Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush Questions FBI Role in Terrorist Arrest

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com



Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush


Yesterday, the FBI in Los Angeles announced the arrest of Mark Steven Domingo, a 26-year-old Muslim convert living in Reseda, California, who is charged with planning to set off explosives and kill people as revenge for the attack against two mosques in New Zealand.

The Southern California CEO of CAIR, Hussam "Hot Air" Ayloush, is in damage control mode with his public response. Once again, a CAIR official implies that the FBI entrapped a Muslim.

https://ca.cair.com/losangeles/news/cair-la-expresses-relief-at-foiling-of-alleged-bombing-plot/

Before Mr Ayloush gets too wound up and invested in his entrapment conspiracy theory, let me explain a thing or two about entrapment law. I say this based on my own 25-year career as a Customs and later DEA agent.

Entrapment exists when law enforcement (or their informant) actually lead a person to commit an crime that person was not predisposed to commit. Predisposition is the key word. In this case, the question is-was Domingo predisposed to commit an act of terror prior to coming into contact with the FBI or its informant acting undercover? It appears from the information provided in the FBI press conference that he was predisposed- putting it out online what he wanted to do.

The fact that an FBI undercover agent or informant made contact with Domingo and acted with him-apparently delivering a fake bomb- is not entrapment. A person who is predisposed to commit a crime may be "afforded the opportunity" by an undercover operative. In this case, the undercover person pretended to help Domingo in his mission. Another example would be if an agent infiltrated a drug ring and was tasked with picking up a shipment of drugs and delivering it from point A to point B or person A to person B. That's not entrapment; it's just good undercover work. Same with an agent being introduced as a buyer to a drug dealer, who was already in the business. It is not entrapment when the drugs are delivered and the dealer is arrested. Again, prior statements or acts by a defendant and taped conversations will generally effectively counter any claims of entrapment.

If CAIR hacks like Ayloush want to (once again) claim FBI entrapment, good luck. That will be dealt with at trial. There are many safeguards and rules that go along with undercover work or using informants. These will be properly examined at trial. I suspect once this case is adjudicated, H.A. will once again have egg on his face.

And don't be fooled: CAIR is not relieved about anything. They are in damage control mode.

Swedish State Media and Islamic Terrorism

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Katerina Magasin and Kronans Martell. Translation by Fousesquawk.

It would be hard to argue that any European country has caved to Islamic terror and supremacy more than Sweden. The rape capital of Europe even allows ISIS fighters who left Sweden to return with their families. Not only that, but they are given new identities, their old identities are erased even from police inspection, they are given job training and new residences.

The below article by Katerina Janouche in her blog, Katerina Magasin, reveals how Swedish state media is under reporting or covering up the Muslim slaughter of Christians and other religions. As example, she gives Sri Lanka, the disruption of a church service in Munich and the case of Nusrat Jahan Rafi.

http://katerinamagasin.se/sa-vilseleder-skattefinansierad-public-service-medvetet-om-muslimers-kriminalitet-och-terror/

How Much the Tax Financed Public Service Deliberately Misleads (on) Muslim Criminality and Terror


22 April 2019, 10:50am

Since January 1, 2019, all are involved and pay via our tax bills to be disinformed and misled by the large media platform, Public Service, which includes Swedish Television and Swedish Radio. If one were conspiracy (oriented), one might believe that there is an agenda to diminishing and hiding the acts carried out against Christians, Atheists and Jews by Muslims, in the name of Islam. Swedish Public Service  has taken on the role for itself as educator of the people, where criticism against Islam is now seen as blasphemy, and where one is obviously expected to forgive and tolerate abominable acts when the perpetrators are Muslims.

It became clear with the terrible terror attack in Sri Lanka yesterday. Though, in principle, all the large international news channels reported early on that the terrorist acts were carried out by jihadists, i.e. radical Muslims, SVT chose several hours later to write that it was still not known who carried out the act.

In a long article, it was speculated instead that it could be Buddhists who were behind the attacks, where over  290 people, including many children, died and over 500 were injured. Only in a short bite are Muslim terrorists mentioned. This is generally an approach that Public Service has toward Islamic terror.

Now it is said that (a) "militant group" is behind the "attacks".

That there occurred an attack against church visitors in Munich by a Muslim criminal, where 24 people were injured, has not even been reported by Public Service.

Last week, the same thing occurred when SVT (Swedish Television) reported on Nusrat Jahan Rafi, a 19-year-old student who was killed by her school mates after she refused to take back her report of sexual harassment against the headmaster  of the Islamic school in Bangladesh where she was studying. Nusrat Jahan Rafi was attacked and burned to death by five women in burkas. SVT, however, left out the connection to Islam in its reporting. SVT, however, uses BBC as a source, and thus, it is evident that it was known that the school was Islamic and that the killers were dressed in burkas, but they still chose to leave this out, (and) it does not even appear that all were women. It would be a stretch to believe that that SVT (would)  leave out information that the perpetrators were white men or for that matter what  one would call, "right extremists". Imagine if a black woman were attacked by a white man in a Nazi uniform? I guess  that SVT wouldn't leave out these details. That tax-financed SVT, which should be impartial, fails to write the connection  to Islam in the Rafi case is a scandal.

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-47947117

SVT: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/anmalde-rektorns-overgrepp-brandes-till-dods

That other mainstream media and weak politicians back off from Islam and Muslim criminality and crimes against democracy and human rights is, unfortunately, a fact. The politicians are employed by the people, but lie wildly. Then one verbally changes Christians into "Easter worshippers" according to any international manual appears to be used by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Left party leader, Jonas Sjöstedt. Sweden's prime minister, Stefan Löfvén, who held a press conference after the terror attack against mosques in New Zealand, is carefully silent when Christian children are slaughtered. There isn't much talk about solidarity now. I wonder if the great Social Democrat leader is afraid to come up against his constituents, who, in large part, consist of Muslims?

He has seen what happened in Copenhagen last week, when riots arose when one dared to criticize the religion of peace and love, and threw a Koran (in the air). Twenty-three people were detained in the riots that arose....

And the Swedish Church, with Bishop Antje Jackelen in the lead, doesn't say much about if people should form human shields to protect Christian buildings and churches. The Swedish Church, which has even turned its back on its own symbol, the cross, has long since betrayed its Christian values, so it isn't very surprising. Nonetheless, it is true, really unpleasant.

The mainstream media is reluctant to write that it is about the terror by radical Muslims against Christians and non-believers, so called "unbelievers". Svenska Dagbladet, a newspaper that used to be bourgeois, expresses worry that the terror act in Sri Lanka will result in revenge against Muslims.

Nor does Swedish mainstream media report on the frequent attacks that take place against Christian buildings and targets all over Europe. Vandalism, graffiti, destruction. And quickly the fire  at Notre Dame in Paris is dismissed as an "accident" despite the fact there are many indications that it may have been attack.

And at the same time, jihadists and their families are evidently welcome to Sweden.

With sadness in the heart, I am forced once again to note that lies, disinformation and coddling of terrorists seems to be the new Swedish model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fousesquawk comment:

To a lesser extent, this is also true in the US. Our media also is hesitant to report Muslim terror and crime, and when they have to, they are careful to couch it very carefully. But when the media and people like Barack Obama downplay these horrible atrocities by referring to "Easter worshippers" and not saying anything about the fact that the attackers were Muslims on ba mission of jihad, they are betraying their own public, which is entitled to be fully informed on the dangers we are facing.

Make no mistake: The Islamists have turned it up a notch and things are getting worse instead of better despite the efforts of our political and religious leaders to placate Muslims hoping that if we were just a little bit nicer, it would all go away. Now they are attacking our churches and synagogues and in the case of Sri Lanka, while we are present and worshipping. Weakness and kindness have produced no positive results. On the contrary, it has only emboldened our enemies who believe we are ripe for the kill.

I write this not forgetting the horrible attack against Muslims in New Zealand. It also must be condemned, and we must not take out our rage on innocent Muslims who live in our countries. Yet, we as a people must stand up and tell the jiahdists and their US apologists that we will never submit to Islam. We must also let the phony Muslim moderates like CAIR, MPAC, the Shura Council, and so many other extremist Islamic organizations that we are onto their game of telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamophobia is some evil danger, that Muslims are the real victims when these attacks occur. We must also continue to speak out openly about the true nature of this ideology, which is built around violence and hate towards those who follow other religions. In Sweden, that exposes people to risk that they could have their careers and lives destroyed by the power machine of the Social Democrats and the media. It is shameful, and true here in the US albeit to a lesser extent. We still have the First Amendment. We need to use it and protect it.

In Praise of Judea Pearl

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


This article first appeared in New English Review.


Hat tip Algemeiner, (L.A.) Jewish Journal, ZOA, Israeli-American Civic Action Network, and The Israel Group


Dr Judea Pearl, UCLA


“The incomprehensible blunder of the city of North Hollywood made me realize that my generation, the Counter-Holocaust Survivors of 1945-1948, is in danger of becoming extinct, and that the American public, Jews included, knows close to nothing about the intended Arab genocide of 1947-1948. Like European Holocaust survivors, we must bear witness.”
-Dr Judea Pearl, UCLA


On a campus that has had more than its share of lunacy and anti-Semitic expressions the past several years, UCLA professor Judea Pearl stands out like a shining star. Pearl is the father of slain journalist, Daniel Pearl, a victim of Islamic terror in Pakistan. Dr Pearl has long had to contend with campus anti-Semites posing as human rights activists on behalf of the Palestinian cause. This week, Dr Pearl has twice taken the lead in making a principled stand.

In the wake of New York University (NYU) presenting their "President's Service" award to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Pearl has notified NYU that he is renouncing his status as a distinguished alumnus.

Dr Pearl also refused an invitation to join a panel for a post-film discussion on the controversial anti-Israel film, 1948-Creation and Catastrophe, which was put on by the municipality of West Hollywood on April 16.

I commend Dr Pearl for both of his actions. In the latter case, what is the point of being the only pro-Israel member of a panel that is made up of anti-Israel activists like Robin Kelly, Sandy Tolan, and James Gelvin, not to mention the moderator, Estee Chandler (Jewish Voice for Peace)?

As we have previously reported, this one-sided "documentary" was recently shown at UC Irvine, presented by the two producers and moderated by UCI comedian, Mark LeVine, who, when he isn't teaching whatever he teaches at UCI, is a frequent speaker against Israel.

Here is an article from Jewish Journal (Los Angeles) on the film's showing in West Hollywood on April 16. It  features the above quote from Professor Pearl.

The pro-Palestinian movement in the US is masked as a human rights movement. It is actually a thinly disguised effort to bring about the downfall of Israel and the removal of Jews from the Middle East. It is anti-Semitic to its core. As for Students for Justice in Palestine, they are nothing more than a national organization of brown-shirts who use tactics of intimidation and disruption to further their cause. Sadly, there are even American Jews who have linked arms with this movement.

Dr Judea Pearl is not one of them.

Why the Criticism of William Barr Is Unfair

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Now that the Mueller investigation has finally come to an end, Democrats, the media, and Hollywood celebrities are having a major hissy fit trying to figure out how to keep the collusion mantra going. Some have accused Mueller of being a Russian agent just like President Trump. Far fetched? Of course, but that's the direction that the Democrats and media have gone.

Then there is the matter of Attorney General William Barr, newly appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate. Barr is a much respected professional who served as AG under George H W Bush. He is a convenient target not only because he is a political appointee, and a Republican, but wrote a memo back in 2017 criticizing Mueller's investigation of possible obstruction of justice by the president. His critics are now charging that he took the Mueller report and made the final call on whether to charge any crimes. Thus, the reasoning goes, the final call was made by a political appointee of the president.

On the surface, that may sound like a reasonable argument. The problem is that this is the procedure that was supposed to be followed. The special prosecutor was, indeed, tasked to submit his final report to the attorney general. He could make recommendations, such as to charge certain people or not to charge. Mueller's judgment was that no further indictments were called for, there was no evidence that Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians, and finally, he could make no conclusion as to the question of obstruction of justice by Trump.

More importantly, it would have been far more troubling had Barr overruled the conclusions and recommendations of Mueller. The special prosecutor situation is somewhat unique within federal law enforcement, but it can be compared to when investigators from a federal agency,  like the FBI, present a case report to the US Attorney's Office. When the investigative team, in this case, led by Mueller, submits its case report to the prosecutor, in this case Barr, it is the latter who makes the decision on whether to go ahead with prosecution, indictments etc.  If the investigators cannot present a prosecutable case to the prosecutor, it would be the height of folly and unethical for the prosecutor to indict. If the investigators want to charge someone, they need to present a solid case to the prosecutor. (Again, consider Mueller to be the investigator here.) This is something Mueller failed to do.

On the other hand, had Mueller presented a prosecutable case to the attorney general, and Barr declined to prosecute, then the Democrats would have an argument. Of course, this is not even taking into account the legal question of whether a sitting president could be prosecuted in the first place.

There is much to criticize Mueller about over the manner in which he conducted this two-year investigation. In the end, he presented, in my opinion, an honest and proper conclusion as to the president. Barr has followed his role to the letter. If the Democrats in Congress want to keep beating this dead horse, they do so at their political peril.