Tuesday, June 20, 2017

THREE SIMPLE TRUTHS SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS SHOULD BE SHARING ABOUT ISLAM

Illustration from: http://nicolettelodge.com/truth-2

What Social Studies Teachers do not know about Islam is proving to be the icing on the cake for entities of the Muslim Brotherhood such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has a proven relationship with Hamas as shown in USA versus Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008. Social Studies Teachers are teachers who are expected to know vast amounts of history including world history, history of the United States, citizenship, and economics. But they are not required to be specialists in small parts of this vast field, though many do have favorite areas, they know more about.

One would think that since 9/11/2001 that we should have revised what we teach in social studies classes to combat Islamic terrorism. After we all, we basically won the war on communism through education. I propose a few simple truths be taught about Islam that are currently not taught in public schools under Common Core.

  1. Muhammad took part in rebuilding a polytheist temple known as the Ka’aba. A person who believed in only one god most likely would not take part in rebuilding a polytheist temple. 
“When they saw him thy said, ‘This is the trustworthy one. We are satisfied. This is Muhammad.’  When he came to them and they informed him of the matter he said, ‘Give me a cloak,’ and when it was brought to him he took the black stone and put it inside it and said that each tribe and said that each tribe should take hold of an end of the cloak and they should lift it together. They did this so that when they got it into position he placed it with his own hand, and then the building went on above it.” (Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Dhaka, Pakistan: University Press, 2000, p. 86.) 
2.  Muhammad never followed the first command of the Angel Gabriel: “read.” Muhammad never learned to read.
“An Angel came to him and asked him to read. Allah's Messenger replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet added, "Then the Angel held me (forcibly) and pressed me so hard that I felt distressed. Then he released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he held me again and pressed me for the second time till I felt distressed. He then released me and asked me to read, but again I replied. 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he held me for the third time and pressed me till I got distressed, and then he released me and said, 'Read, in the Name of your Lord Who has created (all that exists), has created man out of a clot, Read!” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 478)
3)      Muhammad when insulted threatened physical harm to others:
“‘They said that they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow; he had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community, and cursed their gods. What they had borne was past all bearing, or words to that effect.’ 
“While they were discussing him the apostle came towards them and kissed the black stone, then he passed by them as he entered the temple. [Muhammad began the prayer walk around the Kaabah.] As he passed they said some injurious things about him. This I could see from his expression. He went on and as passed them the second time they attacked him similarly.  This I could see from his expression. Then he passed the third time and, and they did the same. He stopped and said, ‘Will you listen to me O Quraysh? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter.’” (Guillaume, p. 130-131.)

It is important to grasp this last one. The “religion of peace” has a prophet that threatens to do physical harm to those who insult him. This should expose that Islam is not a religion of peace at all. Why is this topic avoided?

It is Islamic sources that claim these three things. Only three simple things that Muslims should know if they read the Koran and the first Sirat (biography of Muhammad) written! If these three simple things were taught sharing the Islamic documents they come from, we would be doing nothing less than teaching than truth!

Monday, June 12, 2017

EXPOSED: The Shape-shifter Threat in the Muslim Brotherhood!

Former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates was recently asked in a FOX News (2017, May 23) interview about his opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood and if they should be labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization. His response speaks volumes:
I think of the Muslim Brotherhood in the context of science fiction shape shifters. They will look like whatever they think they want you to look -- them to look like…. we have seen the Muslim Brotherhood actually come to power, it put the lie to all of their claims about being a moderate force that was accepting of democratic norms if you will. Now, the other aspect of it is Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood is generally regarded as the ideological forerunner of both al-Qaeda and -- and ISIS, Daesh. And -- so, it seems to me by and large, going back to the old saying, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, maybe it's a duck. [Emphasis Added]
            Secretary Gates’ concerns regarding the MB is of particular interest for the IC today. Poole (2013) points out that the past president invited persons to the White House who were implicated by federal prosecutors in financing terrorism.[1] One of them being Mohamad Majid, who was then the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a known entity of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Poole notes in his article that materials containing terminology “Muslim Brotherhood” and other Muslim terms related to shariah and jihad were purged  from the DHS and FBI libraries in 2012 and earlier. Poole noted that this purge allowed for certain individuals to gain access to the White House on a daily basis naming one of them being Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), who had previously been recommended by President Clinton to a “congressional terrorism commission withdrawn after his comments in support of Hamas and Hizballah.”[2] President Obama appointed al-Marayati to be a member of the official U.S. delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) conference on human rights held in Vienna in 2012.[3]
            Former FBI Director James Comey confirmed the purge in his testimony before the Senate Committee On The Judiciary Hearing On FBI Oversight on May 3, 2017:
In the previous Congress, I -- I chaired a hearing on -- on the willful blindness of the Obama administration to radical Islamic terrorism, where testimony from a whistleblower at the Department Homeland security that described a purge DHS had -- had undergone of editing or deleting over 800 records at DHS to remove references to radical Islam, to the Muslim Brotherhood. And the purge indeed was the word used by the White House that directed DHS to conduct that purge.[4]
The above purge is mentioned as relational to allowing persons to be appointed to positions they would not previously have been allowed, due to public endorsements of entities classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Some of those who visited the White House regularly and later became employees are children and grand-children of  those who were  or are Muslim Brotherhood leaders in North America!
CAIR, one of the  entities that petitioned the DHS and FBI to censor its materials was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the USA vs Holy Land Foundation, et. al.. How is it possible so many changes were made allowing a pass for those who work to destroy America within? How did records get "purged" that would allow even more infiltration? Perhaps this is one of the question former Director of the FBI, James Comey should answer while under oath!


[1] Poole, P. S. (2013). BLIND TO TERROR: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S DISASTROUS MUSLIM OUTREACH EFFORTS AND THE IMPACT ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY. Middle East Review of International Affairs (Online), 17(2), p.2.
[2] Ibid, p. 13.
[3] Ibid, p. 12.
[4] SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING ON FBI OVERSIGHT. (2017, May 03). Political Transcript Wire 


Thursday, May 11, 2017

Are We Prepared If Congress Declares the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Entity?

The Muslim Brotherhood is digging trenches in case they beome labeled a FTO.

Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession. ~ George Washington

When a government refuses to acknowledge an entity’s declared war against it, it becomes susceptible to the dangers of infiltration and seditious activity within its own borders. In 2004, the United States learned that the Muslim Brotherhood within North America had declared war against America, Canada and Mexico. Knowledge of this declared war became public information through the Holy Land Foundation vs. USA (2008).
The FBI had known of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee as evidenced by records provided at the trial of wire-tapping which was used in the HLF trial. Evidence provided through these transcripts proved that members of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America had formed a Palestine Committee, which had intent to funnel finances to Hamas (a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood).
In addition to this threat Yousef Al-Qaradawi, the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood issued a fatwa in 2003 “that anybody killed in a military operation aimed at expelling American occupation forces from the Gulf is a martyr due to his good intention” (Al-Uwaydidi, 2003).
Threats from the Muslim Brotherhood have continued. One was given on a televised broadcast from Turkey in 2015. There was little to no reaction by the Obama administration.
In addition to this many of the Islamic terror organizations active today have been found to have their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. Middle East Monitor (2013) pointed out the connection of ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood.
For these reason the American public has been actively pursuing a course to have the Muslim Brotherhood declared a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
There have been several attempts since 2013 to have federal government list the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity. Politically this has taken on different forms. For example, under President Barak Obama a petition site was established for the people of the United States to share needs and concerns. If the petition garnered 20-30,000 signatures, a promise was given to answer the petition. In 2013, a petition was written to have the United States designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist entity had garnered 213,146 signatures! But no response was given for a year. When the Office of President responded on the site it claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was a non-violent entity ignoring decades of assassinations bombings, and more.
Since 2015, there has been a change where bills have been submitted in Congress to do what the State Department has not – name the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist entity.
In the House of Representatives HR 5823 submitted on July 2016 was sent to Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. HR5823 was submitted by Rep. Brat and was entitled: “Naming the Enemy Within Homeland Security Act.” 
February 24, 2016 the Judiciary Committee of the House called on the White House Administration to label the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
In 2017, Senator Ted Cruz proposed a repeat of a bill he submitted in 2015 that died in committee. The majority of the text is exactly the same. These bills proposed the label of Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
Whether the FBI considers the Muslim Brotherhood a current threat or not, may be irrelevant. It is possible that the efforts of the American people through their elected officials will push the bills proposed that label the Muslim Brotherhood a FTO into law. It is also possible, that under President Trump, the State Department will declare the Muslim Brotherhood a FTO.
The Muslim Brotherhood has operated both discreetly and openly in the United States of America for over 50 years. For this reason President Washington’s words have special meaning. It will be a difficult assignment to clean the USA of the Muslim Brotherhood presence if it is declared a FTO.
Current estimates of the number of Muslim Brotherhood entities within the United States are in the hundreds. These include large entities such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and individual mosques and Islamic Centers. This does not even include an analysis of who should be arrested under the Patriot Act if the Muslim Brotherhood is declared an FTO.
NCIS has had investigations into interactions of Navy personnel and members of CAIR. This was revealed through a FOIA sent to the Navy which was passed on to NCIS. NCIS promised to partially fulfill the FOIA.  
DHS has had personnel openly confess to being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood while appointed to a committee to decide if the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated as a FTO.
Sutliff (2015) shows that the Office of Management and Budget in the White House had a member of ISNA’s Shura Council overseeing the budgets of cabinet members under the last President. This threat of harm is deeper than most think.These are government positions. What about entities and personnel engaged in colleges?  Would the FBI recognize those who espouse affinity towards supporting Hamas, a designated FTO, and a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood as persons in violation of the Patriot Act? They have yet to act at all on this as evidenced by the bold public declarations found in Middle East Forum (2002).

What about persons actively engaged in misinformation campaigns. Specifically, the Institute on Religion and Civic Values (IRCV), which works with many major textbook industries in America. Its original name being the Council on Islamic Education (CIE), which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Is the FBI ready to act if the State Department or Congress declares the Muslim Brotherhood a FTO or possibly a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) entity?
According to the Muslim Link Paper (2017, March 7), one of the online papers for the United States Muslim Council of Organizations (USMCO), a known umbrella group of Muslim Brotherhood organizations, whether the USA is prepared or not to take on the task of dealing with a FTO label on the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood community is preparing for the FBI.

References:
Al-Uwaydidi, N. E. (2003, January 28). Those Who Die Fighting U.S. Occupation Forces Are Martyrs: Qaradawi. Retrieved May 09, 2017, from https://archive.islamonline.net/?p=15197
Egyptian FM: Daesh are an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. (2017, April 13). Retrieved May 10, 2017, from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170413-egyptian-fm-daesh-are-an-offshoot-of-the-muslim-brotherhood
HLF vs. USA: Philadelphia Meeting Wiretap Transcript. (2008). Retrieved May 9, 2017, from http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf  
Middle East Forum. (2002, October 21). "Campus Watch" Lists 108 Academics Supporting Apologists for Terrorism. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.meforum.org/505/campus-watch-lists-108-academics-supporting
Muslim Link Paper. (2017, March 07). Lawyers: Masajid, Islamic Orgs Should Prepare for Raids, Seizure of Documents. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://muslimlinkpaper.com/community-news/4314-lawyers-masjid-islamic-orgs-should-prepare-for-raids-seizure-of-documents
On Muslim Brotherhood TV from Turkey: Threats of Terror Attacks against Foreign Nationals, Interests of Egypt. (2015, January 28). Retrieved May 09, 2017, from https://www.memri.org/tv/muslim-brotherhood-tv-turkey-threats-terror-attacks-against-foreign-nationals-interests-egypt
Sutliff, P. (2015, April 17). Assentors and Infiltrators in the Executive Branch Part 3a of 4. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com/2015/04/assentors-and-infiltrators-in-executive.html

Monday, April 3, 2017

The Deceitful Misinformation that Created a TRO

When evidence exists to prove a state attorney general purposefully misinformed a federal judge whether IN COURT or through paperwork as to what evidence exists to support a stand against the President of the United States what is this called? Is it perjury?

Hawaii AG Doug Chin was not under oath, but there is an expectation of professionalism and truthfulness when presenting before a judge whether through passing of papers OR standing and presenting a case! So why did he misinform Judge Derrick Watson about the statistics related to the University of Hawai’i.

AG Chin claimed that if Trump’s order restricting travel of those from 6 countries were to be enforced, the University of Hawai’i would suffer financially.
           
… 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. (http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/docs/orders/DKW_order.pdf)

Judge Watson’s TRO cited AG Douglass Chin's additional claim that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of the Persian Literature, Language and Culture Program.

So what are the actual statistics? I filed a FOIA request with the University of Hawai’i to find out.

According to the University of Hawai’i the entire University system has 13,352 students. Of those 13,352 students only .43% of the student body as a whole were Iranian. One student came from Libya. One from Somalia and one from Yemen. In all 61 students at the University of Hawai’i would be effected through President Trump’s Executive Order. IF THEY WERE NOT ALREADY HERE!

Banned Countries by Trump EO
Total # of Students in UH System
Percentage of Student Body
Iran
58
0.43%
Libya
1
0.01
Somalia
1
0.01
Sudan
0
0.00
Syria
0
0
Yemen
1
.01
TOTAL
61
.46

Attorney General Douglass Chin made a claim that a drop in these students ability to attend classes would likely close the Persian Language, Linguistics and Culture Program courses.  Only 52 students in total are enrolled in these courses taught by two professors. If AG Chin had a chance to find a negative effect against the University of Hawaii this was it. In all 4 students would be effected. Those four are from Iran, bringing the percentage of students effected of those that attend to 8%.

This brings us to asking simple and important questions. How could Hawaii State Attorney General not have access to this information? It took me one week to obtain it and I live in New York. This brings us back to, is it allowable for an attorney to purposefully withhold information for the purpose of misinforming a judge.

Attorneys Joel Cohen and Danielle Alfonso Walsman wrote about just this type of thing in the New York Law Journal on June 1, 2009 in an article entitled Asking for Trouble: When Lawyers Lie to Judges.

One of the first and most obvious things we learn as lawyers, and, indeed, the disciplinary rules make clear, is that lawyers must follow the same instructions given to clients in preparation for testimony: You cannot ever lie in court! And if a false representation is made to the court, even unintentionally, a lawyer who later realizes his error is affirmatively required to take reasonable measures to remedy the statement.

I do not know if Attorney General Douglass Chin considers his filing for a TRO against President Trump’s executive order a place he should be allowed to create misinformation  to prove his point, but in either case these statistics prove that the TRO is at least partially established on false and misleading information. If the Judge had not bothered to pre-write his decision, he could have easily verified the information I am sharing and in so doing exposed AG Chin as not being wholly truthful in court.

The sad truth then is that this is likely evidence of collusion between the Hawaii AG and the Judge Derrick Watson. If Judge Derrick Watson had not come to the bench with a pre-judgment, he likely would have checked the statistical claims of the AG.

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.