gruesomely tortured and executed, is a symbol of how these extremist Muslims have savaged anyone who tried to offer a "kinder, gentler" version of Islam.

The only reason that modern-day people -- from both East and West -- are aware of the violent aspect of jihad is that they have seen bloodbaths and massacres wherever the phrase "Allahu Akbar," "Allah is the greatest," was chanted.

Therefore, the word jihad in the current historical context can only trigger suspicion and anger against anyone who announces jihad as a wish.

Extremist Muslims have, in fact, played this game for decades in the West and also in the Muslim world. They have not only poisoned the minds of their own youths against other faiths, but are also preparing them to commit violence against people of other faiths in a bid to take over the world through "jihad".

Now they have realized that they may be starting to lose the game: many youths have started to question their activities while many governments in the West are running programmes to integrate the brainwashed young people into their societies.

The notion of "Us vs. Them" is beginning to fall apart and finally the world seems to be coming out of the decades-long chaos and cold war(s) that begin after 1940s.

It is therefore high time, as mankind faces a crucial turning point, that people will pull together and support any voices of peace, such as those of the marching imams, and restrain any hands that would try to sabotage their noble mission.

Massive Network Of ISIS Sleeper Cells Spanning United States Uncovered – Training Camps And All

How"s your weekend going?

Redditor, Law School Graduate, and nimble navigator William Craddick (/u/PleadingtheYiff / brand new Twitter handle @williamcraddick) has made quite the name for himself on Reddit"s "The_Donald" forum. In just three short months, Craddick has managed to rack up over 153,000 "post karma" and 48k "comment karma," which (if you"re not familiar) is impressive. The guy is an incredibly effective dot-connector, perhaps owing it to his legal training - often posting lengthy reads that are well worth the investment in time. Craddick made the Clinton - Silsby - Haiti connection, which is un-refuted to the best of my knowledge.

In his latest piece, Craddick presents frightening evidence of a massive ISIS network covering the USA. Let"s start with the conclusion:

Either the US government and current administration is so hopelessly incompetent that they are unable to detect domestic and foreign threats which are discoverable by investigative journalists and whistleblower organizations. Or, there are factions within the United States government who are seeking to prevent competent, well-intentioned members of the intelligence community, law enforcement, and legislative/regulatory branches from taking action against ISIS operatives and extremist recruits who are active both on the American border as well as in the United States.

Dig in:

The director of the FBI, James Comey, has stated that ISIS now has a presence in all 50 of the United States:

ABC 7 News Chicago: https://archive.fo/OiEHM

This presence varies in its form from state to state. It exists in the form of smaller cells attached to mosques run by radicalized imams, paramilitary groups operating out of compounds throughout the US, reinforced by veterans and command figures from ISIS’ Syria theater and bolstered by recruits from American minority communities. If all the reports outlined here are in fact found to be true, ISIS has managed to amass a terrifyingly impressive network across the United States that would be capable of wreaking heavy damage in the event of a large-scale terror incident.

One of the ways ISIS has established a military presence in the US is by directly franchising out training camps that build operations centers/cells in various parts of the country. Some of these camps are public knowledge although the media has tried to hide them from the public.

At least one established network of paramilitary training camps has been public knowledge since at least the 1980’s. The Jamaat ul-Fuqra, or “Muslims of America” network has run a network of camps estimated in a report from Sean Hannity to be spread across 35 different locations. The report (linked here) showed a number of Islamic jihadist style military training videos filmed at these sites in the United States. News site WND has placed the number of camps at least 22:

WND: http://archive.is/eYGbK

Here is a map showing the location of most of the compounds run by Jamaat ul-Fuqra:

https://i.sli.mg/nmtohh.jpg

The Clarion Project ran a report citing FBI documents which state that in 2014 the FBI investigated the organization “…based upon specific and articulate facts giving justification to believe they are engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation thereof…” This was due in part to an “accidental” deadly shooting that occurred in one of their compounds, Mahmoudberg, in Texas:

FBI Document: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/exclusive-clarion-project-discovers-texas-terror-enclave#popup-1

Mahmoudberg was one of several compounds located on property Jamaat ul-Fuqra had purchased in the area:

Clarion: http://archive.is/6yjBu

Jamaat ul-Fuqra was based in Pakistan and its leader, Mubarak Ali Gilani was directly involved in the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped while going to interview Gilani in Iraq. He was questioned but never arrested for the role he played:

http://archive.is/vjwk5

You will recall of course, that the group who carried out the murder of Pearl was Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was the forerunner of ISIS. This indicates that ISIS has had established connections to this network in particular since at least 2002.

Hannity’s report and the piece by WND both mention the fact that Jamaat ul-Fuqra has produced a video titled “Soldiers of Allah” where Gilani states:

We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.

Despite all of this troubling information, the Department of State does not list Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a terrorist organization. Here is a list of videos both showing footage these Islamic jihadist paramilitary groups have filmed or reports referencing them:

https://vid.me/64tH

https://vid.me/Fade

https://vid.me/d7Fd

https://vid.me/4RMz

It appears that there may be a correlation between the states where camps run by Jamaat ul-Fuqra are located and recent terror attacks which have linked to ISIS.

For example, one of the largest compounds is located in Islamberg, New York. Many of the training and propaganda films made by Jamaat ul-Fuqra are produced at this location. It is interesting that this particular location is so significant to the group when one considers terror activity in the New York/New Jersey area, such as the recent pressure cooker bombings:

The Telegraph: https://archive.fo/hom7j

The Telegraph: https://archive.fo/VVGKJ

The Washington Post: https://archive.fo/wJzdm

The authorities attempted to claim that the individual arrested, Ahmad Khan Rahami, acted alone and there was no cell. But that contradicts other prior reports complete with footage showing multiple other individuals who were active in the terror operation:

CNN: https://archive.fo/kEPW1

The “lone wolf” narrative pushed by the mainstream media is a lie in almost every single case. Wherever there is a “lone wolf” there is a bigger wolf pack nearby providing logistical and operational support. We’ve all seen the damage that individual attackers have caused in various terror incidents and how much chaos an entire squad of ISIS operatives such as those who perpetuated the 2015 Paris attacks can cause. Imagine what will happen when all of them decide to attack at once? The death toll in each location might potentially be in the hundreds, if not thousands.

It is also interesting to note that these pressure cooker attacks happened at the tail end of a spree of “gas leak” explosions in New York. The most recent one occurred in September and was first blamed on a Marijuana growing operation, then a meth lab showing apparent law enforcement confusion as to what and who had actually caused the blast. Others mention that residents didn’t actually smell gas leaking before the explosion. The shifting stories and common stated causes of the explosions are very interesting. When done intentionally, this is known as a “supplement narrative” or a cover story that the public is more likely to accept than what really happened. Here are a number of local news reports on the incidents:

Gothamist: https://archive.fo/bQzwo

NY Daily News: https://archive.fo/Z4zkp

WKRC Cincinnati: https://archive.fo/CwyWr

Pix 11 TV: https://archive.fo/ruuGN

In addition to Jamat ul-Fuqra, other Islamic groups in the United States are Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Masjid at-Taqwa (led by Siraj Wahhaj) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). I have not yet researched these other groups, am not alleging that they are paramilitary in nature and merely list them for referential purposes.

In addition to training camps, domestic ISIS terrorists seem to have been groomed to some extent at local mosques by extremist imams. It is of course not logistically tenable to have paramilitary wings located in every single US state. In such cases, smaller cells coordinated by handlers preaching extremist Wahabbist or Salafist Islam are a much more secure and low profile option.

Mosques in Europe have been proved to be at risk of being coopted by jihadi groups for use as operations centers. In the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks, French authorities raided a number of mosques and made more than 200 arrests, confiscating 334 weapons of which 34 were described as “war grade.” The raids led to the closure of over 100 mosques in France:

Al Jazeera: https://archive.fo/TIjnV

American security officials have also highlighted that many mosques in the United States are involved to some extent with extremism. Breitbart cited a former FBI counter-terrorism special agent as opining that as many as 75% of American mosques were used by jihadist networks:

Breitbart: https://archive.fo/JCTe8

The imams and mosques of specific “lone wolf” attackers in the U.S. have been suspected of having varying levels of involvement in their radicalization process. The Los Angeles cleric Roshan Zamir Abbassi who ministered to the San Bernardino terror attackers was questioned after it emerged he had exchanged a flurry of texts with attacker Syed Rizwan Farook and was allegedly lying about the fact that he knew his wife:

NY Post: http://archive.is/YX4yw

In a revelation suggesting evidence that mosques can and do play host to more than one radicalized attacker, it was revealed that Pulse nightclub attacker Omar Mateen and American suicide bomber Moner Abu Salha both were enrolled in the radical cleric Marcus Dwayne Robertson’s Timbuktu Seminary.

Daily Mail: https://archive.fo/iudwl

In the aftermath of the Pulse shooting, the imam of The Husseini Islamic Center was caught on camera calling for death to gays:

WFTV 9: https://archive.fo/8Q2WU

https://vid.me/E2w8

The imam of the Boston Marathon bombers, Abdullah Faaruuq, denied radicalizing them despite videos emerging of him making fiery sermons alluding to committing acts of violence. New also surfaced that he was on the radar of groups monitoring preachers of extremism before the attacks occurred:

Fox News: https://archive.fo/ZrlIB

More moderate imams also spoke to the press talking about how extremist clerics had taken over many Boston mosques in recent years:

Fox News: https://archive.fo/G6En6

It has also been revealed in a report by The Gateway Pundit that yesterday’s airport shooter, Esteban Santiago lived within walking distance of the only mosque in Alaska. As more information emerges about the cleric running this facility, will we find out that he too has a history of preaching extreme Islamic ideology?

The Gateway Pundit: https://archive.fo/s9fsg

A. ISIS operatives’ presence and activity are now being routinely reported at the southern US border

While developing domestic paramilitary capabilities, ISIS and groups collaborating with them are attempting to move military assets including combat veterans and command figures from the Syrian/Iraqi theaters into the West. These redeployments are likely rapidly increasing as regional and international coalitions have been closing in on their Middle East territories. ISIS movements into Europe among the refugee population are already fairly well documented. Not so well known are a growing number of reports that ISIS members are locating into the Western Hemisphere and infiltrating the United States.

In 2015, Judicial Watch ran a series of reports based on testimony from various Mexican military sources stating that ISIS was running a small camp just a few miles from the border of Texas near El Paso:

Judicial Watch: https://archive.fo/aQkhJ

The watchdog further claimed that ISIS was paying multiple cartel organizations to smuggle members across the US border using rural smuggling routes and regional airports to avoid the U.S. Border Control:

Judicial Watch: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/07/mexican-cartels-smuggle-terrorists-into-u-s-through-rural-texas-border-region/

They supported their sources with a leaked document from the Texas Department of Public Safety stating that several known members of Islamic terror organizations have been apprehended attempting to enter the U.S. in recent years:

Texas DPS Document: https://www.scribd.com/document/256933420/Border-Surge-Report

Additionally cited was a 2004 document from the Department of State, which stated that multiple known Arab extremists were using Mexico to enter the United States, including a top Al Qaeda operative, Adnan G. El Shurkrjumah who was wanted by the FBI:

Judicial Watch archive: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/statedocs/

These reports follow a 2014 project conducted by Judicial Watch documenting the existence of an operation stretching from the southern border to Chicago being run by cartel and ISIS members to move drugs, weapons and individuals from Mexico into the US. This is especially interesting considering the fact that the recent Ft. Lauderdale attacker was Hispanic:

Judicial Watch: https://archive.fo/2c4J8

This year, Judicial Watch reported they had been tipped off by a Homeland Security official that cartel groups were helping multiple ISIS members, including leadership figure Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, enter the United States to conduct surveillance for an attack on American soil:

Judicial Watch: https://archive.fo/9xzZ5

In April 2016 Khabir bragged to Italian newspaper Il Giornale that it would be easy for him to “get in with a handful of men, and kill thousands of people in Texas or in Arizona in the space of a few hours.”

Judicial Watch quoted Mexican officials who were incredulous that the Obama administration was not taking these threats more seriously.

Judicial Watch’s reports were denied by Texas DPS Director Robert Bodisch. However, the language Mr. Bodisch indicates that his denial is in fact untrue, though it does not legally qualify as perjury. When confronted about the two reports that Judicial Watch had obtained from Texas DPS contradicting his statement, he merely asserted that neither he nor intelligence officials could “confirm” the reports and he did not accuse Judicial Watch of misquoting their other sources. Notice the language here: to explicitly deny the authenticity of the documents would be to make an untruthful statement, hence Bodisch’s decision to merely state that he could neither confirm nor deny their authenticity. The two reports outlined plans by ISIS operatives to attack Fort Bliss, Texas, and that four of their members had been detained in Texas.

Politifact made a similarly disingenuous attempt to discredit Judicial Watch’s reports. The report also cited Texas DPS officials who merely said they could neither “confirm nor deny” the documents and sources cited by Judicial Watch. In fact, officials with El Paso’s Sherriff’s Department expressed shock the Judicial Watch’s findings, before their superiors told Politico they similarly “couldn’t provide relevant information” about the report. Again, notice that no authorities have outright denied Judicial Watch’s findings as to do so would be to commit perjury, especially if the official in fact had knowledge suggesting that the reports and information was in fact true. Finally, Politico cited a Border Patrol official who merely cast doubt on Judicial Watch’s reports before it emerged that he had left the Border Patrol in contentious circumstances. None of this refutes the findings and reports of Judicial Watch.

B. How ISIS can cross from West Africa to the Western Hemisphere

It is, in theory, actually incredibly easy for ISIS operatives and commanders to leave the theater of war in Syria and move into the Western Hemisphere, potentially linking up with paramilitary forces located in some of the camps mentioned above. South American and Mexican drug cartels have been increasingly running drugs into West Africa using entire fleets of decrepit and unregistered cargo planes:

The Telegraph: https://archive.fo/lyFCe

CNN: https://archive.fo/9p3bM

In order to move the drugs from West Africa to their ultimate markets in Europe, narco groups have been working to smuggle them in cooperation with multiple Islamic terror groups. These terror groups benefit financially from the arrangement. Below are reports from the United Nations and Financial Action Task Force explaining these business arrangements in addition to an article from The Telegraph outlining the arrangement:

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: https://archive.fo/OV4fV

Financial Action Task Force: http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/TF-in-West-Africa.pdf

The Telegraph: https://archive.fo/bscuT

ISIS has known franchises in West Africa, most notably the Nigerian extremist group Boko Haram. It would logistically possible to move assets from Syria into West Africa via their franchises in Libya and jump the Atlantic into the Western Hemisphere:

NY Times: https://archive.fo/tivy4

ISIS’ estimated monthly income of $80-120 million USD (and that number relies only on what is public knowledge) also shows that it is financially possible for them to pay their way through Western smuggling networks. All that would be needed is the willingness to outbid competing state agencies reaching out to cartels in the hope that they will keep extremists out of the United States and the adjacent countries:

Stuff Mag New Zealand: https://archive.fo/5rL6K

As a final note, once ISIS members have entered the United States, it is quite easy for them to take up positions and embed themselves within Sanctuary Cities, where lax immigration laws give them a veritable free pass to move around without fear of harassment from or detection by local law enforcement.

There are also indications that recruitment and radicalization is occurring in various black American communities in recent years. ISIS has publicly stated its desire to recruit African Americans and exploit unrest caused by police violence incidents to increase sympathy for it’s cause in the black community:

Heavy: https://archive.fo/IkYAL

In some of their recruitment media, ISIS has actually used Black Lives Matter talking points in an attempt to convince Americans to join the organization:

Breitbart: https://archive.fo/tXFhh

Recently I came across a nine month long program Black Lives Matter has been running labeled as the “Youth Empowerment Strategy program at Dubai.” The stated purpose of the program is to “to empower our youth with the knowledge, skills and confidence to conduct themselves with poise and professionalism”.

https://i.sli.mg/t4fYOr.png

Here is BLM’s main web page with the program visible in their event calendar:

http://blacklivesmatter.com/events/

Here is the website for the program in Dubai

http://www.uvconsultants.com/youthempowerment/

Given that it is common knowledge Saudi and UAE state groups use educational programs as a way to radicalize youth and infect them with the Wahabbist ideology that breeds terrorism, what exactly is this program BLM is partnering with? Does it involve religious teaching? More research and demands for clarification from Black Lives Matter is needed to clarify that American youth are not intentionally being exposed to state agents who are radicalizing them.

It is worth remembering that George Soros funds Black Lives Matters:

Breitbart: https://archive.fo/MFLe6

The man who broke the Bank of England makes his money and gains control through sewing economic and political chaos. In fact, documents released by DC Leaks have proved he has used Black Lives Matter protests to further his agendas in the past. This current “educational” program and recent shifts towards extremist behavior should be alarming to many given what is known about the way he uses the organization:

The Free Thought Project: https://archive.fo/UGxST

From what information is publicly available, ISIS or groups affiliated with them are creating and training paramilitary groups around the country, infiltrating American mosques to turn them into centers for radicalization and staging points for “lone wolf” style attacks and attempting to engage in recruitment and radicalization campaigns among American minority groups. It beggars belief that the United States government is not aware of these developments. In fact, Director Comey’s statement about ISIS’ presence in all 50 states implies that intelligence agencies do in fact know of this threat.

The State Department, who Wikileaks have revealed to have illegally helped Hillary Clinton delay the process of turning email records over to Congress, has tried to deny that ISIS operatives are present on the US southern border.

Fox News: http://archive.is/WoW91

Their claims that Judicial Watch’s reports are “unfounded” are in direct contradiction to their reports from over 10 years ago which describe Al Qaeda terrorists operating in and around Mexico in attempts to gain entry to the United States just as ISIS allegedly seeks to do now. And again, they do not explicitly deny the authenticity of the documents produced by Judicial Watch because this would legally land them in very hot water.

Other reports of government failure to tackle this apparent extremism exist as well. In 2016, the Daily Mail reported that the FBI had failed to inform American citizens that their names were present on a “kill list” of 15,000 potential targets complied by ISIS:

Daily Mail: https://archive.fo/Kf3lq

There are two conclusions to draw from incidents such as this. Either the US government and current administration is so hopelessly incompetent that they are unable to detect domestic and foreign threats which are discoverable by investigative journalists and whistleblower organizations. Or, there are factions within the United States government who are seeking to prevent competent, well-intentioned members of the intelligence community, law enforcement, and legislative/regulatory branches from taking action against ISIS operatives and extremist recruits who are active both on the American border as well as in the United States.

The fact that certain agencies and news groups have engaged in legalistic denials of reports about the growing ISIS threat to the United States certainly indicate that the latter might sadly be the case.

Original thread on Reddit with tons of great additive discussion in the comments section. See more of Craddick"s work at www.disobedientmedia.com

Content originally regurgitated at ibankcoin.com

Constitutional Law Experts Confirm Trump's "Muslim Registry" Not Illegal

Despite post-election threats that if the president-elect attempts "to implement his unconstitutional campaign promises, we’ll see him in court," Politico reports that three constitutional lawyers say the ACLU won’t have much of a shot before a judge. The Supreme Court has "consistently reaffirmed the power of the president to control the entry and exit from the country as a matter of national security," giving Trump’s administration a decided advantage in any litigation.

A week after the ACLU tweeted...

Should President-elect Donald Trump attempt to implement his unconstitutional campaign promises, we"ll see him in court.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) November 9, 2016

Reuters reports that the president-elect’s team is considering an immigration system modeled after a controversial one implemented in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It fulfills Trump’s promise of “extreme vetting” for immigrants from countries affected by terrorism, a threshold he has yet to flesh out more fully. As Politico notes,

That program, labeled the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, required those entering the U.S. from a list of certain countries — all but one predominantly Muslim — to register when they arrived in the U.S., undergo more thorough interrogation and be fingerprinted. The system, referred to by the acronym NSEERS, was criticized by civil rights groups for targeting a religious group and was phased out in 2011 because it was found to be redundant with other immigration systems.

Robert McCaw, director of government affairs for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said a reinstitution of NSEERS would be akin to “just turning back the clock.” CAIR will lobby heavily against the system as not only discriminatory but also ineffective, McCaw said, if it ends up being proposed by the Trump administration.

He also accused Kobach, an architect of the original NSEERS program when he was with the Justice Department under the George W. Bush administration, of having “a long ax to grind with the Muslim community.”

“NSEERS and registries like it are totally ineffective and burdensome and they’re perceived by Muslims and other minorities as just being a massive profiling campaign that, in the past, targeted Muslim travelers solely based on their religion and ethnicity,” he said. “When every country on that list happens to be a majority-Muslim country, it is religious profiling. Because there are threats from other nations and other communities and groups that don’t make it on NSEERS.”

But, as Politico concludes, a program like NSEERS would likely pass constitutional muster before a judge, multiple experts said, in part because it already has. The system was never struck down by a court in the nearly nine years it was in place.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Wednesday that “a president’s power is at its apex at the nation’s borders” and that the Supreme Court has “consistently reaffirmed the power of the president to control the entry and exit from the country as a matter of national security.” Such precedent, he said would give Trump’s administration a decided advantage in any litigation.

University of Virginia international law professor emeritus David Martin said the NSEERS program is constitutionally sound but fraught with issues as a matter of policy. He said even when it was in effect, NSEERS was “more and more seen as potentially counterproductive” as the Sept. 11 attacks receded in America’s rear-view mirror and the government developed “more of an appreciation that doing certain things that singled out Muslims and were seen as discriminatory were strategically unsound.”

But  the cries of discrimination that have already begun from organizations like CAIR and others carry tremendous moral and political weight.

“It’s kind of an American tradition to claim that things you disagree with are unconstitutional, and sometimes are out of keeping with the spirit of constitutional values, even if ultimately a court might uphold them,” Martin said. “So, I think it’s quite legitimate to argue on the basis of constitutional values even if you don’t absolutely have a Supreme Court precedent that clearly establishes your point.”

President-Elect Trump"s immigration group had also discussed ways of overturning President Barack Obama"s 2012 executive action that has granted temporary deportation relief and work permits to more than 700,000 undocumented people or "dreamers" who came to the United States as children of illegal immigrants.