Posts Tagged: antijihadists

Dec 10

FBI rushes to investigate veiled email threat to Cincinnati mosque, ignores open threats to anti-jihadists

There is no excuse for threats of violence sent through emails to people with whom one disagrees. It is noteworthy, however, that there have been no arrests and no FBI investigation of these emailed death threats and others like them that I have received, although I have contacted the FBI repeatedly and do so whenever a new death threat comes in. Yet the Cincinnati mosque email is not even as clear a threat as these below, and the FBI is all over it. Why the double standard?

“Robert Spencer has his right to speech. But someday he will slip up, he will visit a place that doesn’t honor such infidel ‘rights.’ And what a day they will have with him. You’ve heard of head cheese and blood pudding? See, modern hip Muslims like me like to be look different than everybody else in Western society. And we don’t like to believe Islam has any real enemies left. But Robert Spencer, well, he will see the sacred text come to life…’fuel the fires of hell…’ only when they are done with him. Peace and Love.” — September 29, 2010

“Robert Spencer the Second, born on February 27, 1962, is a hairy man who…currently lives on [specific street] in [specific city] with [specific relatives]…” — July 28, 2010, from Greenbelt, Maryland

“Killing of this man is a model… SPENCER-Model..Spencer himself deserves the same? he should be sloughtered like that man. Silencing the EVIL.” — April 4, 2010


“Yes. Yes..We finally reached out him. Ka’ab Binu Ashraf has been traced. He will be soon found. Will this be like VAN-Goooordhd. I am not sure. Allah Knows.. But Spencer you will pay the price…Just wait to pay the price.” — September 28, 2009

“Robert….It was really good I found you in a local supermarket. and I followed you.. so i know your address now..tell you fool followers you are going to be deceased very soon… any one taking your seat and getting killed? I am sure most of your followers are cheeky cowards.” — September 28, 2009

“Do me a favor Spencer and put this as a blog post like you do to all those threatening mails. Be careful, I am very near to you. I located you and I know you have little security around you. I am coming to slit your throat with a bland knife.. and it will pain a lot.. since you misled a lot of people and became a fitnah on earth.. it is a duty of a good muslim to kill you! go report this to FBI or CIA..And don’t worry, I won’t attack you unguarded.. but i will surely kill you in the most easy manner possible because I don’t like to slaughter human beings.. Die and go to hell.. for sure..and yea I have a new name for you…Robert ‘hawknoseinhell’ spencer.” — September 28, 2009

I’ve received many, many others. Here is just one more, a classic from a few years back:

“YOu are the most f**king person I have ever seen. Enrooted in islamic hatred, you think your personal statements on Prophet Muhammed will be deemed appropriate. Motherf**ker, I am coming to kill you. I will hack the head off your face and i will kill your family. Wait for your doom. From A mujahid” — October 2, 2006

“FBI investigating mosque threat,” by Dan Horn for the Cincinnati Enquirer, December 14 (thanks to Andrew):

The FBI is investigating a threatening e-mail sent to a Clifton mosque that was the target of a pipe bomb attack almost five years ago.

FBI officials say they have no evidence the e-mail is connected to the previous attack, but they are taking no chances.

“That’s certainly something we will investigate,” said FBI spokesman Mike Brooks.
The e-mail was sent Saturday from an anonymous Yahoo account to the Islamic Association of Cincinnati, which oversees the mosque.

“You should know that you are not wanted in Cincinnati,” the e-mail states. “We don’t want you here. Mohammad is a joke. Go back to your desert. Beware. We may just declare jihad on you.”

Officials with the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations said that although the e-mail does not contain a direct threat, it is a concern because of the previous attack on the mosque and because of growing animosity toward Muslims in the decade since the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.

“I don’t want to blow this out of proportion, but we don’t want to dismiss it and assume it’s nothing,” said Karen Dabdoub, executive director of [Hamas-linked] CAIR in Cincinnati. “You just don’t know.”…

Indeed you don’t — especially given the fact that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

So what happened in Cincinnati is anybody’s guess. And it’s good that the FBI is on it. I just wish that the FBI were as proactive and energetic in investigating the many death threats that anti-jihadists such as Pamela Geller and I have received as they are when they rush to investigate allegations of threats against mosques and Muslims.

Jihad Watch

Oct 10

Investigative Project hits media bias against anti-jihadists

Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project was the subject of a nasty mainstream media hit piece in The Tennessean Sunday. Here, he sets the record straight — as is necessary, since this story is being picked up gleefully by all the mainstream media flacks for Islamic supremacism. One of the worst is TPM Muckraker, where pseudo-journalist/hardcore Leftist ideologue Rachel Slajda titles her version “Jihad Alarmism Proves Lucrative For Leading Anti-Muslim Advocate.”

Slajda interviewed me awhile back for a story on the stealth jihad, and also wrote a sneering but inaccurate piece on the Campbell’s halal soup controversy.

Slajda’s vicious piece on Emerson calls him a “self-proclaimed expert on Sharia law” and accuses him of “jihad alarmism.” So I wrote this to her this afternoon:

Rachel Slajda:

I am working on an article about how Leftist “journalists” carry water for Islamic supremacists, and so given the perspective you’ve displayed in the article below and the others (Campbell’s Soup, the stealth jihad threat) that you have written about this topic, I wonder if you’d be so kind as to answer a few questions:

1. Where exactly did Steve Emerson proclaim himself an “expert on Sharia law”? [The IPT website says, accurately, that Emerson is "an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security." It doesn't say anything about Sharia.]

2. What investigations are you conducting into the funding sources and salaries of the leading figures of groups with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, such as CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, MAS, and NAIT?

3. On what basis have you determined that Steve Emerson’s work amounts to “alarmism” and not to amassing information about a genuine threat, of which Americans should be aware?

Many thanks for your time and attention to this.

Kindest regards
Robert Spencer

Oddly enough, I haven’t heard anything back from this busy “journalist”! I will keep you posted.

“Note to Readers on Tennessean Story,” from IPT News, October 25:

In an article in Sunday’s Tennessean newspaper of Nashville, Tenn., reporter Bob Smietana made a series of unsupported claims about the nature of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and our work.

There’s a price that comes with erroneous reporting and we’re seeing it register already. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release calling for an IRS investigation into our status as a non-profit organization. We believe we can withstand any scrutiny.

This isn’t a surprise. Groups have been stung repeatedly by our ability to pierce their fog of deception and show their ties to radical Islam, including support for Hamas and other terrorist groups. That’s especially true for CAIR. We broke the news that the FBI cut off contact with them because of court evidence tying the organization and its founders to a Hamas-support network. It’s in CAIR’s interest to deflect attention from that fact and the disclosures which led to it. Trying to discredit the IPT is a sure way to do that.

We won’t let them silence us or make us go away. We also realize when you specialize in the work we do, you make enemies. We’ve earned them the hard way, through diligent research that relies on public documents and what the elements of radical Islam have said publicly. They have hated us for it for years and have found a naïve reporter willing to buy their line.

At issue in the Tennessean story is the relationship between the IPT Foundation, a tax-exempt charity, and SAE Productions, a for-profit company run by IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson. The foundation accepts private donations and contracts with SAE to manage operations. The Tennessean article pays only lip service to the legitimate security issues that dictated this structure and that the IRS has reviewed and approved it.

The article says the foundation’s “tax-exempt status is facing questions,” implying that someone other than the Tennessean and the paper’s hand-picked analysts are raising those questions. This is presented as something that is already happening outside the realm of the newspaper and its talking heads. There is no indication the discussion goes any further.

We provided the newspaper with our 1023 application for tax-exempt status and with our 2008 tax return, most commonly called a form 990. The documents show that we told the IRS we were contracting out our management with a group that did not have tax-exempt status. That was approved. As for the for-profit nature of SAE Productions, the IRS is aware of that as well. That has not been questioned. We say IPTF contracts out with SAE Productions, which files tax returns with the IRS. All of that has been disclosed. [...]

We have continued to pay the price of investigating and combating the threat of radical Islam in the United States, from death threats to being blacklisted to fabricated character assassinations from media apologists for radical Islamic groups. We will not be intimidated and that, with your support, we will continue to expose the danger to our free society posed by radical Muslim groups and the people in the media they manage to fool.

Bravo. There is much more. Read it all.

Jihad Watch

Oct 10

Eboo Patel in Washington Posts forgets about jihad terrorism, blames “fear of Muslims” on antijihadists

Eboo Patel has a used car to sell you. “Nine years after 9/11, a debate about Islam,” by Eboo Patel in the Washington Post, October 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

How is it that fear of Muslims in America is actually higher nine years post 9/11? Watching Christiane Amanpour’s special on Islam Sunday provides plenty of clues.

Patel, you see, wants to fool his eminently foolable Washington Post readers into thinking that If there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is the fault of people like Franklin Graham and me. He would prefer that you not think about Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

The most striking voices in the debate were Amjad Choudry [sic! Patel is referring to Britain-based jihadist Anjem Choudary] and Reverend Franklin Graham. Choudry wore a regulation size beard, looked menacingly at the television camera and declared that the flag of Islam will one day fly over the White House. He knew full well that he was playing the scary Muslim figure from central casting. His message: Islam requires me to dominate you.

“He knew full well that he was playing the scary Muslim figure from central casting.”

Franklin Graham talked about church-burnings in the Sudan, the dangers of Sharia law, and the purpose of mosques as vehicles of conversion and domination. In other words, he agreed with Amjad [that is, Anjem]: Islam requires Muslims to dominate others.

Patel is here attempting a sleight-of-hand: Graham discussed church burnings in the Sudan, Sharia’s oppressive features, and mosques as vehicles of conversion and domination. See? — says Patel — he’s just like Anjem Choudary (although Patel does manage to spell Graham’s name correctly, so at least in that they differ). He doesn’t mention, of course, and apparently hopes that you won’t bring to mind the fact that it wasn’t Franklin Graham or Anjem Choudary who burned churches in the Sudan. It wasn’t Franklin Graham who used mosques to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; to disseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; or to train jihadists.

When that kind of thing is known to have gone on in mosques, and when Muslims implementing Sharia in Saudi Arabia and Iran have victimized non-Muslims and women, people aren’t thinking that “Islam requires Muslims to dominate others” because Franklin Graham or Anjem Choudary told them so; they can see with their own eyes. And no amount of smoke blown into those eyes by Eboo Patel and his ilk can ultimately obscure the truth.

There are Muslims who go on television representing Islam and non-Muslims who go on television representing “Why you should fear Islam” and they are saying the same scary things. Is it any wonder that many Americans, whose first conscious experience with Islam was 9/11, are thinking: “I’m scared of these people.”

The idea that people saying “scary things” on television makes Americans “scared” of “these people” is as ridiculous as it is condescending. Americans are not that stupid, Mr. Patel. Manipulative talking heads, Muslim or non-Muslim, are not the problem in this: Nidal Hasan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad and innumerable others are. But for Eboo Patel to face that, he would have to face up to the reality of the Islamic texts and teachings that inspired those jihadis. And that is a reality that he seems determined to obscure.

What about the moderate Muslims?

Daisy Khan, leader of a group called the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), explained that she was moved by the events of 9/11 to leave her corporate career to start an institution to grow the moderate voice in Islam. She has led Muslim youth and women’s events all over the world. One of the “fear Islam” panel members was unimpressed. “How do we know you are not a secret radical?” he asked.

A blunt but apposite question, given Daisy Khan’s dishonesty about whether or not this “community center” would be a mosque — she has said so in the past in my presence, but has now adopted the line that it is not a mosque, with no explanation for or acknowledgment of the change. Moreover, her husband, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an open proponent of Sharia, and calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book What’s Right with Islam. These things should cause concern for free people. And that Patel would hold the likes of Daisy Khan up as an example of a moderate Muslim doesn’t speak well of him, either.

The imam of a Muslim community in Murfreesboro, TN pointed out that Muslims had been a visible part of Murfreesboro for 30 years and not one member of the community had been involved in a single crime in that time. Recently, the community’s mosque construction site had experienced vandalism and arson, likely because of the fear of Islam cutting through the culture. Robert Spencer’s response: Muslims have a pattern of fabricating such things, and perhaps the imam was making this up as well.

Do Muslims fake hate crimes, or is this just an invention of that greasy Islamophobe Spencer? From “CAIR’s Hate Crimes Nonsense” by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha:

  • CAIR cites the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. But investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store’s operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram’s antics were long ago exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime.

  • CAIR also states that “a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas” on August 6, 2004. But already a month later, the owner was arrested for having set fire to his own business. Why does CAIR include this incident in its report?

  • CAIR lists the March 2005 lawsuit filed by the Salmi family for the firebombing of their family van as one example of a hate crime report it received in 2004. However, the crime named in the lawsuit occurred in March 2003, was already reported by CAIR in 2003, and should not have been tabulated again in the 2004 report.

  • CAIR reports that “a home-made bomb exploded outside of the Champions Mosque in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas,” staking its claim on eyewitness reports that on July 4, 2004, “two white males” were seen placing the bomb. We inquired about the incident and found that Spring’s sheriff department could not locate any police files about an explosion. Further inquiries to the mosque and an e-mail to CAIR both went unanswered. There is scant evidence that any crime even occurred.

  • CAIR notes that “investigators in Massachusetts are still investigating a potential hate-motivated arson against the Al-Baqi Islamic Center in Springfield.” However the case was long ago ruled a simple robbery, news that even CAIR’s own website has posted. The Associated Press reported on January 21, 2005, that prosecutors determined the fire was set by teen-age boys “who broke into the Al-Baqi mosque to steal money and candy, then set the fire to cover their tracks.” The boys, they clarified, “weren’t motivated by hatred toward Muslims.”

  • CAIR describes what happened to a Muslim family in Tucson, Arizona: “bullet shots pierced their home as they ate dinner in October 2004″ and two months later their truck was smashed and vandalized. But the only evidence that either incident was motivated by hate of Muslims is the Dehdashti family itself, not the police. Detective Frank Rovi of Pima County Sheriff’s Department, who handled the shooting investigation, said that according to the neighbors, the desert area by the Dehdashti house was often used for target practice. Neither incident was classified as a hate crime and both cases were closed by February 2005, long before the CAIR report went to press.

  • Of twenty “anti-Muslim hate crimes” in 2004 that CAIR describes, at least six are invalid – and further research could likely find problems with the other fourteen instances.

    Would Eboo Patel really say, in light of all this and more, that it is unreasonable for non-Muslims to be suspicious when a Muslim claims that he has been the victim of a hate crime? How many times must we submit to being fooled?

    There you have it in a nutshell. The forces of intolerance scream from the rooftops, “Islam is about domination”. The forces of moderation are questioned with the intent of delegitimizing them (they’re either just liars, or liars and secret radicals).

    Well, Patel, it would help if you could come up with an example of a “force of moderation” who wasn’t a public and demonstrable liar like Daisy Khan.

    Patel then proceeds to build a “fear bomb,” to hoodwink his hapless readers into being afraid to resist the advance of Islamic supremacism:

    How do you build a fear bomb? Here’s how:

    1) A high-profile event like 9/11 that raises fears and suspicions of a religion and a community.

    2) People like Amjad Choudry [sic!] who claim to represent that religion and community who look scary and say scary things.

    3) People who claim to want to protect everybody else who point to people like Amjad Choudry and say, “See, he represents Islam. Told you they were scary.”

    4) A deliberate campaign to delegitimize humanizing, moderate voices.

    This is all so patently dishonest. If Eboo Patel really wants to present himself as an alternative to the person he persists in calling “Amjad Choudry,” he needs to counter Choudary’s influence in the Muslim community. Then if non-Muslims see that the “humanizing, moderate voices” are really doing something among Muslims to neutralize Islamic supremacists and jihadists, and to counter their appeal, it will be a lot harder for anyone to make the case that “Choudry” “represents Islam” — which of course I have never said anyway.

    And that Patel would also praise the likes of Reza Aslan, a Board member of an organization that can’t think of a single move the U.S. should take to counter the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, is telling as well:

    The role played by Reza Aslan in the conversation was hugely important. He made a few compelling key points. Number one: Islam is a huge religion with a long history. Saying all of its adherents are about one thing - domination - is the very definition of bigotry.

    This case would be a lot easier to make if the people Patel praised weren’t so unsavory. Daisy Khan and Reza Aslan are the voices of reason and moderation? Then we are indeed in trouble. Aslan is a Board member for the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has clear links to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he has called for the U.S. to “squeeze a deal out of” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Number two: people like Franklin Graham and Amjad Choudry say they’re on different sides of the debate, but really they represent the same position (and ought to go have coffee together and leave the rest of us alone, as Reza colorfully suggested).

    Finally, people like Robert Spencer who seek to intentionally delegitimize moderates are advancing a not-too-subtle form of racism, and their ideas will join anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism in the dustbin of history.

    I don’t “delegitimize moderates.” They do that all by themselves. Daisy Khan said at a Lower Manhattan Community Board meeting that the building was a mosque. I was there. Then she said on ABC News that it wasn’t a mosque. I am supposed to trust her now? And Reza Aslan is part of a group that seems to have numerous links to the bloodthirsty Iranian mullahcracy. Moderate?

    And this business about anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism, in which Patel echoes Aslan and the latest talking points that are making the rounds among the Islamic supremacists, is supremely specious. Jews and Catholics weren’t shooting people at military bases, or hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers, or setting off bombs in their underwear on other airplanes, or trying to blow up Times Square, etc. etc. etc. There is simply no comparison between concern about Islamic supremacism and jihad and nativism, which was baseless and indeed racist.

    Patel’s agenda is clear, and the Washington Post ought to be ashamed of itself for publishing him — that is, if it had any shame.

    Jihad Watch

    Sep 10

    AP features Hamas-linked CAIR wringing its hands over “intolerance” against Muslims, ignores real threats to anti-jihadists

    The Muslim victimhood stories are coming thick and fast in the run-up to 9/11. Somehow AP has not found the time to do a single story about the ongoing threat of jihad attack in the United States. And the stealth jihad? Forget it!

    I discussed this disinformation campaign by the mainstream media and Hamas-linked CAIR here, and Pamela Geller states some home truths:

    They are not the ones living under death threat, we are. They are not the ones targeted, we are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don’t have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I.

    Good, decent souls speaking out against a radical ideology, gender apartheid and supremacism are demonized and marginalized.

    But the media blacks that out. They never report on that. Their narrative of Muslims “living in fear,” and worse still, living in fear on 911, is the ultimate insult. Real fear is living as a non-Muslim in Muslim countries under the sharia. Real fear is living as a Coptic Christian in Egypt, real fear is living as a Christian in Indonesia, real fear is a girl going to school in Afghanistan, real fear is being an Israeli awaiting the Islamic nuke, real fear is being a Jew in Europe, or a pro-Israel Jew on many US college campuses and on and on and on.

    But all that is not on AP’s radar screen. There is more here — read it all.

    “For US Muslims, a 9/11 anniversary like no other,” by Rachel Zoll for AP, September 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

    NEW YORK - American Muslims are boosting security at mosques, seeking help from leaders of other faiths and airing ads underscoring their loyalty to the United States — all ahead of a 9/11 anniversary they fear could bring more trouble for their communities.

    Their goal is not only to protect Muslims, but also to prevent them from retaliating if provoked. One Sept. 11 protest in New York against the proposed mosque near ground zero is expected to feature Geert Wilders, the aggressively anti-Islam Dutch lawmaker. The same day in Gainesville, Fla., the Dove World Outreach Center plans to burn copies of the Quran.

    “We can expect crazy people out there will do things, but we don’t want to create a hysteria,” among Muslims, said Victor Begg of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. “Americans, in general, they support pluralism. It’s just that there’s a lot of misinformation out there that has created confusion.”

    On Tuesday, the Islamic Society of North America will hold a summit of Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders in Washington “to address the growing tide of fear and intolerance” in the furor over the planned New York mosque.

    Great. I trust they will address and denounce the death threats I and others have received for opposing the mosque. Ms. Mattson? Mr. Hooper? Anyone? Anyone?

    Jihad Watch

    Sep 10

    Islamic supremacists, dhimmis plead with Justice Department to deny free speech to anti-jihadists

    Note first of all the conflation of “anti-Muslim rhetoric” with actual crimes like the stabbing of the taxi driver and the fire at the mosque in Tennessee, despite the fact that those who are speaking out against the jihad and Islamic supremacism have consistently disavowed and opposed violence and vigilantism. Note also the mention of the stupid and wrong Qur’an burning in Florida. This illustrates what I have noted here many times: Islamic supremacists want and need hate crimes against Muslims, as they will attempt to use them to shut down all legitimate opposition to the jihad and Islamic supremacism, and to tar all their opponents as advocates of violence and hatred.

    It is likely that this appeal, although the DOJ made no official comment, fell on fertile ground in the Obama Justice Department, given Obama’s long-standing tendency to appoint foes of the freedom of speech to influential positions: Kagan, Sotomayor, Koh, Sunstein, Genachowski, etc. etc. etc.

    “Anti-Muslim Rhetoric: Free Speech or Hate Speech? Faith Coalition Calls on DOJ to Take Public Stance Against Anti-Muslim Rhetoric,” by John R. Parkinson for ABC News, August 31:

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 31, 2010 — A coalition of faith groups met with Justice Department officials Monday to encourage the Obama administration to take a more public stance against anti-Muslim hate speech and hate crimes.

    Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates, said the community leaders requested the meeting due to an “alarming rise in anti-Muslim hate” that has become commonplace as the debate over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” in New York City continues.

    “Unfortunately, this very escalating trend of hate speech in the country has now transformed into actual acts of violence and the attorney general, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, has an obligation to really enforce the laws, including the hate crime laws and holding those that engage in hate crimes responsible,” Khera said.

    Last week in New York City, a taxi cab driver was repeatedly stabbed allegedly by a passenger who asked him, “Are you a Muslim?” before the attack.

    On Saturday, a fire was discovered at the construction site for a mosque and community center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., that has been a topic of controversy in the city. Police said the fire is being investigated as a possible arson and hate crime.

    And a church in Gainesville, Fla., has announced it plans to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, to mark the anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks.

    “We are a thriving democracy, we appreciate free speech, but when it crosses the line into violence, that’s against the law,” she said. “And the [Justice] Department, the federal government, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer is going to prosecute and hold them responsible to the fullest extent of the law….

    Jihad Watch