Andrew C. McCarthy's Blog, page 27

In Nod to Obama (and NBC), NFL to Open Season on a Wednesday Night

It has become a tradition over the last several years that the National Football League opens its season on a Thursday night in early September, with the previous season's Super Bowl champions' playing a home game. But not this year. The NFL has announced that the league will open the 2012 season on Wednesday, September 5, so that NBC -- the network with broadcast rights to the game -- can devote Thursday night to coverage of President Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

In 2008, the league and NBC went ahead with the opening game on Thursday although this collided with the speech by the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, at the conclusion of the GOP convention. The game was begun earlier than usual, and McCain waited until it was over to give his speech.

The NFL has not played a game on Wednesday since 1948. 

Can Someone Explain This 'Kidnapping' Thing to Me . . .

because I'm not getting it as explained by Camp Romney. Mitt is saying that Santorum is kidnapping the primary by encouraging Democrats to cross over and vote for him in the GOP primary. Now, I've got to say, I think it's silly to have rules that invite the other party to vote for your party's nominee -- it's an invitation to mischief and to nominating candidates who are not representative of what a political party claims to stand for. If it were up to me, I wouldn't permit it. But it is not up to me, the rules have long allowed it, and the party establishment -- which is a lot less conservative than the party base -- has benefitted considerably from it in terms of succeeding in getting its preferred candidates nominated. 

What I'm really not following, though, is how Romney can complain about a practice of which he was, by his own account, an enthusiastic participant. The following is from Politico. After noting that Romney accused Santorum of sinking to a "new low," the report relates:

Yet Romney himself gave a similar explanation in his last presidential run for why he crossover voted in in the 1990s in Massachusetts, per this ABC News clip:

ABC News’ Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Republican presidential candididate Mitt Romney offered a new explanation today for why he supported a Democrat in 1992.

That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary.  He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week," that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

Again, I don't like this game, but having played it himself, how can Romney now complain that it amounts to "kidnapping" the process?

Can someone explain this "kidnapping" thing to me ...

because I'm not getting it as explained by Camp Romney. Mitt is saying that Santorum is kidnapping the primary by encouraging Democrats to cross over and vote for him in the GOP primary. Now, I've got to say, I think it's silly to have rules that invite the other party to vote for your party's nominee -- it's an invitation to mischief and to nominating candidates who are not representative of what a political party claims to stand for. If it were up to me, I wouldn't permit it. But it is not up to me, the rules have long allowed it, and the party establishment -- which is a lot less conservative than the party base -- has benefitted considerably from it in terms of succeeding in getting its preferred candidates nominated. 

What I'm really not following, though, is how Romney can complain about a practice of which he was, by his own account, an enthusiastic participant. The following is from Politico. After noting that Romney accused Santorum of sinking to a "new low," the report relates:

Yet Romney himself gave a similar explanation in his last presidential run for why he crossover voted in in the 1990s in Massachusetts, per this ABC News clip:

ABC News’ Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Republican presidential candididate Mitt Romney offered a new explanation today for why he supported a Democrat in 1992.

That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary.  He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week," that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

Again, I don't like this game, but having played it himself, how can Romney now complain that it amounts to "kidnapping" the process?

America's Self-Delusion over the Syrian Opposition

I wish I had more time to get into this at the moment, but before we do Libya Part II (or is it Kosovo Part V?), count me with Dan Pipes, and against Elliott Abrams and Zuhdi Jasser, in opposing intervention in Syria. More to say when I can.

Does Judge Martin's Not Being a Muslim Change the Bias Argument?

Given that Judge Martin's representative denies that he is a Muslim and that I now think he probably did not claim to be a Muslim during the court proceeding, the question arises whether it is still valid to argue, as I did yesterday, that Martin should have recused himself from the case on the ground of judicial bias. Absolutely not. It absolutely is. [ACM - Sorry for the confusion -- writing too fast.] Martin's status as a Muslim was not the focal point of my bias contention. I've just added the following to the post in question:

UPDATE: ... This post has been corrected because, after further review, it appears Judge Martin's reported statement on the audio of the court proceeding, "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive", is actually, "F'Im a Muslim, I'd find it offensive." For further details on the transcription, see this . I note that I have not retracted my assertion that Judge Martin "had no business sitting on a case in which he was biased against the complainant." While there would surely be additional grounds to support a judicial bias claim if Judge Martin were a Muslim, my argument was not based on Martin's being a Muslim. It was based on Martin's hyper-sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities, which rendered him receptive to the absurd claim that sharia principles can be a valid defense to a Pennsylvania harassment charge. Though there would be grounds for worry, a judge who was faithful to his responsibilities but who happened to be a Muslim could theoretically sit fairly and impartially on this case. On the other hand, a judge who is an adherent of current American government policy toward Islam -- who, for example, sees no conflict between sharia and the federal Constitution, or who thinks fear of Muslim reactionary violence is a good reason to curb the First Amendment -- should not have sat on this case, regardless of whether he happened to be a Muslim.

To be or not to be ... a Muslim

Mark Martin is the Pennsylvania state court judge I referred to in two posts (here and here) yesterday -- the jurist who, on sharia grounds, dismissed a harassment case against a Muslim man who assaulted an activist atheist whose "Zombie Mohammed" costume the assailant found insulting to Islam.

I reported that Judge Martin is a convert to Islam, based on a published report corroborated by the audio of the court proceeding (quoted in the published report), in which the judge seemed to assert (while lecturing the victim about his purported provocation of the assault), "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive." 

A member of the judge's staff yesterday stated without equivocation that Martin is not a Muslim. So why did he say otherwise in the court proceeding? I now believe, though I'm not a hundred percent certain, that he probably did not say otherwise.

The audio sounds clear enough on YouTube streamed through your computer. But I've now listened to the sentence in question many times, wearing a good set of earphones with the volume amplified a bit. Based on that, it's entirely possible that what Martin said was, "F'Im a Muslim, I'd find it offensive" -- as in If I were a Muslim, I would find it offensive. The "F" sound before the word "I'm" is almost inaudible, even with good equipment; the "d" sound that changes "I" to "I'd" is more perceptible, but you have to work a bit to hear it. 

I want to thank our reader gargal who raised the possibility of an erroneous transcription in the comments section of the transcript post. After many listenings, I don't agree with gargal's transcription, "I'm not a Muslim, I find it offensive." There is no utterance of the word "not". What did it for me was the "d" at the end of "I'd".  But gargal is right that, in context, it makes more sense that Judge Martin is talking about how he would feel about the "Zombie Mohammed" bit if he were a Muslim -- not how he does feel, as a Muslim. For example, at the start of his soliloquy, Martin says, "I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam," and he attributes this not to being a Muslim but to "having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country." (Judge Martin is an army reserves officer who has done tours in Iraq.) I'd further note that the judge tends to garble some words and to interrupt thoughts with other thoughts, which are interrupted by still others, so he is not always the easiest guy to follow.

One other point on this. In many court proceedings, an official court transcript is made, and most good judges take the time to read it before authorizing its publication to minimize transcription errors, which are common. In this case, not only does it appear that no transcript was made; the wayward judge is reportedly threatening to hold the assault victim in contempt for making and publishing the recording the judge would prefer that the public did not hear.

In any event, I will put appropriate edits in the prior posts.

Why Apologize to Afghanistan?

We have officially lost our minds.

The New York Times reports that President Obama has sent a formal letter of apology to Afghanistan’s ingrate president, Hamid Karzai, for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base. The only upside of the apology is that it appears (based on the Times account) to be couched as coming personally from our blindly Islamophilic president -- “I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident.#...#I extend to you and the Afghani people my sincere apologies.” It is not couched as an apology from the American people, whose frame of mind will be outrage, not contrition, as the facts become more widely known.

#ad#The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

Of course, these facts may not become widely known, because no one is supposed to mention the main significance of what has happened here. First, as usual, Muslims -- not al-Qaeda terrorists, but ordinary, mainstream Muslims -- are rioting and murdering over the burning (indeed, the inadvertent burning) of a book. Yes, it’s the Koran, but it’s a book all the same -- and one that, moderate Muslims never tire of telling us, doesn’t really mean everything it says anyhow.

Muslim leaders and their leftist apologists are also forever lecturing the United States about “proportionality” in our war-fighting. Yet when it comes to Muslim proportionality, Americans are supposed to shrug meekly and accept the “you burn books, we kill people” law of the jungle. Disgustingly, the Times would inure us to this moral equivalence by rationalizing that “Afghans are fiercely protective of their Islamic faith.” Well then, I guess that makes it all right, huh?

Then there’s the second not-to-be-uttered truth: Defiling the Koran becomes an issue for Muslims only when it has been done by non-Muslims. Observe that the unintentional burning would not have occurred if these “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Afghans had not defiled the Korans in the first place. They were Muslim prisoners who annotated the “holy” pages with what a U.S. military official described as “extremist inscriptions” in covert messages sent back and forth, just as the jihadists held at Gitmo have been known to do (notwithstanding that Muslim prisoners get their Korans courtesy of the American taxpayers they construe the book to justify killing).

Do you know why you are supposed to stay mum about the intentional Muslim sacrilege but plead to be forgiven for the accidental American offense? Because you would otherwise have to observe that the Koran and other Islamic scriptures instruct Muslims that they are in a civilizational jihad against non-Muslims, and that it is therefore permissible for them to do whatever is necessary -- including scrawl militant graffiti on their holy book -- if it advances the cause. Abdul Sattar Khawasi -- not a member of al-Qaeda but a member in good standing of the Afghan government for which our troops are inexplicably fighting and dying -- put it this way: “Americans are invaders, and jihad against the Americans is an obligation.”

#page#Because exploiting America’s hyper-sensitivity to things Islamic advances the jihad, the ostensible abuse of the Koran by using it for secret communiqués is to be overlooked. Actionable abuse occurs only when the book is touched by the bare hands of, or otherwise maltreated by, an infidel.

As our great Iraqi ally Ayatollah Ali Sistani teaches, touching a kafir (“one who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness”) is to be avoided, because Islamic scripture categorizes infidels as equivalent to “urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors,” and “the sweat of an animal who persistently eats filth.” That is what influential clerics -- not al-Qaeda but revered scholars of Islamic law -- inculcate in rank-and-file Muslims.

#ad#And they are not making it up. Sistani came upon this view after decades of dedicated scriptural study. In fact, to take just one telling example (we could list many, many others), the “holy” Koran we non-Muslims are supposed to honor proclaims (in Sura 9:28), “Truly the pagans are unclean#...#so let them not#...#approach the sacred mosque.” It is because of this injunction from Allah that non-Muslims are barred -- not by al-Qaeda but by the Saudi Arabian government -- from entering Mecca and Medina. Kafirs are deemed unfit to set their infidel feet on the ground of these ancient cities. You don’t like that? Too bad -- grin and bear it#...#and, while you’re at it, surge up a few thousand more American troops to improve life in Kandahar.

Understand this: Muslims are killing Muslims all the time. Sunnis attack Shiites, Shiites attack Sunnis. Ahmadi Muslims are attacked in sundry Islamic countries. Often, these Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities involve not only murder but also the torching of the other sect’s homes and mosques -- necessarily meaning Muslims are burning Korans, and with far more mens rea than the American personnel had in Afghanistan. None of these atrocities incite global Islamic rioting -- it is just Muslim-on-Muslim violence, the numbing familiarity of which calls for no comment, except perhaps to mumble that it must have something to do with how “fiercely protective of their Islamic faith” Muslims are. (Actually, it has to do with Muslims’ deeming the perceived heresies of other Muslims to be apostasy, for which sharia prescribes the death penalty.)

Also understand this: In sharia societies, non-Muslim religious articles are confiscated and destroyed every single day as a matter of policy. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, where Mecca and Medina are closed to non-Muslims, government guidelines prohibit Jews and Christians from bringing Bibles, crucifixes, Stars of David, and similar artifacts emblematic of their faith into the country. When that prohibition is violated, the offending items are seized and burned or otherwise destroyed. Moreover, though Saudis deny having an official policy that bans Jews from entering the country at all, reports are rampant of travelers’ being denied visas either because they are Jewish or because their passports bear stamps indicative of prior travel to Israel.

In spite of this shameful, conscious, systematic abuse of non-Muslims and their religious articles, King Abdullah has yet to send a letter of apology to Obama. All the presidential bowing in the world will not change this, not when Muslim supremacism is the irreducible core of mainstream Islam -- not al-Qaeda Islam, mainstream Islam. And where is Mr. Karzai’s apology over the Afghan soldier who just killed two Americans? That is only the latest incident in a largely unreported epidemic: our “allies” turning their weapons on their Western trainers.

On second thought, who cares if Karzai apologizes? Our troops do not belong in Afghanistan. They have given more than enough, way more. So has our country.

If our government believes the Taliban and other factions are our enemies, allied with al-Qaeda to kill Americans, then we should unleash our military to destroy them. This should not be an endless counterinsurgency experiment that prioritizes the protection of Afghan civilians and the construction of Afghan civil society; it should be a war that our vast might enables us to win rapidly and decisively.

#page#But our government has repeatedly professed that the Taliban are not our enemies. If that is true, we lack not only the will but the cause for waging war. We should leave -- now. It is immoral to keep our young men and women there as sitting ducks in a place where the people hate Americans but we are not trying to vanquish them. We routed al-Qaeda years ago. We don’t need to defeat the Taliban or waste time negotiating with them, Karzai, the warlords, and the rest. Let them have their Korans and work it out for themselves with the compassion that has been such a Religion of Peace hallmark for the last 14 centuries.

That, however, cannot be the end of it. If, according to the president, we need to apologize to Muslims because we must accept that they have such an innate, extraordinary ardor for their religion that barbaric reactions to trivial slights are inevitable, then they should not be invited to enter a civilized country. At the very least, our immigration laws should exclude entry from Muslim-majority countries unless and until those countries expressly repeal repressive sharia laws (e.g., the death penalty for apostates) and adopt American standards of non-discrimination against, tolerance of, and protection for religious minorities.

#ad#If you really want to promote freedom in Islamic countries, an immigration policy based on civil-rights reciprocity would be a lot more effective, and a lot less expensive, than dispatching tens of thousands of troops to build sharia “democracies.” It would also protect Americans from people whose countries and cultures have not prepared them for the obligations of citizenship in a free society.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of  The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America .

The Sharia Court of Pennsylvania -- the Transcript

I have made a transcript of the Pennsylvania case in which state judge Mark Martin, a Muslim convert and U.S. Army reservist who served in Iraq, relied on a sharia law defense (as well as some evidentiary contortions) to dismiss an open-and-shut harassment case against a Muslim man who assaulted an atheist activist at a Halloween parade. (See my earlier post.)

The victim, Ernest Perce, wore a "Zombie Mohammed" costume and pretended to walk among the dead (in the company of an associate who was the "Zombie Pope" -- and who, you'll be shocked to learn, was not assaulted). The assailant, Talag Elbayomy, a Muslim immigrant, physically attacked Perce, attempted to pull his sign off, and, according to police, admitted what he had done right after the incident. The defense argued that Elbayomy believed it was a crime to insult the prophet Mohammed (it is, under sharia law), and that because he was in the company of his children, he had to act to end this provocation and set an example about defending Islam.

As you will see, Judge Martin did not lecture the defendant about free speech or how disputes are resolved in a civilized country. He instead dressed the victim down for failing to appreciate how sensitive Muslims -- including the judge himself -- are about Islam. The audio of Judge Martin's remarks can be heard on YouTube (The audio, beginning at around the 2-minute mark on the YouTube clip, lasts about 7 minutes. Martin has reportedly threatened to hold Perce in contempt for recording and publishing the judge's statements, which were made in open court. Perce says he had permission to make a recording as long as it was only audio, not video.) Here is the transcript:

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi's defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca. To be a good Muslim, before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “May God be with you.” Whenever -- it is very common -- their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, “Allah willing, this will happen.” It is -- they are so immersed in it.

Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights.

This is what -- as I said, I spent half my years altogether living in other countries. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as “ugly Americans.” This is why we are referred to as “ugly Americans,” because we’re so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

All that aside I’ve got here basically -- I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand -- I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene -- that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant -- it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person -- The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not -- and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know -- I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was -- “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm -- or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge. 

Me again: I could get into an evidence and criminal law analysis here -- Judge Martin is being disingenuous about the "He said, she said" business: There was a videotape that corroborates the assault (it does not depict the assault but it shows there was a sudden disturbance), and a police officer would have testified that Elbayomy admitted attacking Perce -- beside the fact that if there had been no assault, there would have been no need to defend it on sharia grounds. Moreover, Martin obviously missed class the day they taught the difference between intent and motive.

But all that is beside the point. This judge had no business entertaining a sharia defense to a violation of Pennsylvania law. The judge had no business ridiculing an American citizen as a "doofus" and hectoring him with Martin's views about Islam, its requirements, its purportedly extraordinary significance to Muslims (compared to other believers who, according to Martin, are less devoted to their faiths), or about the Muslim perception of "ugly Americans." The judge, furthermore, had no business sitting on a case in which he was biased against the complainant -- so patently biased that the defense lawyer, R. Mark Thomas, saw that a sharia defense would fly and played it to the hilt. Here's what Mr. Thomas told the local ABC affiliate: "I think this was a good dressing down by the judge. The so-called victim was the antagonist. We introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. . . . The judge didn't do anything that I wouldn't have done if I had been in the same position."

Yeah, I'm sure. But one's "attitude toward Muslims" is irrelevant to one's right in America to walk the streets and express opinions people may find offensive without being physically attacked and intimidated. And the fact that sharia governments kill people over such expressions of opinion means that they are barbaric, not that we should tolerate additional constraints on our (diminishing) liberties. Contrary to Judge Martin's view -- a view that is becoming increasingly and disturbingly common among top administration officials, some members of Congress, and the military brass -- sharia does not set the "bounds on First Amendment rights." 

The Sharia Court of Pennsylvania

A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomy's sharia defense -- what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed -- trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

There will be much more to say about this. For now, you can find details, here, including the YouTube recording of Judge Martin hectoring the assault victim, Ernie Perce, an activist atheist who paraded last October in a "Zombi Mohammed" costume. Before dismissing the case, Martin lectured Perce about the principles of Islam and the tender sensibilities of Muslims, calling him a "dufus" for failing to appreciate same.

In 27 years of trying and analyzing legal cases, this performance is as shocking and disgraceful as anything I've ever seen from an American trial judge. 

Guess Who Decides What FBI Agents Get To Learn About Islam?

While we're on the subject of the Muslim Brotherhood, this February 16 report from Steve Emerson at the Investigative Project on Terrorism will be an eye-opener. As I mentioned in my column over the weekend, the FBI -- following the administration's lead -- is purging its training materials of publications that are deemed offensive to Muslims (you know, crazy stuff like claims that passages in the Koran and Hadith promote violent jihad, Islamic supremacism, killing of apostates, oppression of women, etc.). So what are the criteria the Bureau uses to figure out what materials are offensive? And who decides?

You'll never guess. Steve, who has been talking to some mighty outraged law-enforcement officials, writes:

It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed "offensive." The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered "offensive" but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered "anti-Islam" by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

The February 8 FBI meeting was the culmination of a series of unpublicized directives issued in the last three months by top FBI officials to all its field offices to immediately recall and withdraw any presentation or curricula on Islam throughout the entire FBI. In fact, according to informed sources and undisclosed documents, the FBI directive was instigated by radical Muslim groups in the US who had repeatedly met with top officials of the Obama Administration to complain, among other things, that the mere usage of the term of "radical Islam" in FBI curricula was "offensive" and 'racist." And thus, directives went out by Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Mueller to censor all such material. Included in the material destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were powerpoints and articles that defined jihad as "holy war" or presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization bent on taking over the world—a major tenet that the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly stated for decades.

Feel safer now?