The American Police State and the Preposterous Construct Called “Radical” Islam


December 7, 2015 - San Francisco, CA – – Though it's difficult to pose the thesis question without the inclusion of "triggering" associations, we will nonetheless try...

Considering that the wide-scale display of mass casualty violence [UC Merced, Paris and San Bernardino] over the last month has reignited a debate which has been ongoing now for nearly 15 years; what motivates the perps to do what they do?

Absent from all of the officially designated explanations - and this extends from the administration, through its handmaidens in the press and on to the edutocracy - is even the vaguest suggestion that the terrorism in which we are now steeped has anything intrinsically to do with doctrinal Islam.

The matter is a sub-component of a larger issue – the epic though behind the scenes struggle - to control of the lexicon of the West with an eye towards advancing a counter cultural, subversive agenda making it intellectually impossible to link jihad with Islam.

About this, much has recently been written and few have presented the truth more clearly than former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, first noting the literal truth, then amplifying on the twisted rhetoric of Islamist apologetics:

"The terrorist attack was ignited by Islamic supremacist ideology, a mainstream interpretation of Islam drawn directly and literally from Muslim scripture. So the attack was a terrorist attack when it was happening, it was a terrorist attack yesterday when the government would not acknowledge that fact, and it is a terrorist attack now...

..The government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine. This is a triumph of willful blindness and political correctness best illustrated by former British home secretary Jacqui Smith, who might as well have been speaking for our government when she branded terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” That is: the savagery is not merely unrelated to Islam but becomes, by dint of its being violence, contrary to Islam. This must be so because the British government, like our government, insists Islam is a “religion of peace...

...Islam is we can’t call mass-murder committed by Muslims 'terrorism.' But ISIS/al-Qaeda are anti-Islam because they commit violence. Therefore, now that Farook and Malik are ISIS/al-Qaeda, they are anti-Islam, so we can safely call their attack 'terrorism.'" [multiply sourced, Andrew C. McCarthy, An Islam of Their Very Own II – Now See How This Works? , An Islam of Their Very Own Continued , National Review]

Daniel Pipes framed the matter more sardonically immediately post 9/11, referring to the then president as, "Imam George W. Bush," because of his ham-fisted effort to define Islam in a more positive light.

“The Sept. 11 atrocities prompted Imam George W. Bush to declare that these ‘violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.’ His wife Laura issued a fatwa deeming the repression of women in Afghanistan ‘not a matter of legitimate religious practice.’" [source, Daniel Pipes, PhD, What's True Islam? Not for U.S. [Government] to Say]

On April 20, 2014 this author wrote:

“Since at least 9/11, the Islamists have successfully cowed the West into a mindset of self-censorship, using allegations of Islamophobia to shield themselves from criticism.

'Terrorists can't be Muslims, you're just a bigot.'"

Though use of the technique by these extremists is relatively new - propelled incongruously by acts of terrorism committed by their co-religionist brothers and sisters - the tactic itself is an old one, perfected by the collectivist left to establish and then enforce its own version of a secular demi-religious ideology.” [source, America's Leftist Apostasy Enforcement Mechanism Identical To That Of The Islamists]

About the matter, a very senior and well noted scholar of Islam [who prefers to remain anonymous] had this to say:

"Jihad is absolutely essential to's one of the basics...there's [even] an argument in some of the classical texts that it should be considered the 6th "pillar" 1. of Islam...Islam is spread by jihad."

The bar has been raised so high that it’s almost reached the absurd level that unless a domestic jihad operation can conclusively be proven to have been personally planned by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the press will be reticent to label it as terrorism, let alone of the Islamic or Muslim variety.

It's entirely beyond comprehension that until linkage was established between Farook, Malik and ISIS the FBI was quite happy to view the matter as inexplicable work place violence, just an armor clad couple going off with M4 style rifles, handguns and a dozen or so pipe bombs [see, FBI Investigation San Bernardino Attack as Act of Terrorism ] to attend a Christmas party.

Judged by outward appearance the HAMAS associated CAIR seems to have been closely intertwined with how the information has been rolled out on this matter. Entirely self-motivated, or otherwise, it was very quick to jump into the media management role which should be troubling to all concerned citizens.

Seldom reticent, Hussam Ayloush, Executive Director of CAIR LA, was quick to assign blame to the United States as an instigator of terrorism:

"...let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy as Americans…as the West has fueled that extremism..when we support cruel leaders in Egypt or other places...when we support dictatorships...that push[es] people over the edge, then they become extremists and they become terrorists then we are partly a global problem not a Muslim problem…”

Ayloush is of course full of horse shit, but then he does represent CAIR after all.

According to investigative journalist Joe Kaufman, Ayloush has long admired the terror friendly Muslim Brotherhood leader, Yusuf al-Qaradawi:

“In December 2001, in one of the earliest recorded documents as a leader of CAIR, and under Ayloush's watch, CAIR-California placed a photo on the homepage of its website of a smiling Ayloush shoulder-to-shoulder with Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood -- two years after Qaradawi had been banned from entering the United States for having incited violence against Jews, endorsing suicide bombings, and calling for homosexuals to be put to death. Qaradawi has also voiced his support for various terrorist organizations, has called for the destruction of the state of Israel, and has sanctioned attacks against U.S. troops abroad. [see, Joe Kaufman, CAIRing For Jihad, Militant Islam Monitor]

In simpler times it used to be said that the business of America was business; in this administration, however, the business of Barack Hussein Obama is maintaining a grasp on the direction of cultural inertia, which is grandly served by terror.

We are precisely asserting that this administration encourages then uses domestic jihadist attacks as a tool. While it extends the reach of the caliphate and hence the Shari’a - which doesn't seem to be particularly inimical to this WH - its larger function is to encourage domestic sectarian tensions and fear.

At the top of this criminal administration's agenda, it helps justify the taking of extreme measures such as confiscation of firearms.

Team Obama and its apparatchiks are actively working with Islamist groups and making no effort to hide the fact that it's now fully engaged in enforcing concocted mind-crime violations.

Consider AG Lynch's dinner remarks on December 3 delivered before the problematic Islamist group, Muslim Advocates where she made it totally clear that the First Amendment means nothing to this bunch.

"...when we see someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric...when we see that we will take action...since 9/11 we have had over 1,000 investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred...including rhetoric and bigoted actions..."

The "investigation" of the shooting has, so far been a deadly joke. Below a few comments:

1. How on earth do you run a murder one investigation [let alone one involving a mass casualty terrorist event, probably involving a network of jihadists and not just the shooters] without first permanently securing the primary residence of the perps? This is simply unbelievable and we are tired of the constant effort by people on our side to try to find nice ways of characterizing the total lack of professionalism among many in the law enforcement community. We can't read minds and hence don't know what motivates these people, but public servants in such sensitive positions - and this goes up to FBI chief Comey [another bad joke and close friend of Bush nemesis, former U.S. Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald] - who are unwilling, unable or afraid to do things by the book need to be discharged on the spot, that's right fired.

People like this do more harm than good.

2. The error made in relation to example #1 was responsible for allowing reporters, or persons claiming to be such, direct access to the shooters' den where they pawed through evidence forever corrupting it. Who is willing to go on the record and assure an increasingly shaky public that jihadist minded operatives weren't part of this contingent intent upon grabbing items or planting evidence which might have shed light on how this affair played out and was planed?

3. Why isn't Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook in custody right now? According to an article in the Daily Caller:

"Farook’s affiliation with ICNA was revealed on Friday when MSNBC and other new outlets scoured the Farooks’ apartment in Redlands, Cal. An MSNBC reporter found a certificate of appreciation presented to Safia Farook last summer by ICNA’s sisters’ wing." [source, Chuck Ross, Shooters Mother Involved in US Branch of Pro Caliphate Islamic Group]

4. Why haven't all relatives and close friends of the shooters, any of whom might have any knowledge of the event been rolled up in a dragnet?

5. If the evidence involving ICNA was overlooked, and at this point we are assuming this was done intentionally, what else is LE attempting to hide while this ugly whitewash continues as it carefully covers the tracks of the jihadost attack in order to hew to the operative political line, which comes from but one place, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

6. Question: What level of access have local and fed LE given to the HAMAS linked Council on American Islamic Relations? Who is actually running PR?

7. Here we totally break from many of our well meaning friends in the community in which we work. Why didn't the NSA data grab reveal that this plot was brewing? Spare us with the admonition that part of the legal authority to intercept electronic data expired a few weeks ago. This enterprise was in the offing for an extended period of time well before the "expiration." Though mostly made with good intent, the plaintiff calls for increased surveillance of normal American citizens are without merit. Given the massive evidence provided by Edward Snowden how anyone can believe for a second, that NSA/DIA/CIA etc., have ever ceased their massive and illegal data collection is mind numbing. The metadata grab isn’t something coincident with 9/11 it stems from Project Echelon which got it start way back during the Clinton administration. Since then the snooping has only gotten more sophisticated and invasive.

Why should the American public sacrifice what's left of its privacy and freedom to organizations which have already assumed Orwellian proportions WITHOUT providing commensurate increased levels of security?

Cliff's notes takeaway:

The term "radicalization" is purposely designed to be squishily imprecise and misleading. This is done in order to better serve the enemy.

Claiming that Muslims become radicalized invokes the mental image of how does one become foolish at a clown convention.

The ideology under the microscope is normative Islam; it hasn't been hijacked. The belief’s sacralized textual materials provide chapter and verse justification required for Armageddon

Islamic reform?

Systemic cognitive disorder…It's like a chemistry set, make whatever you want, the components are all there. To extend the analogy, the instruction manual states that making dangerous stuff is not only good but meritorious.

The argument regarding Islamic reform is disingenuous, it posits for a cafeteria style ideology where one pretends that the Leviathan in the room doesn’t exist. Fact: there are no major Islamic institutions, nor are their schools of Islamic jurisprudence which argue for reformational Islam. Moreover, “reformers” have no standing within their communities, at best they’re viewed as misfits preaching garbage.

Consider the curricula of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt:

“Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University - regularly touted as the world’s most prestigious Islamic university - recently exposed his alma mater in a televised interview. After being asked why Al Azhar, which is in the habit of denouncing secular thinkers as un-Islamic, refuses to denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic , Sheikh Nasr said:

It can’t [condemn the Islamic State as un-Islamic]. The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world [to establish it]. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? [source, Raymond Ibrahim, Al Azhar and ISIS: Cause and Effect, Islam Translated]

While we realize that Imam Obama knows best, it’s probably helpful to keep all of this in mind.

End notes:

1. The 5 pillars of Islam are the Shahada - the profession of faith - "there is no God but God and Mohammed is God's messenger," Salat - prayer - Zakat - almsgiving, generally based upon the tithe, Sawm - fasting and Hajj - the pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are expected to make at least once in their life.

©2015 LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.