US to put ‘our friends the Saudis’ on trusted traveler list | #SaudiArabia #Islam #Muslims #Obama #feminism

March 27, 2013

I’m not even angry anymore. I just can’t convince myself that our next government will be as hostile to American values as this one. I was wrong before. The American people were this hostile to what was good for all of us. Then again our last administration was stupid in its attempt to nation build a middle eastern country when we should of bombed the country and killed their president and left. Our goals and objectives were feminist and the end result is we convinced ourselves that women were victims. Some are… some are not… just like everyone else.

(Carl) You might recall some of the stories that came out after 9/11 about how easy it was to get a visa to the US from Saudi Arabia, the country that was the birthplace of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. The US is about to make the same mistake again. The Obama administration is about to put ‘our friends the Saudis’ on the trusted traveler program, the program that does not require a visa for entry into the United States. This is Michelle Malkin:

According to a new report released this week by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security plans to bestow “trusted traveler” status to travelers from Saudi Arabia. Yes, the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers will soon enjoy the exclusive privilege of new entry shortcuts into the U.S.

Fox News points out: “Only an exclusive handful of countries enjoy inclusion in the Global Entry program: Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands. According to the IPT, some officials are questioning why Saudi Arabia gets to reap the benefits of the program, when key U.S. allies like Germany and France are not enrolled.”

Saudi suck-up Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, hailed “the bond between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and pledged to work with the government to facilitate “legitimate trade and travel.”

This foolish move is astonishing but not unprecedented. As I noted in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration had created its own fast-pass system for Saudi elites called “Visa Express.” Thanks to this GOP idiocy, three of the 9/11 hijackers skipped the usual consular interview process and bypassed long lines in the hot Saudi sun.

Throughout the jihadist-coddling Saudi kingdom, applicants could simply file their visa paperwork through travel agencies and courier companies for a small fee — without having to appear in person or submit to extensive background checks. The U.S. embassy in Riyadh bragged before 9/11: “Applicants will no longer have to take time off from work, no longer have to wait in long lines under the hot sun and in crowded waiting rooms, and no longer be limited by any time constraints.”

What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing

Social engineering is what leads us to think there is nothing wrong with the most misogynist countries in the world. If we see ourselves in these cave men then we can’t determine if this monstrous culture is different from our very own. If you can’t come to the realization that feminism is the problem here then you need glasses. Again… let me rephrase this. We don’t nation build. We don’t listen to feminists. We kill our enemies for our NATIONAL interest and make no apologies for having our own interests. Allies like Israel are the only way to go… and Israel needs to get its act together and stop the ball breaking as well. Women are not victims. Women have been in power in western civilization. Queen Elizabeth, Victoria, Margaret Thatcher are not second rate historical figures of weakness. It is time to wake up. We insult our women when we tell them that they got the short end of the stick. Women oriented cultures predated Islam in Arabia itself. They weren’t necessarily a good thing and it is one of the reasons the Arabs were so reactive to matriarchal power. If we can not end feminism, we will never defeat Islam. These monsters of Arabia are not equivalent to us. We have treated our women well. We have a tradition in the West of loving women.


Homeland Security-Funded Study Pushing Tea Party Terrorism Narrative

June 16, 2012

(The PJ Tatler) Anti-Semitism is included in the codebook as a subgroup for both the “racist” and “extreme right-wing” categories, but it is missing as a subgroup for the extreme left-wing. Because after all, it’s not like extreme left-wing groups like the Center for American Progress revel in their anti-Semitism, right?

right-wing extremism:

The extreme far-right is composed of groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty. (Emphasis added)

If you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then according to these taxpayer-funded researchers, you too are on the “extreme right-wing.” Many Americans would be surprised to find themselves so categorized by the researchers at START.
It should be no surprise that two subgroups identified in the codebook under “extreme right-wing” include “gun rights” and “tax protest.” Tea Party terrorists, anyone?
Again, this raises the question: who gets to categorize the data?

Reading through the study, some baffling issues arose. In Table 4 (p. 22), titled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified: But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life?
And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.
These are reflected nowhere in the study. Perhaps, like the 2009 Fort Hood massacre by Major Nidal Hasan, who gunned down his U.S. Army colleagues while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” these incidents are considered acts of “workplace violence” and not religious terrorism?
Have these incidents been redefined to prevent facts from conflicting with an agenda-driven narrative? Or have these data points been excluded altogether?

didn’t have any alarm bells ring when you voted for a guy who lied about his background?

The Dhimmi is Forbidden to Read the Koran

December 2, 2011

The Dhimmi is Forbidden to Read the Koran

Media_httpwwwjewishma_ffyqtIf you are a student of Islam, then you might have gathered that Islam has a doctrine of eternal hatred of Kafirs and their civilization. A student of Islam might also gather that after a 1400 year history of hostilities, murder, rape and enslavement that Islam was at war with us. But, the White House, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI and CIA have informed us that this is not the case.
It started when Steve Emerson and Steve Coughlin were going to give talks about political Islam to the FBI and Homeland Security . Then the White House informed them that not only were they not going to talk about the Islamic doctrine and history of jihad, but that henceforth, no Kafir could talk to any Federal agencies, unless they were vetted by the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now, Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has ordered a purge of all Department of Justice manuals and training of all material that will “offend” Muslims. “I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts,”
Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced during the Washington conference. U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton explained that FBI training materials that even remotely link Islam to violence will be banned.
“I want to be perfectly clear about this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive and they are contrary to everything this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for,” he told Muslim activists gathered at the George Washington University law school. “They will not be tolerated.”
The president and the Department of Justice do not stand for critical thought, an examination of all sides of a problem. The White House wants to see that Muslims are never offended. Notice that the White House does not say that the Kafir analysts are wrong in their facts and data. Instead, they say that facts have no place at the table. Our government no longer stands for logical thought, but only wants to insure that Muslims are not offended by Kafirs. The way for Muslims to not be offended is for the Kafirs to keep silent. This is pure Islamic doctrine, Sharia law.
Let’s go back to the time of Umar II, a caliph of Islam. Under Sharia law, the Kafir is to be made completely harmless to Islam and there are two parts to this mental castration. Here are two of the many oppressive terms of the dhimmi (a dhimmi is a Kafir who agrees to obey Sharia law) treaty that deal with Kafir knowledge:
The Pact of Umar, 9th Century CE, includes:
We [Christians] will not teach our children the Koran.
We will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it.
Kafirs must not have knowledge of Islamic doctrine. Kafirs must not make their civilization attractive to Muslims. Kafirs must submit to Islam, not the other way around. This is why we are changing how our textbooks explain America because Muslims will read them. Islam must be praised and the West denigrated.
You might wonder why they would not want Kafirs to read the Koran. After all wouldn’t they want the Kafir to read the wonderful Koran and become a Muslim? No, Islam wants for you to listen to a Muslim explain the Koran. A Koran reading Kafir might apply critical thought to the text and that would be a disaster. Only Muslims are allowed to know Mohammed and Allah under Sharia law.
So, as good Kafirs, we must remain ignorant and submit to Islam. We can become Islamic, but we should never try to convert the Muslim to our civilization and Western religions. Submission only runs one direction.
The Obama administration has invoked an ancient treaty, the Pact of Umar, and applied it to our nation. Our law enforcement agencies have now been made full dhimmis under Sharia law. Critical thought and knowledge of Islam have entered the first step of making any knowledge about Islam a hate crime that will be prosecuted to the full extent of a Fascist state. Now they deny truth. Next they will criminalize truth that offends Islam

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-dhimmi-is-forbidden-to-read-the-koran/

DHS accused of hiding fingerprinting data

May 18, 2011
Under the program, called Secure Communities, officials check the digital fingerprints of people booked by local law enforcement against DHS databases and then deport the most dangerous aliens, such as convicted murderers. Critics of the program say it enlists states in carrying out federal laws and targets too many innocent people, deporting those whose charges are minor or were ultimately dismissed. DHS officials say their decisions to detain or remove an immigrant are based on the severity of the offense and the individual’s criminal history.
During the past year, DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement released thousands of electronic files in response to a FOIA request for emails, statistical information and policies related to “opting-out” of Secure Communities. At issue is whether DHS has been deceiving the public on the mandatory nature of the program, and whether compliance with the court ruling is technically workable.
Now the agency is trying to block a ruling that requires ICE to hand over the electronic files’ labeling data, formatting information and trail of recipients. Plaintiffs in the case — the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law – argue that the move to strip such “metadata” is part of an effort to hide records disclosing uncertainty over whether the federal government has the power to force jurisdictions to share fingerprints with federal immigration officers.
Homeland Security officials this week said the department’s policy is that the exchanging of fingerprints is mandatory — local law enforcement officials, as part of the regular booking process, enter fingerprints into a FBI database that, by law, are automatically submitted to federal immigration authorities and checked against DHS databases. Localities, however, have the option of not being informed about the outcome of the checks, they explained.
The plaintiffs argue emails and metadata detailing their senders, recipients and carbon-copy addressees will show that DHS officials have had doubts about the legality of the fingerprint transmissions.
DHS officials this week acknowledged that previous public statements on opting-out of Secure Communities were unclear and possibly created confusion, but repeated that the program is mandatory.
In February, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the government, going forward, to include certain metadata when it releases the rest of the potentially 1 million requested records. The elements must include, among other fields, the original name of the file when it was saved, as well as the date and time it was last modified. Emails must be accompanied by labels showing each message’s addressee, sender, time stamp and people blind-copied on the message.
The civil liberties groups say it is particularly important to have access to the names of officials blind-carbon-copied on emails. Sunita Patel, a staff attorney with the plaintiff Center for Constitutional Rights, pointed to one document that contained guidelines on how to make the program mandatory. “We were provided several copies of different draft forms of a memo,” she said. “There’s no way for us to determine the trajectory of the policy memoranda. We have no idea what’s first and what’s last.”
Immigration enforcement is at a critical juncture. President Obama in a major speech last week highlighted his administration’s crackdown on illegal aliens to convince Republicans the nation is ready for comprehensive immigration reform. Secure Communities was responsible for removing nearly a third of all criminal aliens deported so far this year, officials have noted.
“They don’t want to release information that is going to cause embarrassment right now,” Patel said. “What we have is just a bunch of PDF dumps.”
Some of the already-released records have caused trouble for the program, she noted. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., called for the DHS inspector general and the assistant director at the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility to probe Secure Communities after examining the emails. “Having conducted with my legal staff an initial review of the documents that have been made public, I believe that some of these false and misleading statements may have been made intentionally, while others were made recklessly, knowing that the statements were ambiguous and likely to create confusion,” Lofgren wrote in an April 28 letter to the two officials.
Federal officials this week declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. But in recent court documents, ICE officials said they do not have the technical capability to comply with the metadata requirements.
The agency struggled just to meet a three-week deadline for producing the full documents, according to the filings. To retrieve the relevant records, the agency endured “an enormous expenditure of manpower and financial resources,” with costs totaling more than $270,000 and with officials forced to circumvent security protocols to get the search software to work properly, Catrina Pavlik-Keenan, director of the ICE FOIA office, wrote in a Feb. 20 declaration. The federal government is in the midst of appealing the judge’s ruling on metadata.
Part of the problem is that the FOIA office’s technology cannot generate the voluminous court-ordered documents in a timely manner. Hence officers have had to borrow an application from the ICE Office of the Principal Legal Advisor that is designed for civil litigation document retrieval. That application does not have enough storage space to process the more than 1 million records potentially covered by the plaintiffs’ request, Pavlik-Keenan said. “If ICE FOIA were required to purchase sufficient storage capacity to accommodate all FOIA requests, such a procurement would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars,” she wrote.
In addition, ICE has no experience releasing metadata in response to a FOIA request. Officials said it is impossible for the agency to fully comply with the court’s order without releasing employees’ personal information, confidential law enforcement information and other sensitive information that is exempt from FOIA.
ICE officials estimated it would have taken from 150 to 175 hours to manually redact metadata fields, such as “To” or “Cc,” in the most recent batch of 500 documents. Staff then would have to apply the same technique for the remainder of the possibly 1 million records — consuming up to 350,000 hours.
The borrowed application doesn’t allow personnel to review or redact the data, Ryan Law, deputy director of the FOIA Office, explained in a separate March 23 filing.
“In order to produce the requested metadata fields, ICE would be required to (1) export the metadata for each responsive document into metadata files, (2) convert the native metadata files into PDF image files or import those native files into the [tool], (3) conduct a line-by-line review of each metadata file, (4) redact information contained within those files that is otherwise exempt from mandatory disclosure under the FOIA, and (5) produce several thousand pages of records containing the nonexempt metadata in PDF image format,” he wrote.
Still, that approach would not generate a usable file containing all the fields specified by the judge.
Separately, DHS officials said in a statement this week that the uncertainty surrounding the obligatory nature of Secure Communities stems from past mischaracterizations of the ability to opt-out of receiving the results of the fingerprint-sharing as the ability to “opt-out” of the entire program.
“Under this administration,” the DHS statement said, “ICE has prioritized the removal of aliens who pose a danger to national security or public safety, with a particular focus on convicted criminals, as well as the removal of recent border violators, illegal reentrants, and fugitives because these priorities best protect public safety in the United States.”

Ass Bomb Leads To Sodomy At Airport

November 19, 2010

Barney Frank (D-Ma) has quit Congress to take his dream job working for TSA.

We now remove our shoes at the airport because terrorist Richard Reed smuggled a shoe bomb onto a jetliner shortly after 9/11. We are also forbidden to bring certain amounts of liquids with us in response to the 2006 “liquid bomb” plot against at least 10 airliners traveling from the UK to the US and Canada. And now Americans are forced to deal with invasive pat downs and full body scans in response to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to bring down Northwest Airline flight 253 on Christmas day in 2009, by hiding a bomb in his underwear.

Yet what if terrorists emulate Abdullah Asieri, who attempted to assassinate Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef, head of Saudi Arabia’s counter terrorism operations, with a bomb that reportedly evaded airport security because it was planted in the terorrist’s rectum? Subsequent forensics revealed that the bomb was not a rectal device but the same bomb used by Abdulmutallab. Drug smugglers frequently attempt to hide contraband in body cavities. Does anyone seriously think a suicide bomber would hesitate to do the same thing? One thing is certain: the same public that is outraged over full-body scans and pat-downs will never submit to a “routine” body cavity search. More importantly, if these types of bombs are virtually undetectable, doesn’t that make a complete mockery of the current procedures?

The second issue is our apparent determination to ignore the most successful airport security strategy currently in use. Israelis have a far more effective and far less invasive and time-consuming system. Why? Because it is the exact opposite of ours: in America the focus is on finding an explosive device. In Israel, the focus is on finding the person carrying the explosive device. Each passenger passes through several layers of security, and each layer is manned by people looking for unusual behavior. Lines are staggered to prevent creating large bunches of people who might be targeted by a terrorist who has gotten into the terminal. In addition, each airport is equipped with a blast-proof luggage screening area, complete with “bomb boxes” which can be used by screeners if they encounter a suspicious piece of luggage.

These bomb-proof areas serve another purpose as well. By isolating luggage in such an area, it no longer becomes necessary to evacuate an entire terminal if something proves suspicious, something which could take several hours. Only the people in the screening area need to move — and only a few meters away.

But the most important part of the equation is summed up by Rafi Sela, the president of AR Challenges, a global transportation security consultancy:

They’re not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you. Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes … and that’s how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys.

The third issue is the insistence that the federal government control airport security. It may seem like an odd question to ask with regard to airport security, but why is the federal government thirteen trillion dollars in debt? Because there are few direct consequences for government officials behaving irresponsibly. If a TSA agent allows a terrorist on a plane and that plane blows up, maybe the agent will be fired and most likely the government — meaning taxpayers — will be sued for damages. If airlines themselves are responsible for security, they would be incentivized to provide the best security available for a simple reason: failure on their part could bankrupt the company. Airlines would also likely compete with each other to provide the best combination of security coupled with minimal intrusion and inconvenience in order to maximize their market share. And the cost of that security would be borne by the people it is keeping secure, instead of taxpayers.
Barney Frank Picture via

As columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out, Americans have taken to a new slogan which neatly encapsulates their consternation regarding airport security. It was inadvertently coined by John Tyner, a 31-year-old software programmer from Oceanside, California. When he refused to allow a Transportation Security Administration official to administer a pat-down near his private area, he uttered a phrase which has resonated nationwide: ”You touch my junk, and I’m going to have you arrested.” Yet as a Senate hearing on Wednesday indicated, the TSA is not backing down. TSA administrator John Pistole says he is sensitive to privacy concerns but insists that “government must provide the best possible security for air travelers.” Thus, the inevitable question: is this the best possible security government can provide? It is hard to reach that conclusion when one considers the salient issues surrounding the controversy.

The first issue would be terrorist creativity and determination.


Terrorists hiding in hijabs

November 19, 2010

Note to terrorists: Next time, wear a hijab. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly is giving special exemptions to their “enhanced pat-down” policy to Muslim women wearing the hijab or other form-concealing garments.
Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a “travel advisory” noting that women who are patted down “should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.” It’s unclear why CAIR believes TSA frisking must be Shariah-compliant. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to deny that such exemptions existed when CNS News asked her about them on Monday, saying instead that “adjustments will be made where they need to be made” and that “there will be more to come” on this issue.
A fatwa issued in February by Islamic scholars at the Fiqh Council of North America forbad observant Muslims from going through full-body scanners. The council stated, “It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes modesty and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.” The alternative to the highly revealing and intrusive body scanners is the similarly invasive pat-down, which is objectionable to everyone regardless of religion. Reports of TSA officers placing their hands inside peoples’ pants and conducting full skin-to-skin frisks have only heightened the general sense of disgust at this unprecedented government intrusion.
Exemptions for Muslim women wearing traditional garb may be the brainchild of Mohamed Elibiary, who recently was made a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Mr. Elibiary is president and chief executive officer of the Texas-based Freedom and Justice Foundation and a self-styled “de-radicalization expert” whose star has risen during the Obama presidency. He previously was appointed to Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and has testified before Congress as an expert on Muslim radicalism – a topic he seems to know well.
In December 2004, Mr. Elibiary spoke at a conference honoring the life and works of the “great Islamic visionary,” Iran‘s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2008, Mr. Elibiary denounced the conviction of Hamas-connected members of the Holy Land Foundation for material support of terrorism. Most alarmingly, Mr. Elibiary is an admirer of the work of Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual and spiritual godfather of modern jihadism. Mr. Elibiary argues that Qutb is greatly misunderstood. “Many Westerners who’ve read Qutb‘s and many others’ work,” Mr. Elibiary wrote, “see the potential for a strong spiritual rebirth that’s truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more.”
No one who has read Qutb‘s work can mistake it for anything but an all-out assault on the American way of life and a call for a global Islamic takeover. The 9/11 Commission noted Qutb‘s role as an inspiration to al Qaeda and concluded that, “No middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims – as he defined them – therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.” Qutb – who lived in the United States as a student in the late 1940s – developed a comprehensive anti-American ideology that’s widely cited as the basis for the contemporary violent Islamic extremism with which America is at war.
Qutb promoted violent, predatory Islamic internationalism with a clear voice. If Mr. Elibiary is one of his disciples, he has no business being anywhere in government, let alone as an adviser at the uppermost reaches of an agency that purports to protect the homeland.

pat ’em bitches down and scan their flesh.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


Naïve Napolitano: DHS Underestimates Muslim Resistance to Countering Domestic Terrorism

February 21, 2010

On Wednesday, Pajamas Media reported that U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and her senior staff privately met in Washington, D.C., to begin a controversial information sharing program with Muslim organizations — including three directly linked with the extremist entity the Muslim Brotherhood.
While there is controversy over the wisdom of sharing information with extremist organizations, there is also evidence that Secretary Napolitano may have underestimated the resistance she would encounter from the organizations for her new “counter-radicalization” program.
Secretary Napolitano spent an hour and a half briefing the organizations, informing them of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counter-radicalization program and exploring ways to mutually share information. Muslims, Arabs, and Sikhs attended the briefings held on January 27 and 28. The organizations are scheduled to meet regularly with DHS senior aides and with Napolitano.
Publicly, most Muslim and Arab organizations have said they oppose rising militancy and radicalization within their communities. But privately, they seem to harbor distrust of law enforcement agencies and believe profiling, not radicalization, is the primary problem in the United States.
The organizations meeting with Napolitano included the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2007 federal terror funding case. Also present were the leaders of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Muslim American Society. All are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is considered the ideological foundation for Islamic terror groups.

Many of the radical groups, including those who have extremist ties, publicly embrace counter-radicalization programs. One of the reasons, congressional sources said, is that there is a possibility the Obama administration may award large government grants to the Muslim groups if they join the new program.