Thursday, March 16, 2017

Judge Watson's TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!


As I read the Order Granting the Temporary Retraining Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., I began to wonder how this document was written with any assemblance of juris prudence professionalism. I say this knowing it is practically impossible for a judge to write a 42 page document excluding the title page which makes 43 in a matter of two hours. I took an extra step to verify this by talking to lawyers who had seen judges using their clerks assistance to complete maybe 12 pages in two hours due to needed discussion and citation verification not to mention proof reading.

I suggest every American read this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision pre-written prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of unethical conduct of a judge.

The State of Hawaii presented a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries be banned. Among the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism declined by 100 persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there was an increase or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to last year.

Yet, even Judge Derrick Watson  admits in a FOOTNOTE:

Footnote 8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order No. 13,769. At this preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s effect on tourism in     order to gauge the economic impact of the new Executive Order, while understanding that the provisions of the two differ. Because the new Executive Order has yet to take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be determined." (pgs. 20-21)

The State of Hawaii made the outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’I would suffer economical hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six countries currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat humorously, the state claimed:

… that any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.

Oh, the insanity! The college can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United States is a hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better yet, are these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable them to attend the University of Hawai'i?

The State of Hawaii went on and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of the Persian Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in deleting a program that requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled from their site listing their academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!


Dr. Ismail Elshikh is listed as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly purposefully because his name is listed in news articles as "Ismail El Sheikh." While it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations of English for their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in America for sometime to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and to understand the meaning behind the misspelling.

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh claims that his children are suffering hardship because his mother-in-law is not able to come to America, though it was established that she is in a the process of being able to come due to family being here.

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh is quoted in the TRO as having stated:
  •  … that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.
  •  “deeply saddened by the message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’ to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1
  •  “Because of my allegiance to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.”; id. ¶ 3
  • [“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”
I am further at a loss when I read on page 23-24:

Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007)  (“The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause     context.”). “The standing question, in plain English, is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1048–49. 

The TRO was awarded with the claim that it violates Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment rights! Yet his rights have never been in violation! At no time, and in no place in the TRO does it state that his rights were in question!! Rather the statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment rights are being violated!!!

The bill makes no illusions to religion at all. Even though they do quote an adviser to the president they do not provide proof that there is a ban on a religion. Which of course can be easily disproved by naming off Muslim countries that have no ban!

On Page 27 the ruling states:

(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not based on speculation about a particular future prosecution or the defeat of a particular ballot question. . . . Here, the issue   presented requires no further factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly protected First Amendment expression.”); see also     Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened enforcement effort implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.

The mentioning of freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is this evidence that Judge Derrick Watson  could not find judicial reasoning to support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?

The TRO decision states:

“Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment 31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not. (p. 30-31)

Interestingly, this statement quotes the last judge who ruled against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions but tries to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:

the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.

Worse still is the lack in understanding that the are using math to justify their reasoning while stating that math should not be used for this purpose. This also demonstrates that the judgement was given prejudicially be not applying statistical analysis in math to examine why those six countries were deemed to be terrorist supporter countries. This provides a one sided view. Something judges are not supposed to do.

CONCLUSION:
This TRO’s standing is based on a belief that people who are not American citizens are under the US Constitution! This is highly misleading, unethical and teem of nothing but judicial activism!


Where is the outrage? Why are the major media outlets not asking these questions? Because it would not fit their narrative? If  Judge Derrick Watson  is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick Watson to be impeached today! The evidence is all in the TRO.

Monday, February 20, 2017

FOIA Reveals Shredding in FEMA or Worse!


  • FEMA is claiming they do not have applications for grants they awarded. If this is true how did FEMA is guilty of misappropriations of funds since applications are required.
“These are not the droids your looking for.”

“This is not the information your looking for.”

When Obi-won Kenobi of Star Wars come to mind when you are trying to get information from the federal government something is wrong! 

I wrote a Freedom of Information Act request to FEMA on August 31, 2015 regarding the awarding of grants to these three entities under the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

#
Name and Info
Amount
1
ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF BALTIMORE MD INC.

$74,675
2.
ISLAMIC CENTER OF SAN DIEGO, INCORPORATED

$71,250
3.
CAIR

$70,324


TOTAL:
$216,249

It took them over a year to fill my request. However, in saying they did fulfill the request they also denied my request. They simply sent me a print out from USA Spending.gov. Something you or I can access at home on the Internet. I reached out to the people in the FOIA office for FEMA explaining that I had received copies of applications before and that I had previously been sent a copy of the required confirmation of the claims. Which in the one case I received, was a police letter. This became an article on awarding a grant to those who support terrorism and an example of awarding a grant with confirmation of a threat.

So imagine my surprise when I received the following statement from the FOIA person working at FEMA on February 15, 2017:

After our discussion on the phone last week, as promised I did reach back out to the component within FEMA to double check that there was no additional information that was missing from your FOIA request. There was no applications found and so it cannot be provided to you. The program office is aware of the FOIA  process and conducted multiple searches and no records were located regarding the applications.

To our knowledge on this Grant Program, FEMA would only consider the Grant applications (E.G. the four corners of the documents) and not any additional threat assessments or documents that may be provided by the non-profits. 

After receiving this I called the FOIA Officer and informed her I was filing a complaint with the Inspector General. Which I did that day! To say that an organization that approves grants did not keep a copy of the application or the supporting material is either a lie or evidence of shredding federal documents!

Maybe I should apply for the $20,000 award for evidence of the Obama administration shredding offered by Wiki Leaks? While the cash is a great motivator I would rather have the Trump administration do some heavy stomping in FEMA and shake the tree that is hiding this information!

One other possibility exists regarding this “missing information.” Did FEMA under the Obama administration was award NPSG funding to Islamic organizations without even receiving an application for the grant? This is “misappropriation of funds.” How can I make such damning accusations that FEMA has to have this documentation? The answer is simple.

The FEMA site claims that groups filed out applications. I have received evidence of this also through past FOIA requests.



I even checked to see if there was a different way to file a FOIA for this information if the state FEMA awarded the funding. But as you can see below the state FEMA sites are federal sites and the FOIA requests go through DHS and more specifically FEMA.

Since 2013 this FEMA program has award $56,000,000 to nonprofits claiming to be under a terrorist threat. I have only scratched the surface here. What if the majority of the organizations awarded never had confirmation of a threat? This too is misappropriation of funds!

I do not know about you, but I for one am very concerned that organizations such as CAIR that have been directly linked to Hamas in federal courts would receive any federal funding. It gets worse when you consider some of our allies have placed CAIR on a terrorist list. Did we fund the enemy of our allies? Sadly the answer is yes.

What can we do as American citizens to stop this? My only suggestion is to email or call the White House and voice your concerns.  

Thursday, February 9, 2017

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans


The New York Post wrote an article on February 9th that clearly shows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, carefully choosing words for the purpose of creating misinformation for the media to share with their readers and viewers regarding their actions against President Trump's Executive Order. According to that article the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that an alien of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the three-member panel wrote."
 The terminology "perpetrated a terrorist attack" explicitly excludes all actions prevented or attempted that did not result in a terror attack. Why is this important? There are at least 38 terrorists who were killed or arrested as they worked to be supportive of the Islamic State AND who were also classified as immigrants/refugees at one time. In addition, there are at least 6 persons who were killed or arrested for attempting an act of terror who were second generation Americans refugees. I filed this information in a federally filed affidavit in September 2016 as an Expert Witness. You will notice people from countries other than the seven countries listed in Trump's ban.

All the information in the graphs below originated in the Threat Knowledge Group last accessed in September 2016, whose site was disabled recently with President Trump's appointment of Sebastian Gorka, with the exception of the information in the last column which I found. Actual sources for the information cited in the last column is provided in my Affidavit.

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

The Hijra before the Jihad! The Secret Muslim doctrine of Migration

Screen Capture from: http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=4&verse=97
[UPDATE OF PREVIOUS ARTICLE WRITTEN IN 2015. THIS ONE WILL BE IN NEXT BOOK!]

Today thousands of Muslims are answering a call to immigrate to non-Muslim lands. According to the Department of Homeland Security, of the 70,000 refugees granted asylum in the USA in 2013 “the leading countries of nationality for refugee admissions were Iraq (28 percent), Burma (23 percent), Bhutan (13 percent), and Somalia (11 percent). Seventy-five percent [75%] of refugee admissions in 2013 were from these four countries”  (Martin & Yankay, 2014). If we accept that the vast majority of those living in these countries are Muslim, then 70% of 70,000 translates into 49,000 Muslims migrated to America in 2013.  
President Obama brought in 84,995 refugees in for the Fiscal Year 2016, of which four of the top five countries are Syria, Iraq, Burma and, Somalia all are predominantly Muslims.[1] For the fiscal year 2017 President Obama boosted the Refugee Resettlement Program for a 57% increase.[2] Ann Corcoran of the Refugee Resettlement Watch noted that 98% of the Syrian refugees in the first few months of the fiscal year 2017, were Muslim.[3] This begs the question as to how they are qualifying as refugees since the definition of Refugee includes the requirement of being persecuted.
This says nothing of the massive Islamic migration into Europe. Millions of Islamic migrants are entering Europe from Northern Africa to Afghanistan. Some countries like Denmark and Sweden are now concerned that their own native population will be outnumbered in as little as 20 years. Why is this happening? Isn’t it Haram (forbidden) for a Muslim to move to a non-Muslim land?
Islam Q and A recently answered: Can Muslims settle in kaafir countries for the sake of a better life?[4] Part of the answer stated that:

In the Sunnah, the Prophet (PBUH) said: “I disown every Muslim who settles among the mushrikeen” [non-Muslims]. (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 2645; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.)[5]

According to this manner of thought living in Dar al-Harb is not only wrong for Muslims it was not acceptable to live in non-Islamic communities in Muslim lands, according to their prophet. However, the author of this document does make an exception.

Rather we should say that each Muslim has his own unique set of circumstances and his own ruling that applies to him, and each person is accountable for himself. If he is able to practise his religion in the Muslim country in which he lives more than he can in a kaafir country, then it is not permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country. 

But if it is the other way round, then it is permissible for him to settle in a kaafir country, subject to the condition that he is confident that he can resist the desires and temptations to be found there by taking the precautionary measures prescribed in sharee’ah. 
Zakariya al-Ansaari al-Shaafa’i said in his book Asna al-Mataalib (4/207): 
It is obligatory to migrate from the kaafir lands to the Muslim lands for those who are able to do that, if they are unable to practise their religion openly.”[6]

So why are Muslims coming to non-Muslim countries, what they call Dar al-Harb if it is forbidden? Is this merely a smoke screen? Are these very words quoted above only for a select few? It makes little sense that they could not practice what they believe in an Islamic country. Or is this a screening out policy? A doctrinal statement that insists Muslims not strong in their faith must stay in an Islamic country. What then of those who hold their Islamic faith with strength?
Keep in mind that Muslims practice taqiyyah, lying to protect their faith. If they think it is not advantageous to the spreading of Islam, they will lie or obfuscate the truth. Since we cannot trust a Muslim to tell the truth on al-hijrah, we must rely on what the Islamic scriptures state.
According to Hadith no. 2863 Kitab al Amthael reported by Timri, also reported by Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbel as Hadith no 17344 Mohammad said:

I charge you five of what Allah has charged me with: to assemble, to listen, to obey, to immigrate and to wage jihad for the sake Allah.

According to this wording it is implied that migration for the purpose of jihad is not only Ok, it is commissioned by the prophet of Islam. But is this the only citation of such a statement?

·         Sura 2:218  “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad.”
·         Sura 8:72    “Surely those who believed and those who emigrated and performed jihad with their money and their lives for the sake Allah, and those who gave asylum…” 
·         Sura 8:74    “And those who believed and emigrated and performed jihad for the sake of Allah, and those who gave asylum and help [gave you victory], those are the true believers, they will receive forgiveness and generous provisions. 
·          Sura 8:75   ““And those who believed afterward and emigrated and performed jihad with you, so those are of you.

Some of the Hadiths appear to contradict each other. In one record it appears that Muhammad had no further intentions to migrate after taking Mecca:

'A'isha reported that the Messenger of Allah () was asked about migration, whereupon he said: There is no migration after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and sincere intention. When you are asked to set out (for the cause of Islam), you should set out, (Sahih Muslim 1864,  Book 20, Hadith 4599)

Notice the mention of jihad. Aisha’s comment here implies that Muslims MUST set out (migrate) for the purpose of jihad only. This agrees with:

Narrated Mu'awiyah: I heard the Messenger of Allah say: Migration will not end until repentance ends, and repentance will not end until the sun rises in the west. (Sunan Abi Dawud 2479, Book 14, Hadith 2473)

Clearly the meaning of “until repentance ends” means when all have turned to Allah. Migration it seems then is for the purpose of jihad alone. 
As you can see the Hadiths and the Koran provides several examples that the purpose of migration (al-Hijrah) is to accomplish jihad. Shouldn’t Western governments be aware of this? Why aren’t they? The US government spends hundreds of millions of dollars researching “violent extremism” trying to determine why some persons become terrorists. They refuse to identify the enemy. Doing this would mean Universities would not receive millions in research funding and using the knowledge that had been provided and taught at the Pentagon prior to Barak Obama becoming President of the United States.
So what does history tell us? If historians start with the koranic verses at the beginning of this chapter it is clear that migration (hijrah) is an Islamic doctrine and can be a requirement placed upon Muslims in certain areas.
Muhammad Khalid Masud wrote “The obligation to migrate: the doctrine of hijra in Islamic law” which is a chapter in Muslim Travellers edited by Dale Eickelman and James Piscatori in 1990. Masud states:

From the Qur’anic texts the following significant points about hijra can be inferred: (1) It was an obligation of physical movement towards self-definition in the nascent Muslim society; (2) hijra was closely associated with jihad; and (3) hijra established a bond of relationship among Muslims, particularly with the ansar.[7]

Masud’s point on hijra being closely associated with jihad has great significance because what is defined today as Islamic terrorism is often classified as Islamic jihad (holy war) against non-Muslims. Masud did share that there were differing opinions by scholar on whether hijra  remained obligatory and shared those who do not consider it obligatory, believed that after the death of their prophet Muhammad hijra ended. But according to Masud, many scholars considered it an important and relevant teaching.

Abu Sulayman Hamid b. Muhammad Khattabi al-Busti (AD 931-96/9), a scholar of hadith, … argued that hijra was actually meant to support and strengthen dar al-Islam in its nascent days. After the conquests dar al-Islam was so strong and established that migration was no longer required. The hijra would be required again only and whenever the conditions so demanded (Ibn Hajar 1959; vi, 378)[8]

            Masud uses a quick historical examination of the time period of the first few Caliphs to look at the truth of this matter. Masud notes that in the cases of opposing Muslim groups (631-632 AD) justified their war, “most often the ruling group in the centre  - in terms of jihad. It was therefore necessary to strengthen their camp by asking their followers to migrate from enemy territories.”[9]

Masud provides the example of the Khawarij who justified their jihad and hijra by stating:
all territories were dar al-kufr until they were brought into the fold of Islam. A territory could turn again into dar al-kufr if its rulers denied the sovereignty of Allah, or committed a major sin, whereby they became kafirs. In these circumstances, hijra from such a territory and jihad against it become obligatory.[10]

This created reasoning for one group of Muslims to declare an opposing Muslim group as mushriks (polytheists), justifying a hijra for the purposes of strengthening their camp before a jihad. William Hunter recorded such events in his book The Indian Musulmans in 1872. 
But even under President George W. Bush there was censorship on this topic and a refusal to accept what Islamic terrorists were telling us is actually part of Islam.
One of the Imams of the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, 9.3 miles from Washington, DC was working for Al-Qaeda, Anwar Awlaki. He left the country knowing he was about to be taken into custody in 2002. His involvement in terror plots in the United States including 9/11/2001 and the Fort Hood Massacre are unquestionable. His video messages to the younger generations of Muslims around the world earned him a death by Hellfire missile approved by President Obama. In 2010, Awlaki said this about hijra:

To the Muslims in America I have this to say:
How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? How can you have loyalty to a government that is leading the war against Islam and Muslims?
Hence, my advice to you is this: you have two choices: either hijra [migration] or jihad. You either leave or you fight. You leave and live among Musims or you stay behind and fight with your hand, your wealth and your word. I specifically invite the youth to join our brothers in the fronts of jihad: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.[11]

How can we ignore the purpose of hijra (Islamic migration) is jihad?
Good men such as (Retired) Major Stephen Coughlin and Dr. William Bradford were teaching the truth of what Islam teaches about hijra, jihad and, terror. They were removed from their posts because the knowledge they were sharing would help protect America! So, today no education occurs and, no training material exist in the alphabet soup of defense and national security agencies to protect the American people. This leaves America defenseless at least until Trump becomes the President! Why?
Careful thought in this would go back to the first large amount of Muslims coming to America in 1962. Did they come for the purpose of jihad? This would account for the founders of the North American Muslim Brotherhood. It would also explain their usage of the term “civilization jihad” in 1991 when they defined their goals. It directs the Muslim migrant who came for jihad, on how to pursue that goal.

            4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.[12]

    If Muslims coming here would have the purpose of civilization jihad, you would expect them to do so strategically. Using something like this:
  • Start by infiltrating colleges for the purpose of changing what we teach about Islamic history.
  • Move to influencing/controlling what is put in textbooks and taught in public schools.
  • Attempt to make American culture conform to sharia in general society.
  • Attempt to infiltrate every level of government.

My last book Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam covers this in depth. You can also find updated articles since the publishing of the book listing persons in government positions and federal financing of Islamists on my blog at http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com if you wish to learn more on this topic. .
-----------
If the American people do not wake up and act soon, they will cease to be the land of the free and become the land of submission to Islam. This is sadly more of a possible reality with the current President Barak Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch masking references to Islam by the terrorist in the Orlando attack on the gay club, to protect Muslims.[13]
As the history of Muslim migration shows in the pages that follow, Hijrah before jihad is a long followed doctrine.


Recommended Reading

Martin, Daniel C., and James E. Yankay. "Refugees and Asylees: 2013." Department of Homeland Security: Office of Immigration Statistics. 2014. Accessed June 27, 2016. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_rfa_fr_2013.pdf.

Eickelman, Dale F., and James P. Piscatori. Muslim Travellers: Pilgrimage, Migration, and the Religious Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Solomon, Sam, and Elias Al Maqdisi. Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, the Islamic Doctrine of Immigration: Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? Charlottesville, VA: ANM Publishers, 2009.

The Generous Koran.  (U. Dakdok, Trans.) Venice, FL: Usama Dakdok Publishing, LLC. 2009.



[1] "Fact Sheet: Fiscal Year 2016 Refugee Admissions." U.S. Department of State. October 04, 2016. Accessed January 02, 2017.https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/10/262776.htm.
[2] Ibid
[3] Corcoran, Ann. "First two months of FY2017, 98% of Syrian refugees entering the US are Muslims." Refugee Resettlement Watch. December 04, 2016. Accessed January 02, 2017. https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/first-two-months-of-fy2017-98-of-syrians-entering-the-us-are-muslims.
[4] Al-Munajjid, Muhammad Saalih. "Can Muslims Settle in Kaafir Countries for the Sake of a Better Life? - Islamqa.info." Can Muslims Settle in Kaafir Countries for the Sake of a Better Life? - Islamqa.info. April 20, 2003. Accessed June 27, 2016. http://islamqa.info/en/13363.
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] Eickelman, Dale F., and James P. Piscatori. Muslim Travellers: Pilgrimage, Migration, and the Religious Imagination. Berkeley: U of California, 1990, p. 32.
[8] Ibid p. 33.
[9] Ibid, p. 34.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Cited on page 109, Gorka, Sebastian. Defeating Jihad: the winnable war. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, A Division of Salem Media Group, 2016.
[12] Akram, Mohamed. “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America” (May 19, 1991). Investigative Project on Terrorism. Retrieved June 27, 2016. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf.
[13] "DOJ to Scrub Islam References from Transcripts of Orlando Terrorist's Calls to Police | Fox News." Fox News. June 20, 2016. Accessed June 27, 2016. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/20/fbi-to-release-partial-transcript-between-orlando-nightclub-gunman-and-police.html.


If you like my work, please click on the book and make a purchase in order to help me to continue to bring you the truth!

You can listen in to my show Wednesdays at 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm EST. You can find the show through this link http://www.blogtalkradio.com/global-patriot-radio