The FBI believes that 10 percent of mosques in the U.S. are preaching extremism, reports Ronald Kessler of Newsmax.com. The anonymous counter-terrorism official interviewed by Kessler describes the number as a conservative estimate.
Some researchers have estimated a much higher number. A group of experts launched the Mapping Sharia Project, which surveyed about 200 mosques and Islamic institutions.
They found that 80% of the mosques visited had extremist literature.
“Rarely do we have them [the Muslim community] coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about,” Kessler quotes one FBI agent as saying.
“They want to fix it inside the community. They’re a closed group, a very, very closed group. It’s part of their culture that they want to settle the problem within their own communities. They’ve actually said that to us, which I then go crazy over.”
One FBI agent told Kessler that when he met with the leader of a Muslim organization, he was told by the leader that they wouldn’t inform them about extremists because, in his words, “We would lose our constituency.”
The article was based on interviews with counter-terrorism personnel by Kessler for his latest book, “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack.”
Four years ago on September 30, 2005, Jyllands-Posten published twelve drawings of Islam’s prophet Muhammed. To demonstrate that prohibition of any depiction of the prophet, as stipulated by sharia law would not trump Denmark’s freedom of the press, twelve cartoonists had their entries published.
Here they are:
Muslims around the world rioted in response. At least one hundred deaths were reported.
The Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were torched. European buildings were stormed and the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, and German flags were desecrated in Gaza City.
Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas issued death threats. Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic and racist, arguing they were blasphemous to Muslims and a manifestation of western imperialism. In 2008, slightly after two years of the initial publication, the cartoons were re-published. More riots ensued, complete with shouts of ” death to the cartoonist!”.
Meanwhile, thousands of illustrations of Muhammed have appeared in books by and for Muslims.
Persian or central Asian illustration showing Muhammed teaching.
Fourteenth-century Persian miniature showing the Angel Gabriel speaking to Muhammed.
Muhammed at Medina, from an Arab or central Asian medieval-era manuscript.
The Prophet Muhammed in a Mosque. Turkish, 16th Century, painting on paper. The artist depicted Muhammed in very long sleeves so as to avoid showing his hands, though his neck and hints of his features are visible. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Newly born Muhammad in his mother’s arms being shown to his grandfather and citizens of Mecca. From Turkish book painting (date unknown). University of California, San Diego.
James Cohen, vice president of the Canadian desk, IFPS writes thoughtfully and succinctly on the declaration of September 30 as International Free Press Day:
“To further advance the cause of freedom of the press, the International Free Press Society takes the occasion of this first International Free Press Day to salute Kurt Westergaard, and to call, once again, for the repeal all blasphemy and hate speech laws that currently inhibit and restrict vital exchange and debate”.
Muslims who are working to stage the "Our Day Has Come" day of prayer at the U.S. Capitol have discussed views that include an Islamic takeover of the White House, from where they say President Barack Obama is providing their inspiration.
The organizer is Hassen Abdellah, who leads a Elizabeth, N.J., mosque, and two special guests for the event, according to the website, will be Sheik Muhammad Jebril and Sheik Ahmed Dewidar.
According to the website, Jebril's degree is in Islamic Law and he learned the Quran by the age of 9.
Likewise, the prayer day website reported Dewidar studied law at the University of Alexandria and took a master's degree in Shariah. He moved to the United States to lead a Muslim community in New Jersey and later established the Islamic Center in Manhattan.
In the interview, Dewidar talked about sermons he'd heard that "Muslims should march on the White House…"
The interviewer asked for an explanation.
"One cleric said in his sermon: 'We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into the Muslim house,'" he said, according to the MEMRI report.
Dewidar denied that this was a plan for a physical occupation of the building.
"They say that through the domination of Islam and its ideas, the White House will change," the report quotes Dewidar saying.
Atlas Shrugs also cited Dewidar's comments for a Muslim Brotherhood website that American society is controlled by Jews.
On an Arabic website, he also hinted that the American government may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
His translated comments include, "Whether or not these events were planned, or pinned on the Muslims, or something else – [it] provided an opportunity for [the American government] to legislate dubious laws that restrict the growth and presence of Islam in the U.S," Atlas Shrugs reported.
Organizers themselves have credited Obama's advocacy for Islam for their inspiration.
"The organizers say that it was Obama's inauguration speech in January and his speech broadcast from Egypt in June that gave them the idea for this prayer gathering on Capitol Hill," wrote Geller.
While he praised Islam during his inauguration, Obama elaborated during his speech in Egypt months later.
He carried a greeting from "Muslim communities" in America, complained how Muslims had been "denied rights and opportunities," and stated, "I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment."
Besides crediting Islam with significant responsibility for the development of civilization in Europe, Obama also said Muslims have served similarly in America.
"And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States," Obama said. "They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library." Read more here ...
Nonie Darwish, an ex-Muslim and author of the superb book on Sharia, Cruel and Usual Punishment, comments on the Rifqa Bary case: "Former Muslims need protection now from the US government and court system. We need protection from Sharia Islamic Law."
In spite of the clear danger to the life of Muslims who leave Islam, both the legal system and mainstream media still don’t get it. The most recent case in the US of the 17-year old girl, Rifqa Bary, is an example. US courts need proof (even though it is clearly stated in Islamic law books) that Islamic Law condemn apostates to death and encourage any Muslim on the street, even family members, to kill them. Western media does not seem to be interested in the topic. That is the same media that dedicates weeks of valuable air time to ridiculous claims of human rights violations only to certain privileged groups in America.
Ms. Bary, Muslim convert to Christianity, had good instincts when she realized the great danger to her life and escaped from her home in Ohio and sought protection from the Christian community in Orlando Florida. If she had not escaped, she could have been yet another statistic of Muslims killed for leaving Islam.
I will keep writing articles and books on the topic of Muslim Law, Sharia, until the West fully understand that threat to their way of life and that Islamic Sharia and democracy cannot co-exist. The following are some laws on apostasy in mainstream Sharia books: 1- Apostates are to be given three days to repent and return to Islam. If s/he refuses, s/he is immediately killed. All Sharia books agree unanimously on this point. (Hanafi law in general, Shafi’i law f1.3, Hanbali law (from Al Mughni), Maliki law and Codified Islamic law). 2- It is obligarory for the califph to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. 3- There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die) 4- Testimony of apostates is not admissible. 5- An apostate does not inherit from Muslim parents. 6- Marriage of an apostate is immediately dissolved if the spouse is and remains Muslim.
The above laws have kept Muslims enslaved inside the iron curtain of the Islamic State under penalty of death for 1400 years and counting.
Laws encouraging the killing of non-Mulims, especially those who left Islam, also extend to non-Muslim nations and not just individuals. According to Sharia, non-Muslim nations are invited to convert to Islam and if they refuse a jihad war must begin. The commandment to wage violent wars against non-Muslim countries was given a pretty name by Sharia; jihad became a sacred duty for every Muslim head of State and individual.
It is astounding how many Muslims have been desensitized to feeling of any sympathy or guilt toward murdered victims of apostasy laws and jihad.
In Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, the majority of the population believe that apostates must be killed and that jihad against non-Muslim countries a badge of honor. I do not want to see the same desensitization happen in the West, but the silence of Western media is deafening.
The US government must protect its citizens not only from the terrorism of jihad, but also from Islamic Laws condemning Muslims to death and encouraging vigilante street justice.
How can a former Muslim like Rifqa, or like myself, live in peace in America when there are neighborhood mosques reading scriptures, to their believers telling them to kill Muslims who left the religion?. Even if 10% of Muslims in America follow Sharia as it is taught, we are in trouble. Muslim scriptures such as the Sahih hadith by Mohammad 9:50 states: “No Umma (a member of the Muslim community) should be killed for killing a Kaffir (an infidel). . . Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”
There is no peace for the apostate, not even in the West. The above threat is real and will increase exponentially with the growth of the Muslim population and those who demand Sharia as a religious right. No religion should give the right to its followers to kill others, period.
Former Muslims need protection now from the US government and court system. We need protection from Sharia Islamic Law.
The upcoming elections in Iran could signal ideological change
By Aissata Sow
There will be no campaigning today on the streets of Iran.As in past, campaigning is banned the day before elections, which are scheduled for Friday.With two distinctly different candidates the campaign has revealed a desire for change among the country’s youth.
Former PM (1980-1988) Mir Hossein Mousavi has proven to be the strongest opponent to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.A reformer, Mousavi has gained widespread support amongst Iran’s youth, a significant accomplishment in a country where the median age is 27.
Mousavi’s popularity is due in part to his stated commitment to civil rights. Throughout the campaign he has promised to amend the "discriminatory and unjust regulations" that leave women subject to violence and oppression. Newsy.com has more:
The competitive campaign has seen vitriol on both sides and analysts are predicting that neither candidate will receive enough votes to win the first round of elections.
President Ahmadinejad has gone so far as to accuse Mousavi of using “the tactics of Hitler”, arguing that his opponent is spreading lies about the state of the economy; an issue that has been a huge weakness for the president.
Meanwhile, Mousavi’s wife has threatened to sue Ahmadinejad for claiming that her doctorate was won from class privilege and is therefore illegitimate.
The U.S. has had little to say about the election. Former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns argues, “The election on Friday is going to be consequential in the sense that the candidates are clearly different in ideology and style -- and there seems to be a stronger reformist element in Iranian politics ".
Political parties don’t last long in Iran, often banding together before elections then disbanding shortly after the elections end. However, a coalition of reform groups have been gaining support since 2000, another indication of a popular shift in ideology which bodes well for Mousavi. However, Ahmadinejad is expected to retain the support of the military, state owned media, and government insiders.
Both candidates support continued construction on nuclear energy facilities, a point of contention between the U.S. and Iran. Though he was PM during the Iran-Iraq War Mousavi does not have the diplomatic baggage that has been an albatross to Ahmadinejad. Critics within the country take issue with Ahmadinejad’s approach to foreign policy, which has been seen as hostile in the west.
It is unclear whether or not the U.S. would have a different approach to bilateral relations if Ahmadinejad were to be ousted. The BBC reports that if Mousavi were to win, President Ahmadinejad would become the first president to be defeated at the polls since the foundation of the Islamic republic.
Recently, the Obama administration released a message to senior Pentagon officials instructing that the term "Global War on Terror" is no longer to be used. It is to be replaced with "Overseas Contingency Operation" (OCO). Set aside the flashbacks to meaningless phrases employed by "Big Brother" in Orwell's 1984, are we really now of the opinion that there is no common unifying ideology which hatches the radical Islamist groups attacking us?
Many of us have been proclaiming for quite a while that the "War on Terror" (WoT) was obviously misnamed. A nation cannot have a military engagement (a war) against a tactic. It would have been no different to have called WWII a "War on Blitzkrieg." We were rather more clearly fighting the ideologies of Nazism and fascism. But OCO is a major step backward from WoT. The current conflict can also be defined against an ideology. It is certainly not about random acts of violence. There are some obvious and definable common ideologies and goals of the perpetrators of radical Islamism. Their primary unifying cause is the overriding ideology and dream of Islamism -- the goal of establishing the Islamic state. Whether it is the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbullah, HAMAS, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, Lashkar e-Taiba, Jamaat Islamiya, Muhajiroon or the Wahhabis of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to name a few, these groups all have common core ideologies driving their radical movements. The commonality of these groups is simply put -- radicalized Islamism. Radical because they seek "any means necessary" including terror -- "the targeting of noncombatants." They are "Islamist" because their ultimate goal is the establishment of various forms of "Islamic states." Thus we can no longer ignore the fact that non-radical (non-violent) Islamists who seek a peaceful means of establishing an Islamic state are also part of a global movement which stands against western secular liberal democracies. Read more ...
Earlier this year, I conducted research at a Somali Islamic Center (Al Farooq) in Nashville. One need only to have studied and understand Counterterrorism 101 to know this Center and its leadership advocates violence against America, which of course includes innocent children of all religions, races, and cultures.
Our researchers have an enormous amount of counterterrorism training; understand the Islamic ideology, the mindset of Islamic terrorist groups, and most importantly, their tactics and methodology of implementing/achieving their goal of forming an Islamic Ummah (Nation) worldwide and under Sharia law. Evidence to support my professional opinion that the leadership and their supporters of Al Farooq pose a serious threat to our national security was provided to senior law enforcement, the Nashville Prosecutor’s office, and to Nashville Child Protective Services. This included video/audio of a child crying because Islamic leaders had been “hitting” the children during Quran and Sharia lessons. This child had also mentioned having a husband (she is seven years old). Read more ...
Please support through the web site at www.daveg.us or at: Dave Gaubatz 13926 Hull Street EMB 150 Midlothian, VA 23112
Dave G. has pre-selected 50 Islamic Centers that support CAIR, Sharia law, Siraj Wahhaj, Congressman Keith Ellison, Larry Shaw, and Saudi Arabia. Dave G. and his researchers will be asking some tough questions of the Imams and Islamic leaders. The results will be on video and audio. Small or large donations are very important. A $6,000 donation is immediately required to purchase a used RV Dave G. and team can travel in.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is currently the Director of the Mapping Sharia Project and the Owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing (dgaubatz.blogspot.com).
FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Gaubatz: Thank you.
FP: You have done an immense amount of research and work in counter-terrorism. As an expert, tell us one thing: What is the major threat that our country faces?
Gaubatz: Thank you Jamie. The answer is simple: Jihad. But it is not Jihad in the traditional sense of terrorist attacks such as on Sept. 11th, 2001. Contrary to what the American public is led to believe, Islamic Jihadists, specifically the leadership, are well trained, educated, and know how to recruit supporters to carry out Jihad. It is important to clarify the various forms of Jihad. Most Islamic scholars publicly define Jihad as a peaceful internal struggle (such as prayer). This is a weak and partial definition. Islamic scholars rely on the naïve non-Muslims to search no further. All practicing Muslims know there are other aspects of Jihad. Jihad includes physical (fighting), the use of the pen, and the use of the tongue to fight against their enemies.
...
From the ISNA educators brochure: "On behalf of ISNA, the largest national organization of Muslims in the United States and Canada, and in view of the above teachings of Islam, I would like to request that Muslim students in your school system not be required to pay allegiance to the flag" (ISNA brochure "You’ve Got a Muslim Child in your School"). This message is hidden in the fine print of the six page brochure.
CAIR has a similar statement to school administrators: "Pledge of Allegiance: Islam discourages acts of reverence to anyone or anything but God. Some Muslims may be hesitant to recite the pledge of allegiance. Many Muslim parents teach their children to stand up but not recite the pledge". Read more ...
When the five Muslims convicted this month of plotting to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix were charged, the New Jersey mosque where four of the men worshipped reacted to negative publicity by holding an "emergency town hall meeting" to calm neighbors and persuade Americans that Islam poses no threat.
But having investigated the Islamic Center of South Jersey one year ago, Middle East expert and former Air Force special agent Dave Gaubatz insists not only is the mosque a threat to national security, it represents a pattern that has prompted him to launch a massive project to systematically classify every known mosque in the U.S.
Mapping Shariah in America: Knowing the Enemy seeks by the end of next year to document in a rigorous, scientific fashion the controversial premise that the more a mosque or community of Muslims adheres to Shariah, or Islamic law, the greater its threat to U.S. national security.
"That's exactly, that's what the data are showing," Gaubatz told WND, who has charted about 100 of the estimated 2,300 mosques his team has identified across the country. "The more adherent you are to Shariah, the more likely you are going to find the material to back that up at the mosque." Read more ...
WASHINGTON – When the Council on American-Islamic Relations held its 14th Annual Banquet at the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel tonight, it was planning to raise funds and honor some of its supporters, but instead several top officials of the Muslim lobby group were served with a summons and complaint for various civil and criminal offenses.
The dramatic surprise, caught on video, was a result of the research work of the Mapping Sharia Project, headed by Dave Gaubatz. He personally served CAIR Director Nihad Awad at the banquet tonight while Democratic North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw, a CAIR national board member, was addressing the festivities.
Four CAIR clients have filed a federal civil complaint alleging criminal fraud and racketeering against CAIR, a self-described public interest civil rights law firm. The lawsuit also names CAIR's national leadership as individual defendants. Read more ...
Dave Gaubatz, a former USAF counterintelligence specialist, first came to our attention when he revealed in 2004 evidence of WMD sites in tunnels under the Euphrates. These suspected WMD sites in Southern Iraq (Nasiriyah area) were never exploited by the Iraq Study Group. Those disclosures were the object of an intense disinformation campaign by the ‘shadow warriors’ of the intelligence establishment. Nevertheless, his disclosures lead to a re-examination of what happened to Saddam Hussein’s WMD stockpiles and how they were disposed of prior to the Iraq War in March 2003.
Gaubatz has also become a stalwart in unearthing the Grand Jihad of the various Muslim Brotherhood Fronts in America: CAIR, the ISNA and AMC through his role in the Mapping Shariah Project. Read more ...
While she does not mention the Mapping Shariah Project, she is pointing to the infiltration and teachings by Shariah faithful in mosques across the U.S.
Our Mapping Shariah Project has now mapped over 200 mosques. We intend to map all 1500 plus another 700 Muslim day schools, community centers and campus organizations.
Our first peer reviewed published report will be on the first 100 mosques randomly selected across the U.S.
Here's what we found:
-75% of the mosques are Shariah-adherent (on a scale of 1-10, they are 7 or higher).
-25% of the mosques were very low Shariah-adherent (1-2 on the scale).
This means that there is no middle ground. Once a mosque has gone RED, it goes all the way.
Moreover, we also found:
-The correlation between Shariah-adherence and the use of literature calling for violence against the infidel and apostate and Jihad was 0.9--an almost 1:1 relationship.
-In most mosques where this violent literature was found, the Imam actively encouraged our researcher posing as a new attendee to study this violent material.
An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.
The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.
"So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist," an official familiar with the project said.
Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.
Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that "the vast majority" are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks. Read more ...
There are strange happenings in the world of international jurisprudence that do not bode well for the future of free speech. In an unprecedented case, a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam.
The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.
Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, "Fitna," which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.
Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such resolutions aren't legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them as justification for legislation or other actions.
More worrying, the U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to "a particular religion." The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it follows the council's March decision to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.
Given this trend, it's worth taking a closer look at the Jordanian case.
The prosecutor is relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act that casts a worryingly wide net for such prosecution. Passed in response to the Danish cartoons incident, the law allows the prosecution of individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by "electronic means," such as the Internet. The 2006 amendment, in theory, means anyone who publishes on the Internet could be subject to prosecution in Jordan. If the case against the 12 defendants is allowed to go forward, they will be the first but probably not the last Westerners to be hit by Jordan's law.
Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in July that although some of Mr. Wilders's statements may be offensive, they are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express their views.
Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan's extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants' protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
Unless democratic countries stand up to this challenge to free speech, other nations may be emboldened to follow the Jordanian example. Kangaroo courts across the globe will be ready to charge free people with obscure violations of other societies' norms and customs, and send Interpol to bring them to stand trial in frivolous litigation.
A new form of forum shopping would soon take root. Activists would be able to choose countries whose laws and policies are informed by their religious values to prosecute critical voices in other countries. The case before the Jordanian court is not just about Mr. Wilders and the Danes. It is about the subjugation of Western standards of free speech to fear and coercion by foreign courts.
Ms. Samson, an attorney specializing in international and constitutional law, will join the Hudson Institute this fall.
Source: The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122099204692716155.html) H/T: Europe News
September 3, 2008 – Washington, DC: The Mapping Sharia Project, a research project sponsored by the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), is issuing an alert that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a self-described public interest civil rights law firm, may have engaged in criminal fraud. Mapping Sharia calls for a full investigation by the appropriate government agencies. The victims of this fraud may also be due compensation for their losses and suffering.
Reliable sources have produced solid information that Morris Days, the Manager for Civil Rights at the CAIR MD/VA chapter, who was widely publicized by CAIR as one of its civil rights attorneys, was in fact not an attorney, and failed to provide services for Muslim American clients who came to CAIR for assistance and who paid for Days’ services. Not only has CAIR not revealed the facts about Days and his fraudulent, criminal behavior, but as of yesterday, September 2, 2008, the CAIR National office in Washington, D.C. continued to post articles at its website naming Days as an attorney. This amounts to a de facto cover-up of CAIR’s involvement in this criminal affair and a perpetuation of the fraud with CAIR’s assistance. Read more ...
Washington - Radical Islamists not only want to destroy America with bombs and weapons of mass destruction, they also are infiltrating U.S. financial markets and influencing the flow of credit and capital, according to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative think-tank. Read more ...
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
From CAN:
Posts
