MINNEAPOLIS — A city that’s spawned a surprising number of terror suspects is hosting this year’s Super Bowl, but local law enforcement officials say they're ready to protect Sunday’s big game.
The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has been home to the third highest number of terror prosecutions in the U.S. since 9/11, behind only the much larger metropolitan regions of New York and Washington, D.C. Twelve Twin Cities residents have been charged with providing support to ISIS and 20 have been arrested for alleged support of the Somali terror group al Shabab in the past nine years. Between 2011 and 2014, 13 locals died fighting for al Shabab and ISIS, according to U.S intelligence officials.
ISIS has continually called for attacks on large-scale events and the possibility of someone hearing those calls is not lost on the FBI’s Joe Rivers, who’s in charge of terrorism investigations in Minneapolis.
Rivers says the FBI and local law enforcement are more concerned about the potential for lone wolves to attack with a vehicle or a firearm than a sophisticated operation. “I think we're more worried about the fact that an individual is inspired to potentially do something,” said Rivers, “and that they find the means and the mechanisms to go ahead and do that either on their own or with very little help.”
To prepare and respond to any potential incident the FBI says it has brought in 200 extra agents who are a part of 1,000 federal agents from multiple agencies composing the largest deployment in Super Bowl history. Minneapolis and other nearby police departments will add nearly 1,000 extra officers, for a total uniformed presence of 2,000.
The game between the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles kicks off at about 6:30 p.m. at U.S. Bank Stadium in downtown Minneapolis, and features halftime performances by Justin Timberlake and Pink. The venue holds nearly 67,000 people.
Minneapolis Police Commander Scott Gerlicher, who is in charge of the city’s Super Bowl security operation says, “There are no credible threats currently to the Super Bowl or any activities but there's a large group of people who are looking at that and monitoring that hour by hour.”
The photographer, Askia Muhammad, said he took the photo during a Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) meeting in 2005. He said he “gave up the picture at the time and basically swore secrecy.”
Also in the picture is Farrakhan’s son-in-law Leonard Farrakhan Muhammad, his son and security chief Mustapha Farrakhan, Minister Farrakhan’s son Joshua Farrakhan, and the Reverend Willie Wilson, executive producer of the program for Farrakhan’s Million Man March in 1995, and a chairman of the 20th anniversary.
Muhammad said a staff member for CBC contacted him “sort of in a panic.”
“I understood what was going on,” Muhammad told Talking Points Memo. “I promised and made arrangements to give the picture to Leonard Farrakhan (the minister’s son-in-law and chief of staff.)”
Muhammad said he gave away “the disk” from his camera but “copied the photograph from that day onto a file” on his computer.
“Realizing that I had to give it up, I mean, it was sort of like a promise to keep the photograph secret,” Muhammad said.
Muhammad believes if the photo had been released during Obama’s presidential campaign, “it absolutely would have made a difference.”
Obama’s presidential campaign wasn’t without controversy. ABC News ran a report in March 2008 about his Chicago pastor Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, which were critical of the US government.
Among the comments were: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye ... and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
Obama denounced the statements but would not disown him as a person until the media pressure intensified. Obama was forced to speak more forcefully against his former pastor and said that he was “outraged” and “saddened” by his behavior. In May that year he resigned his membership in the church. Read More
In certain respects, the real struggle between Islam and the West has less to do with an inherently weak Islam and more to do with subversive Western elements that cover up for and thus empower Islam.
Out-and-out censorship is one of these tactics. In a January 10 email titled, “We’re Suing Google – Here’s Why,” Prager University, which produces short videos on subjects “important to understanding American values,” explained that “YouTube has chosen repeatedly to restrict some of our videos for violating their ‘Community Guidelines.’
Those guidelines are meant to protect users against viewing sexual content, violent or graphic content, and hate speech,” even though “our videos contain nothing even remotely close to any of these categories.”
Prager U had “filed a complaint with YouTube, hoping that there was some kind of innocent mistake. That’s when we were told by YouTube that after reviewing our videos, they determined that they were, indeed, ‘not appropriate for a younger audience.’” Accordingly, several Prager U videos do not appear on YouTube accounts that block sexual or graphic content. (For more on this matter and/or to sign Prager U’s petition against YouTube’s decision, click here.)
To appreciate just how much YouTube’s decision is based on preventing Americans (especially its youth, its future) from understanding the threats Islam poses—and thereby empowering Islam vis-à-vis America—consider the videos I made for Prager U, which are among those currently being restricted by YouTube.
The first is called “Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology.” Although in it I distinguished between “radical” Muslims and those many Muslims in name only; although I (very conservatively) suggested that perhaps ten percent of the world’s Muslims are “Islamists,” and of those, only two percent are willing to take violent action to enforce their supremacist worldview; and although I said things like “Islamists have killed far more Muslims than members of any other group”—YouTube still deemed that video “inappropriate” for younger audiences.
My other Prager U video is even more telling. Titled, “The World's Most Persecuted Minority: Christians,” it is dedicated to shedding light on the plight of Christians, specifically in Muslim lands, where the majority of persecution takes place. This too is censored. In other words, shedding light on what many Western authorities have referred to as a “genocide” of Christians, is, for YouTube, as “inappropriate” for youth as sexual, graphic, or hate filled videos. Needless to say, not only are there no real images in the video (sexual, graphic or otherwise), but I attribute the violence against Christians to “fundamentalists” and “fundamentalist interpretations” of the Koran, meaning there’s certainly no “hate” either.
Meanwhile, “other videos on similar topics — but from a liberal perspective — are not” restricted by YouTube. Videos dealing with the alleged or real mistreatment of Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims—which fits the narrative well—are not restricted.
When both my Prager U videos came out, they each quickly reached over one million views. Once YouTube restricted them, their views dropped accordingly—meaning mission (keeping America’s youth in the dark about Islam) achieved.
This, of course, is one of many personal and impersonal examples of YouTube’s cover up efforts. Back on April 22, 2015, I came across a short Islamic State video that was only available on Arabic websites at the time. In it, IS members were videotaped destroying crosses inside and atop churches, while Koran verses against “polytheism” were recited in the background. I decided to upload and post it on YouTube—to show the people of the West what the people of the Muslim world were privy to. YouTube took the video down and sent me a “warning” email.
By this perverse logic, it is not the Islamic State that is engaging in hate by destroying crucifixes, but rather me—for simply exposing it. This episode recently came to mind when President Trump retweeted (from an account since suspended) an image of an IS member holding a Virgin Mary statue (which he later smashed). If that rather innocuous image went viral, consider if Trump and/or others had seen and drawn attention to the much more graphic video and images of IS members destroying numerous crosses and desecrating churches? Thanks to YouTube censorship, this possibility was not allowed.
The people of the West need to wake up to the fact that they are involved in a war on two fronts: one with a people that wishes to subjugate them and another with smiley-faced, homegrown elements that go to great lengths to keep these ugly truths hid.
Page 1 of 8