‘THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS’ (THE OBAMA VERSION) & OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CHRISTMAS PARODIES

12 Day of Obummer Christmas

A Barack Obama Christmas Carol

Socialism’s Coming to Town

The Obama Christmas Carol

Lesson on Your Social Security Card History

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, now it is no longer voluntary.

2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, now it is 7.65% on the first $90,000.

3) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year, now it is no longer tax deductible

4) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent.

5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.

Since many of have paid into FICA for years and are receiving a Social Security check every month--and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away'--you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Illegal immigrants moved to this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments. The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away.

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

America as an Islamist Colony

"Contrary to the conventional wisdom, it is the Middle East where the institution of empire not only originated (for example, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Iran, and so on), but where its spirit has also outlived its European counterpart. . . . The birth of Islam, by contrast [to Christianity], was inextricably linked with the creation of a world empire and its universalism was inherently imperialist. It did not distinguish between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammed, who derived his authority directly from Allah and acted at one and the same time as head of the state and head of the church. This allowed the prophet to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura and to channel Islam's energies into `its instrument of aggressive expansion, there [being] no internal organism of equal force to counterbalance it'" (pp. 2, 6, Islamic Imperialism: A History, Efraim Karsh, Yale University Press [2007]).

Islam is not about conversion; Islam means submission.

How do Islamists view America?
August 4, 2011
"It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing the United States of America." Tariq Ramadan

Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, spoke in Texas. Ramadan is a Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies in the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University. An online poll provided by the American Foreign Policy magazine in 2009 placed Ramadan on the 49th spot in a list of the world's top 100 contemporary intellectuals.

According to Ramadan, who is arguably the most articulate Islamist spokesperson, America is a colony for Islam; in American history, the colonists rejected Britain's claims to determine their financial and personal affairs.

Today, specifically 21 June 2011, Islamist colonies are forming in America. For example, note the following article in the NYTimes:
Shariah Compliant: Major D.C. Complex Won't Lease to Banks, Bars
"But as it happened, their [the developers] hesitancy on bank branches meshed with the policies of their financial partners, who adhere to the restrictions of Shariah, or Islamic law, including the ban on collecting interest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/realestate/commercial/washingtons-citycenterdc-project-is-finally-under-way.html?_r=4&scp=7&sq=citycenter&st=cse

These Sharia zones and colonizing moves are to be expected, given the fact that much like the “Communist Goals for U.S.A. Takeover” that were written on January 10, 1963, the Muslim Brotherhood also developed their own strategic goals or Master Plan in 1991 for their cultural invasion of the United States and their intention to turn the U.S. into a Muslim nation.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf
After reading the document, you may conclude that the Communist Goals and then these goals developed by the Muslim Brotherhood, share many similarities. The reason for that is explained in the 17th Muslim Project tactic, "Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” [i.e., Left-wing or Liberal] organizations that share similar goals."

Left-Islamist Alliance
A Left-Islamist alliance is firmly in place. Today in the White House there are three members of the Muslim Brotherhood that influence Obama's policies.

Rashad Hussain

Hussain, is a lawyer and the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In February 2010, Cal Thomas asked Who is Rashad Hussain? He stated that Hussain’s appointment to the OIC “should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.”

According to Front Page magazine, there are troubling ties about Hussain.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report examined Envoy Hussain's history of engagement with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood; e.g., he called the Al-Arian Case “Politically Motivated Persecution.” According to the Daily Report there are in Hussain's official biography several alarming affiliations.

"The first is that in October 2000, Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, which was listed in an internal Muslim Brotherhood document as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” and the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which receives Saudi funding and is directed by prominent Muslim Brotherhood," and Roman Catholic professor, John Esposito.

In 2003, Hussain was a fellow at the Paul and Daisy Soros Foundation. Paul Soros is billionaire “philanthropist” George Soros’ brother. Additionally, in the FrontPage article about troubling ties noted above, Hussain “played a role” in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference back in 2004. This group, too, was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood (in fact, it was founded by the Brotherhood) in 1963.

It was at this conference that Hussain spoke with the daughter of Professor Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was convicted of being a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; he later admitted to being a Muslim Brotherhood member as well. At the event, Hussain defended Al-Arian and claimed that his legal ordeal was essentially “politically-motivated persecution.”

In addition, Hussein has been active in Muslim Brotherhood circles. In May 2009, Hussein also spoke at a conference which was allegedly sponsored by Islamic Brotherhood affiliates. Thomas writes, “it is unsettling to see someone with Hussain’s background representing the United States to nations that may harbor or fund terrorists and want to destroy Israel and America.”

Dalia Mogahed
Mogahed is the Senior Analyst and Executive Director at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

In 2009, Obama nominated Mogahed to sit on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. According to DiscovertheNetworks.org, she co-authored the book “Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think” with the dhimmi apologist Esposito. Here, though, is where much of the controversy surrounding her stems from:
In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by Sharia law. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be “the source of legislation” for all nations in the world; they also repeatedly condemned the “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions.

Critics were upset over Mogahed's refusal to take a stand against these claims. But, even more bizarre was her discussion during the interview of the West's take on Sharia law (and her defense of it). DiscovertheNetworks.org notes:

Instead, Mogahed stated that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,“ and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associate Islamic Law with ”gender justice.“ ”I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of Sharia than the common perception in Western media,” she said.

Who Speaks for Islam--What Do a Billion Muslims Really Think?

Levantine Cultural Center and OneNation present an evening with Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the Gallup book "Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think," and Obama appointee on Muslim affairs. She is joined by "24" showrunner/writer Howard Gordon in a conversation moderated by KPFK radio host Dr. Nile El Wardani.

In early 2010, Tablet Magazine called Mogahed, “The most important person shaping the Obama Administration’s Middle East message.” In the article, concern over her potential inability to distinguish between radicals and moderates is cited. The Investigative Project on Journalism has documented Mogahed's comments as well, claiming that she has been a staunch defender of both the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

She has claimed that it would not be fair be unfair to see these groups become “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation” that is perpetuated. She has been quoted claiming that "there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt."

These individuals appear sympathetic to the causes and goals that Islamism embraces. Earlier this year, Robert Spencer reiterated the Obama administration's connections with the Muslim Brotherhood:

Obama first reached out to the Brotherhood when he chose the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies. Ingrid Mattson, then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama's Inauguration Day--despite the fact that the ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood.

Obama didn't ask Mattson to explain the ISNA's links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. On the contrary: He sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at the ISNA’s national convention in 2009.

A third appointee, Azizah al-Hibri, was appointed in June 2011. Al-Hibri is an Obama appointee and has participated in a seminar sponsored by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which the Muslim Brotherhood says is a "like minded" organization.]

The Three Views of Islam
There are three points of view relative to Islam. The point of view depends upon how you think about Momammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don't, you are a non-believer. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they are tolerant about Islam without any actual knowledge of Islam.

First Amendment
Islam is a religion and Muslims have Freedom of Religion under our First Amendment. To deny any of Islam's religious demands is unconstitutional, so we must do whatever they ask, if it is religious.

As a point of contrast, throughout American history, both Jews and Catholics assimilated into American culture by restricting their religious requirements within their own communities. For example, eating kosher and educating children, ideas that could have a political component to them if inflicted upon the American people as a whole, were confined within their own communities, eating kosher within the Jewish community and as a family unit, or educating their children within parochial schools respectively for the Catholics.

But often "religious" demands by Islamists have a political component which restricts the liberties enjoyed by the Kafir (Arabic for "concealer," one who conceals the truth of Islam: cf. Bukhari 1,7,331). Islam demands that the state serve its every need. This demand is the requirement for political submission by Kafir governments.

Kafirs must learn the difference between religion and politics. The demand for Sharia compliance and law calls for us to take political action. The Sharia demands may be religious, but it requires a political action and support of the state to happen.

We should all react to Islamism's political demands with a political response.

Making It Easy and Necessity
Kafirs do not have to accommodate Islam's demands.

The Sharia has two principles that provide guidance in the situation when Muslims cannot practice their pure Islam under Sharia. The technical name is tayseer, meaning "lightening one's burden" or "making it easy" (Koran 4:28).

When the circumstances are difficult and Sharia law is not in force, a Muslim's burden is lightened. This leads to the concept of darura, necessity.

If it is necessary, what is forbidden is permitted. If a Muslim is hungry and there is no halal (Sharia compliant) food, then he can eat any food. If a Muslim is where they cannot pray, then the prayer can do done later. If Sharia law has not been implemented, then a Muslim may handle pork, for example, with no consequences.

In short, according to the Koran, if Muslim demands are not met, there is no harm to their religious practice.

Article 6
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and cannot be subjugated to any other legal code. The fundamental claim of Sharia is that it is the highest law in the world and that all other legal codes must submit to Islamic law. There is a massive contradiction that is being ignored as Sharia law is being implemented under the guise of Freedom of Religion.

As a Constitutional matter, no aspect of Sharia should be allowed.

Janet Napolitano Racially Profiles Terrorists: White, Middle-Class

New 'See something, Say something' video portrays bombers.

12 YEAR-OLD to Christie: "JEWS CONTROL MY CITY"

www.bullyingbyeducators.blogspot.com

Did ‘Seinfeld’ predict the Tebow phenomenon?

AIM takes up a collection for the poor at…Occupy D.C.

AIM takes up a collection for the poor at…Occupy D.C.

WATCH GAZA TERRORIST REACT TO VIDEO OF HER FAILED SUICIDE BOMBING ATTEMPT TO KILL ISRAELIS

WATCH GAZA TERRORIST REACT TO VIDEO OF HER FAILED SUICIDE BOMBING ATTEMPT TO KILL ISRAELIS

CHAPPY CHANUKAH! Maccabeats

The Maccabeats - Purim Song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgJInVvJSZg

The President Can Kill You or Jail You Indefinitely on His Own Discretion: Prof. Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley, Law Professor of George Washington University, answers a caller from South Carolina.

That patriot, a self described Democrat, begins speaking at the 14:12 mark. I suggest sliding there to hear his comments, if not the entire video. Then, at 15:44 Turley responds:

It’s actually worse than them coming into your house. I don’t mean to ruin your day, but President Obama just stated that he is going to maintain a policy that he can have any American Citizen killed, without any charge, without any review except his own.

If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world, including the United States. Two of his aides were just at a panel a couple of weeks ago and they reaffirmed; they believe American Citizens can be killed on the order of the president anywhere including the United States.

That has left civil libertarians’ heads exploding, because you’ve now got a president who says he can kill you on his own discretion; he can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion, and the response of the American people is one big collective shrug and yawn.

And I don’t think the framers would ever have anticipated that. They truly believed the Citizens would hold their liberties close and that they wouldn’t relax those fingers, but they are.

And now the point that you had made about, the question about privacy and the new generation: we’re not gonna get any help from Congress. Congress has never had a good record on privacy or constitutional issues. But the only positive thing… we’ve had three polls in the last year and they all show the same thing. The America people say that they are more afraid of the government than they are, outside forces like terrorists. So, there’s this disconnect; the majority of Americans are actually very concerned about the lost of rights. But Congress, both Democrats and Republicans can’t move harder against privacy, I mean they, and this part of the cynical calculation. I think President Obama made this calculation early on, that no one would be on the right (sic) of him on terrorism and national security and he has taken the majority of the Democrats with him on that.

GM Inflates Chevy Volt Stats With Fleet Sales

December 19, 2011- Mark Modica, an Associate Fellow of the National Legal and Policy Center, discusses GM's apparent goosing of Chevy Volt sales figures. Mark is interviewed by Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel.

War on Americans

Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons

Erik LaVergne, Ron Paul Punk Rock Anthem

“We know how to fix this mess,” LaVergne shouts. “Fire Ben and the printing press!”
And who best to fix this mess? “RON PAUL!” says the chorus. “RON PAUL!”

Is Jesus a Socialist?

As the debate over the government’s debt and its role in assisting the poor intensifies, some Leftists claim that Jesus and the Bible advocate socialism and preach against capitalism.

In citing examples from the Bible that calls for outright socialism of the type described millennia later by Marx several may be cited. The first example is focused upon Jesus’ warning to the wealthy that they may not inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24, which reads, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”). Then, there are the verses in the book of Acts. Acts 2:42-47 reads:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

And then Acts 4:32-35 reads:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

These Biblical accounts, teamed with a story in chapter five in which a man and wife were stricken dead for failing “to turn over all…property to the church,“ could constitute the first description of socialism in history. Over time, some might argue that Christianity has separated itself from the socialistic nature of the Book.

For example, some might argue that the intellectual foundations for the alliance between capital and God were laid after World War II by Roman Catholic William Buckley, who, like some others contrived to maneuver around their churches’ skepticism about mercantile interests, worked to convert frugal church goers into materialistic consumers who spend their Sundays watching spectator sports and charging up interest loaded debt at the mall.

After reading this account of Christianity‘s origins and the Bible’s alleged economic contents, others might argue that socialism is a relatively new construct, and dismiss the notion that Jesus was “pro-Socialist.”

Furthermore, it is problematic to view socialism as a “biblical mandate” and that the better question should not be, “Does the Bible mandate socialism?” Instead, critics and adherents, alike, should be asking, “Is socialism compatible with the Bible?”

A socialist interprets Jesus’s substantial encouragement for the poor and warnings against the moral pitfalls of wealth as support for socialism. Yet one has to travel quite the intellectual and theological distance to equate admonitions towards charity and warnings against greed with divine sanction for the appropriation of private property rights, handing over monies to the Roman tax collectors--which Jesus did not do--and the forcible redistribution of wealth.

The man and wife who were stricken dead in Acts perished because of their deceit, not because they hadn’t turned all of their possessions over to the church. Also, in Luke, Chapter 10, Jesus says that “the worker deserves his wages” (clearly, this statement meshes more with capitalism). Expounding upon these ideas, there are other themes and statements throughout the Bible that contradict socialism’s tenets:

While the Bible calls us to help the poor, it is also clear that the poor must help themselves to the extent they are able. In 2 Thessalonians 3, Paul warns against idleness and says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” In 1 Timothy 5, Paul also declares, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Even inclusion on the widows’ “list” (which entitled widows to receive aid from the church) was conditioned upon age and good conduct.

Socialism creates poverty, witness for example the few remaining socialistic nations are stricken with economic deficiency and intense interdependence as a result of the economic system. Today, the recent events striking Europe — London’s riots and Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland’s economic woes — to failed experiments with socialism. Concerning these nations, their idle but well-fed youth, demanding ever-more from a state they give nothing, are either in the streets or threatening chaos.

At the end of the day, Christians have overwhelmingly rejected socialism because the Bible is contradictory to its underpinnings.

The Bible isn’t an economics textbook, but many Christians believe its underlying principles are most consistent with the free economy. There are reasonable critiques of that opinion, but the verses cited in favor of socialism do not support socialism.

Holder was responsible for 168 deaths in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Where is the media on this?

Holder Refuses to Investigate Obama Voter Fraud

‘HOLY WAR’: THOUSANDS GATHER TO SUPPORT TX NATIVITY SCENE AGAINST ATHEISTS’ ATTACKS

‘HOLY WAR’: THOUSANDS GATHER TO SUPPORT TX NATIVITY SCENE AGAINST ATHEISTS’ ATTACKS

National Group Wants Courthouse Nativity Scene Removed: MyFoxDFW.com

ATHENS NATIVITY 5

Henderson County Nativity Rally crowd

Socialist Party Releases Names of 70 Members Of Congress Who Caucus With Them

The socialist members of Congress are listed.

Occupy vs. Nativity Scene

Videographer Benny Johnson was curious to see how Occupy D.C. protesters at McPherson Square would react to the presence of a nativity, so he headed down, camera and plastic baby Jesus in hand, to see. Johnson edited, funded, filmed and narrated what amounts to an entertaining — and telling — experience.

The response from the Occupiers was diverse. ”This ain’t a church, man,” one guy said. Another protester could be heard asking, ”Is that legal?” Yet another person, clearly responding to him said, ”No check — go check.”
Early on in the clip, a man with a bandanna covering his face, has a strong reaction as he addresses the actors in the nativity (starts around the :40 mark).

“I wouldn’t get up here and start preaching Islam to people.” he said. “I wouldn‘t because it’s not my place. It’s not your place either.”

Later, the same guy appears again and explains why he’s opposed. ”I’m a follower of Islam. I just think it’s in bad taste,” he explains. “The atrocities of the Christian faith…ravish humanity.”

Johnson later asks, “If 76% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, as a populace movement wouldn’t the Occupy Movement be for a nativity scene?” Another protester chimes in, saying, ”It goes against what our Founding Fathers created in this country.”

But not everyone was negative regarding the nativity’s presence. Another protester expressed his surprise to the opposition, saying, ”I think it’s beautiful. I think it’s right on time. Christ is the reason for Christmas. I don’t know why [the other protester would] be offended.”

Homeland Insecurity, Lungren, Stockton, Hassan, Soldier of Allah, Islamism

Dan Lungren questions Paul Stockton, Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense.

Based on Stockton's testimony: does Islamism have something to do with terrorism? Or, does Stockton deny that "soldier of Allah" is a behavioral indicator?

Here is the business card that Major Nidal Hasan gave out along with a Quran.

The SoA is an abbreviation for Soldier of Allah followed by SWT, an abbreviation that usually follows the word Allah.

When writing the name of God (Allah), Muslims often follow it with the abbreviation "SWT." These letters stand for the Arabic words "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala," or "Glory to Him, the Exalted." Muslims use these or similar words to glorify God when mentioning His name.

Definition: When writing the name of God (Allah), Muslims often follow it with the abbreviation "SWT." These letters stand for the Arabic words "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala," or "Glory to Him, the Exalted." Muslims use these or similar words to glorify God when mentioning His name.
Pronunciation: sub-han'-a-hoo wa ta a la
Also Known As: Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala
Alternate Spellings: subhana wa ta'ala; subhanna wa ta'ala
Examples:
Muslims believe that Allah SWT created the universe.

REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LUNGREN (R-CA): Secretary Stockton, are we at war with violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are at war with al-Qaida, its affiliates –

REP. LUNGREN: OK, I understand that. My question is, is violent Islamist extremism at war with us?

MR. STOCKTON: No, sir. We are being attacked by al-Qaida and its allies.

REP. LUNGREN: Is al-Qaida — can it be described as being an exponent of violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: They — al-Qaida are murderers with an ideological agenda –

REP. LUNGREN: No, I — that’s not my question. That wasn’t my question. My question was, is al-Qaida acting out violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida is a violent organization dedicated to overthrowing the values that we intend to advance –

REP. LUNGREN: So is it yes or no?

MR. STOCKTON: Can I hear the question again? I’ll make it as clear as I can. We are not at war with Islam. And it is not –

REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t ask that — I did not ask that, sir. I asked whether we’re at war with violent Islamist extremism. That’s my question.

MR. STOCKTON: No, we’re at war with al-Qaida and its affiliates.

REP. LUNGREN: Well, al-Qaida — how does al-Qaida define itself? Are they dedicated to violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: Al-Qaida would love to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is at war with Islam.

REP. LUNGREN: I didn’t say that.

MR. STOCKTON: That’s a prime propaganda tool.

REP. LUNGREN: Sir –

MR. STOCKTON: And I’m not going to aid and abet that effort to advance their propaganda goal.

REP. LUNGREN: No, no, my question is, is there a difference between Islam and violent Islamist extremism?

MR. STOCKTON: Sir, with great respect, I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.

REP. LUNGREN: I understand that. I never said we were at war with Islam. One of the questions we’re trying to deal with is the radicalization of Islam, is the radicalization of Islamic youth. And if we can’t distinguish between violent Islamist extremism and Islam, then all this stuff about behavioral indicators doesn’t mean anything.
Let me — let me ask you this question. Is it a behavioral indicator to put on your card that you’re a soldier of Allah?

MR. STOCKTON: A behavioral indicator that you have a copy of Inspire magazine on your desk –

REP. LUNGREN: That’s not my question. That’s not my question. My question is, is it a behavioral indicator to put on your card that you are a soldier of Allah, as Major Hasan did?

MR. STOCKTON: We have behavioral indicators now that enable our personnel, our supervisors, to focus on detecting indicators of violent extremism that reflect the lessons learned from Fort Hood.

REP. LUNGREN: OK, is that a lesson learned, that if you put a soldier of Allah on your card, that you’ve got to follow up and investigate that?

MR. STOCKTON: We are training our supervisors to follow up on appropriate indicators and exercise the leadership they need in order to provide for effective reporting and intervention.