CHICAGO—A Chicago man who was arrested last month for allegedly planning to travel to Somalia and engage in fighting with a foreign terrorist organization, was indicted on the same charges by a federal grand jury, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and Robert D. Grant, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Office of the FBI, announced today.
Shaker Masri, 27, who lived in Chicago’s Gold Coast neighborhood, was indicted on one count of attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and one count of attempting to provide material support by use of a weapon of mass destruction outside the United States. He will be arraigned at a later date in U.S. District Court.
According to a criminal complaint filed at the time his arrest, Masri, a U.S. citizen, began espousing increasingly violent views to an individual he befriended in early 2009, and later began to openly express a desire to participate in a “jihad” and to fight against what he characterized as “infidels.” During the weeks before his arrest, Masri began to actively plan a trip to Somalia, where he hoped to join the specially designated terrorist group al Shabaab and commit a suicide attack targeting “infidels,” the complaint alleged.
Both counts carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If convicted, the court must impose a reasonable sentence under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines.
The public is reminded that an indictment contains only allegations and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trail at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
With voters in a sour mood about politics, candidates across the country are trying to figure out how to convince their constituents that they aren’t like most politicians.
Ron Johnson, a Republican running for Senate in Wisconsin, seems to have cracked the code with an interesting and authentic ad that stands out from the cookie-cutter campaign ads flooding the television airwaves these days.
It’s a criminal case whose victim bears the scars of a particularly heinous brutality – and whose motivation recalls the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. murders that outraged the nation.
But because it “fails to fit a preapproved script, you probably haven’t even heard about it,” says Erik Rush, author of a controversial new book on racial politics and manipulation.
“Were this a white-on-black hate crime,” said Rush, “there is no escaping the fact that it would be national news for months, and every prominent black career civil rights activist in America would be calling for the death penalty.”
The crime in question: Sixteen-year-old Shane McClellan walked from a friend’s place to his West Seattle home. At 2 a.m., McClellan says two men asked him for a lighter. The men robbed him, beat him and “forced him up the stairs to a dead end and held him against his will for several hours,” reports the Seattle Post Intelligencer.
“During this time,” Det. Suzanne Moore wrote in a probable-cause document, “they beat him with their hands and feet, whipped him with his own belt, burned him with a lit cigarette, poured energy beer on him and urinated on him.”
The report, which recounted the injuries to McClellan’s face, ears, head, back and teeth, noted his alleged assailants – Ahmed Mohamed, who’s black, and Jonathan Baquiring, who’s Asian – taunted him with racial remarks during the attack.
Mohamed and Baquiring, reports Seattle’s KOMO News, held him at gunpoint and, “stripped off McClellan’s belt and started whipping his back.”
Photo shows Shane McClellan after the assault.
“They said, ‘This is for what your people did to our people.’ They were like whipping me with my belt, my studded belt,” KOMO News reported McClellan as saying.
The incident occurred May 25 but only made headlines after recent police arrests, charging Mohamed and Baquiring with a hate crime. Even still, media coverage remains limited mostly to Seattle, something Rush said he finds “both baffling and revealing.”
Rush is the author of the new WND Books title, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession.” NewsBlaze’s Claudia Strasbaugh recently recommended the book as, “worth every penny – love it or hate it, this is a book you won’t forget.”
“Certainly, this crime is no more or less heinous than would be a white-on-black hate crime,” said Rush, who was the first to expose nationally the anti-American sermons of President Obama’s longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “But I am interested to see what the judicial system in liberal Seattle and the establishment press make of this. So far, the latter has said next to nothing.”
As Rush recently said in an interview with Family Security Matters, “The Left has pretty much got the reins on the press, and a lot of the news bureau chiefs and the journalists are likeminded people who went to a lot of the same universities, they were schooled in hard Left journalism. They really have lost that concern for what the truth is.”
That “bent makes them highly susceptible to negrophilia,” he explained. Race-baiters’ unseen tool is “negrophilia,” says Rush, “an undue and inordinate affinity for blacks,” combined with the “reflexive demonization of whites as inherently wicked.” It’s rooted in leftist tactics of division and aimed at advancing policies that keep blacks “obedient,” whites “silent” and “political control” secure.
“Propped up by the press, this manipulation seeps into society in ways we scarcely detect until we don’t hear about crimes like this,” Rush added.
Rush said he wasn’t surprised at the language of avenging slavery that the black and Asian alleged assailants reportedly spouted. In a recent interview with Capitol Weekly, Rush explained how negrophilia is colorblind in who it afflicts.
“In addition to fostering an erroneous perception of whites by black and blacks by whites, it’s also expanded into less than healthy and constructive relationships between blacks and whites and other ethnic groups,” he said.
Adding intrigue to the attack, police initially questioned and released Mohamed and Baquiring after McClellan reported the crime. The Seattle Times reported that the officer who took the report visited the scene and found blood, beer cans and fresh cigarette butts. Shortly after leaving the scene, he spotted two men fitting the victim’s description and trying to hide an open container.
“When he stopped to talk to the two men,” the Seattle Times reported, “he noted they had dried blood on their hands and were drinking the same brand of energy beer and smoking the same brand of cigarettes he’d found earlier.”
He told his supervisor, but it “was decided that he should get good contact information on the two but not take them into custody.” He did take DNA swabs from the blood on both men’s hands, and it proved to match McClellan’s.
To Rush, the hesitancy to pursue cases with white victims and black assailants too closely mirrors the shocking sworn testimony of a Department of Justice official earlier this year and the role this alleged policy played in documented voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
“Hopefully,” said Rush, “this case can be equitably adjudicated in Washington state, because it is a matter of public record that the Obama Justice Department has a directive to dismiss black-on-white civil rights violations.”
Racial animus is not the stuff of policy disagreement, it’s a constitutional travesty.
Those who read this space know I am not a fan of the Republicans’ vaunted “Pledge to America.” I’m for simple pledges, the kind that get back to basics. If the Republican party is interested in making a pledge like that — a pledge that will resonate with the vast majority of the American people — here’s a suggestion: Promise an unwavering commitment to the principle of equal protection of the law for every American citizen. Promise, therefore, that Congress will investigate weighty allegations that the Obama Justice Department is engaged in racist law-enforcement practices.
Promise, moreover, that any executive-branch high official who has conspired to deny American citizens equal protection, or who has obstructed justice in an effort to cover up such a conspiracy, will be impeached and removed from office.
While commentators have sought to downplay the scandal over DOJ’s dismissal of the New Black Panther party voter-intimidation case, even the liberal media is becoming too embarrassed not to take notice of this injustice. That owes to last week’s explosive testimony by Christopher Coates, a decorated veteran lawyer and supervisor in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Defying attorney general Eric Holder — and thus at great professional risk to himself — Coates testified before the Civil Rights Commission last week. It is now abundantly clear why Holder and his minions have been so keen on blocking Coates’s compliance with the commission’s lawful subpoenas.
In hair-raising testimony that named names, Coates described the Obama-Holder Justice Department’s policy of racially biased civil-rights enforcement. In so doing, he corroborated the prior account of his fellow whistleblower, J. Christian Adams , who resigned from the department in order to comply with a commission subpoena. (Holder’s subordinates stopped him from cooperating with the investigation while he was under their thumb.) Both Coates and Adams assert that they came forward because the Obama administration’s policy flagrantly violates civil-rights law and the Constitution. Both also said that public statements and testimony by high-ranking DOJ officials about the Panthers and DOJ policy case have been false.
The department dismissed the Panthers case despite the fact that the government had already won it, due to the defendants’ contemptuous default. The dismissal occurred despite the fact that career prosecutors judged the case to be exceedingly strong. Nevertheless, Holder’s top staffers have maintained for months that the rationale for the dismissal was a good-faith disagreement between low-ranking civil servants (i.e., career prosecutors) about the correct construction of the Voting Rights Act.
To the contrary, it is now clear from the testimony of Coates and Adams, as well as from documents DOJ was compelled to disclose in a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, that Obama political appointees were heavily involved in ordering the dismissal and that they were being lobbied by left-wing activist groups. Indeed, Obama political appointee Steven Rosenbaum, the deputy assistant attorney general who is nominally responsible for the decision to dismiss the case, is said to have admitted to Coates that he never even read the case team’s memorandum about the legal and factual support for taking legal action against the Panthers.
A chain of communications finally pried from DOJ by Judicial Watch links Rosenbaum with even higher ranking political appointees. These include deputy associate attorney general Sam Hirsch (a former Obama campaign operative who has pushed for the race-based Balkanization of Hawaii); Hirsch’s boss, Thomas Perez, the associate attorney general (DOJ’s No. 3 official); and David Ogden, who was deputy attorney general (the No. 2 post at Justice) when the front office, contrary to its repeated claims, was deliberating over the Panthers case. Also almost certainly in the loop is Holder himself. Besides the fact that the Panthers controversy inside his department was something he’d naturally have been interested in and briefed on, the Judicial Watch disclosures indicate that talking points about the Panthers dismissal were prepared for the attorney general at some unspecified point.
The dismissal of the Panthers case and the dissembling over it are damning, but they pale in importance when compared with evidence that DOJ hews to a policy of racially discriminatory enforcement of the civil-rights laws. In short, the policy holds that if the victims are white and the offenders are from minority groups, the department refuses to bring cases.
Coates and Adams have both recounted that Julie Fernandez, Obama’s deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, instructed subordinates that the department was interested only in filing “traditional types” of voting cases that “provide political equality for racial and language minorities.” Translation: Justice will not act to vindicate the rights of white people if that would involve civil or criminal lawsuits against non-whites. Furthermore, DOJ is consciously refusing to enforce provisions of the National Voter Registration Act that require states to purge their registration lists of ineligible persons (e.g., the dead or those who have left the state). This is a neon sign inviting malefactors to undermine the integrity of federal elections — elections that Justice is obliged to protect.
Coates has also testified that he complained directly to the aforementioned Perez (the associate AG) about the Obama DOJ’s policy of racial animus in voting-rights enforcement. This is important because, as Jennifer Rubin has reported , Perez subsequently insisted to the Civil Rights Commission, under oath, that no such policy existed. In fact, not content with this denial, he dramatically elaborated that people of the “ilk” that urged discrimination in law-enforcement would not be tolerated in the Obama Justice Department. He even challenged the commission to produce credible evidence to the contrary. All this during the same testimony in which Perez denied that DOJ’s political leadership had any involvement in the Panthers dismissal. He conveniently omitted any mention of, among other things, Rosenbaum’s failure to read the case memo — the direct cause of a blistering argument between Rosenbaum and Coates that was notorious among DOJ figures involved in the Panthers controversy.
This is beyond outrageous. If there were evidence that a Republican-controlled Justice Department were engaged in the kind of abuses that appear to be going on here, the media would long ago have demanded a full accounting from the White House that proclaims itself “the most transparent administration in history.” Democrats would already be preparing impeachment hearings.
~NOTE: This is over a month old but an important FYI
WASHINGTON D.C — The Federal Government is being accused of renting office space from a mosque that allegedly supports terrorism. The blogosphere has erupted. Some in Congress want to order an investigation. Channel Two’s Scott McFarlane investigated these allegations and you might be surprised by what he found.
The U.S. Census is leasing a 6,600 square-foot corner of an old, back-road building in Virginia. Land records that Channel Two obtained confirmed that this location is owned by the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center and rented by the Census Bureau.
Stephen Landman, of the Investigative Project on Terror, said, “Before there is a contract signed, they should know who they’re dealing with.”
Imam Johari Abdul-Malik showed McFarlane around the worship area and even acknowledged that Dal Al-Hijrah is not a typical Islamic center. It has been a hotbed of controversy. Its worshipers have included two of the Sept. 11th hijackers and Nadal Hassan, the man believed responsible for the massacre at Fort Hood. Most alarming to critics is its former Imam, Anwar Al-Awlaki.
Al-Awlaki is now considered a leading terrorist recruiter and is believed to have plotted with the would-be underwear-bomber and the Times Square bomber. Now he is a wanted man by U.S authorities and is on the loose in Yemen, U.S officials believe.
“If you have one branch of government saying this is a terrorist organization and another branch giving them a half-million dollars a year, there is a disconnect here,” said Landman.
The mosque said it collects $500,000 a year in rent from the Census Bureau. They accuse bloggers and watchdogs of race baiting and state that they long ago disowned Awlaki.
“After leaving America and going back to Yemen, he became another person. We shouldn’t be held guilty because a former employee has run amok,” said Imam Johari Abdul-Malik.
Channel Two’s investigation confirmed the Census is trying to bail out of this lease early, concerned by the controversy. A spokesman told us, “Taxpayer funds are being diverted to something not supported by taxpayers.”
Congressional leaders are calling for investigation of the Government Services Administration, the government agency in charge of federal leases. Lawmakers want to investigate potential problems with the background checks the agencies perform on business partners.
“We have made clear to our community that we are not in favor of that kind of behavior,” said Johari.
The Census Bureau tells Channel Two that there have been no incidents or problems inside the building. The agency says it only became aware of the controversy involving the mosque after getting press questions about it. A spokesman confirms the controversy is one reason it is trying to opt out of its lease early, by the end of September.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the personification of strength.
Born in Mogadishu, Somalia and raised in a devoutly Muslim household, Ali grew up in an oppressive Islamic society yet surfaced to tell her tale.
Ali, now in her 40s, has lived a life rarely fathomed anywhere but within the pages of an adventure book. After surviving genital mutilation as a child, fleeing to the Netherlands to escape from an arranged marriage in her twenties, condemning her former faith, and surviving multiple death threats, Ali is now a staunch and outspoken advocate for women and human rights in Islamic countries.
Advocating for justice in the Muslim world has not been easy. After receiving asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, Ali earned a degree in political science at the University of Leiden and served in the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006 — often speaking out passionately about the plight of women in the Muslim world.
In 2004, Ali partnered with director Theo van Gogh to create a film about the Muslim oppression of women, called “Submission.” Several months after the film aired, a Muslim radical named Mohammed Bouyeri murdered van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam, stabbing a note to his body warning Ali that she would be next. Since then, Ali has been in hiding, protected by 24-hour security.
Now living, writing, and speaking out in America, Ali continues to reflect on the life she left behind. In a recent conversation with The Daily Caller, Ali explained that she never realized what a risk she was taking when she left Islam and began speaking out against it.
“When I first started publishing and responding to interviews I didn’t know that my life was in danger,” she said. “And when I got the question, ‘So are you, yourself, Muslim?’ The answer I gave was no, I’m secularized and I realized too late that that answer meant, as a Muslim, I am an apostate and inviting violence.”
According to Ali, Islam, as a template for societal organization, is a complete failure.
“If you look at nations that have adopted Sharia law, you see a number of things: you see an upsurge in the violations of human rights — rights of women, gay people, and religious minorities. You see a dictatorship at all times even though it is sometimes presented as a democracy. For instance, because Islamic law is divine law who ever takes control of government puts himself in the position of God,” she said.
Growing up in a culture that shuns women is incompatible with the ideals of feminism, Ali told TheDC, saying that she got the strength to leave Somalia and the culture in which she was raised from within herself and from circumstances in her life that were unusual for women in her situation — specifically having the opportunity to get an education.
“I was sent to school and there are so many Muslim girls who never go to school or never get to finish it,” she said. “Another circumstance which put me in a lucky position is my father left our family when I was about 10- or 11-years old and he returned when I was 21. And that’s the period when most girls get married off. So, if I had been married off at 16 or 17, I would’ve been much more vulnerable — not as strong. But at 22, after having observed what happens to these young women who are married off and how their lives get shattered, that strengthened me even more to say no to these men.”
Ali says that she never reached common ground with her father and has little idea of where her mother is, saying only that she is “somewhere in Somalia.”
A team of federal agents stopped tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 just west of Atlanta, inspecting each truck as it passed through a weigh station, and Channel 2 has learned its part of a counter-terrorism operation. Channel 2’s Linda Stouffer reported a flashing sign on the interstate directed the trucks to pull into a state-owned inspection station near Lee Road in Douglas County at the height of the evening commute.
Channel 2 Action News confirmed that agents from several federal agencies, including Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Transportation Security Administration were involved. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office assisted in the exercise.
A TSA spokesman told Channel 2 the event is known as Visible Inter-mobile Prevention and Response, or VIPER, an operation that is conducted with local authorities as a training exercise. The TSA spokesman said the operation is not in response to a specific threat.
However, federal sources told Channel 2 investigative reporter Mark Winne the inspections are part of a counter-terrorism operation.
News Chopper 2 showed screening devices, dogs and a large drive-through bomb detection machine in use along the eastbound interstate near Lee Road.
Trucks were being sorted into two lines, one with more rigorous screening. Agents used a variety of devices to check the exteriors of the trailers, including a large drive-through machine similar to a security tool used at the Super Bowl, and a tool that measures radiation.
Democrat Gary McDowell is running to replace Bart Stupak (D, MI) in Michigan’s First District and while he may be hoping he might get the votes of seniors coming to the end of their time here on this mortal coil, he sure seems reticent to give them the medical care they’ll need to be around much longer after the election!
At a campaign appearance, McDowell agreed with those Obamacare supporters that think giving lifesaving medical care to seniors at end of life is a “resource” that needs to be rationed.
McDowell even makes a joke of the issue by saying that those that say end-of-life care should be rationed must be “from a safe district” because the “inconvenient truth” as he sees it is a tough pill to swallow.
Death panels, anyone?
Like a true Democrat McDowell thinks that setting up death panels should be swathed in less alarming language but that they should still be set up. “I was more diplomatic in not mentioning the end of life,” he said to those gathered. Yet he still meant to talk about how we need to ration healthcare at the end of life because “as adults” we need to accept McDowell’s “truth” that it’s just too expensive to save grandma’s life.