Wells Fargo has no Shame

Wells Fargo appears to have a history of fraudulent decision-makers and employers. Consider this a public service announcement for those account-holders of Wells Fargo. As noted in the LA Times, the city is suing the big bank.

But this is clearly not the first rodeo for Wells Fargo as in New York in 2013:

QUEENS ATTORNEY AMONG THREE INDIVIDUALS CHARGED IN $3.3 MILLION MORTGAGE FRAUD OPERATION

Defendants Face Up To 25 Years In Prison If Convicted

Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown, joined by New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin M. Lawsky, today announced that three individuals – including a Richmond Hill attorney and his sister – have been charged with conspiring to commit mortgage fraud and larceny from Wells Fargo Bank by fraudulently obtaining mortgage funds in excess of $3.3 million pertaining to the purchase of six properties – including four in Queens – during a six-month period in 2008. More here.

Then there was a case with Freddie Mac.

WASHINGTON — Wells Fargo & Co. has agreed to an $869 million settlement with Freddie Mac over claims on home loans it sold to the government-controlled mortgage finance company.

The agreement announced Monday by Wells Fargo involves mortgages sold to Freddie before January 2009. Wells said the amount of the agreement was adjusted to reflect credits for previous claims payments, resulting in a cash payment to Freddie of about $780 million. Freddie and its bigger sibling Fannie Mae demanded that Wells Fargo and other big banks buy back mortgages they sold that later soured in the housing bust.

Now there is May of 2015, where the City of Los Angeles has Sued Wells Fargo:

CITY ATTORNEY FEUER FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST WELLS FARGO FOR ALLEGEDLY OPENING UNAUTHORIZED CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS

Complaint Also Alleges Wells Failed to Notify Customers of Unauthorized Use of Personal Information

LOS ANGELES – City Attorney Mike Feuer today announced that his office has filed a civil lawsuit against Wells Fargo, alleging the company has victimized consumers by opening customer accounts, and issuing credit cards, without authorization–then failing to inform customers of the alleged misuse of their personal information or to refund fees for unwanted services.

“Consumers should be entitled to expect that major financial institutions will treat them fairly,” said Feuer. “Our lawsuit alleges that in Wells Fargo’s push for growth the bank often elevated profit over its customers’ legal rights.”

The complaint alleges Wells Fargo’s business model imposed unrealistic sales quotas that, among other things, have driven employees to engage in unlawful activity including opening fee-generating customer accounts and adding unwanted secondary accounts to primary accounts without permission. These practices allegedly have led to significant hardship and financial loss to consumers, including having money withdrawn from customer’s authorized accounts to pay for fees assessed by Wells Fargo on unauthorized accounts and derogatory notes on credit reports when unauthorized fees went unpaid, causing some customers to purchase identity theft protection.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Wells Fargo failed to properly inform customers of misuse of their personal information and failed to refund unauthorized fees. Read more here on the press release.

 

 

 

Proof the Feds are Extorting

A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.

The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.

In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.

“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.

“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.

But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”

The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.

In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
“Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” they wrote. “And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century.”

FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.

Then there is ObamaCare or lack thereof:

ObamaCare extortion? Why Fla. Gov. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration

Governor Rick Scott joins us. Governor, thanks for going On the Record tonight and we want to hear more about why you are suing the administration.

RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Kimberly, it’s outrageous. The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the low income pool. It’s for low income families. Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands ObamaCare. So this first off is horrible.

GUILFOYLE: It sounds like extortion.

SCOTT: Absolutely. It’s – first off, you think about the families at our state that are relying on this. Second, Justice Roberts said, The NFIB versus Sebelius, that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand ObamaCare. They say they can’t do that. So – and by the way they are not cutting our federal taxes in doing this. They did not say, “Oh, we will cut your federal taxes because we are going to cut out your program.” So our taxpayers are still paying for the federal government.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

SCOTT: But they are going to cut out a program and try to hold a gun to our head.

GUILFOYLE: All right. So when are you going to file this lawsuit?

SCOTT: We’re working with our attorney general, Pam Bondi. We have a great attorney general in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. That’s my friend.

SCOTT: We’ll work with them to make sure – yes. She is a good friends of yours. And we’re working with her to do this in the right manner. But we’re going –I’m going to stand up for every citizen in our state. One, the citizens that have a program that they are relying on, those that can’t afford their own health care, that’s one. Then two, the rest of our citizens that are saying, “You know, we are paying our federal taxes and we are not going to let the federal government tell us how to run our state.” That’s outrageous. It’s not what the Supreme Court allows. And so we’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, I think, you know, with Pam Bondi filing this and you on top of it, this is really a compelling issue. There are serious constitutional implications as a former prosecutor myself. It seems that you are on some serious strong ground with the president, with the comments from the chief justice that this should not be allowed and it should be precedent setting for other states if they are compelled in this way, forced against their will to expand and feed the behemoth that has become ObamaCare.

SCOTT: Absolutely. But don’t they care about the low income families that they have already created a program for in our state?

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

SCOTT: And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactic and when it’s appropriate they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want.

GUILFOYLE: Right. The penalty. Yes.

(Crosstalk)

SCOTT: That’s not the way the federal government is supposed to work. Absolutely. It’s not the way we expect our federal government. We’re supposed to be able to run our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, it’s a shakedown to the states. If you don’t do what we say….

SCOTT: Absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: . …because we’re gig bigger than you, and we’re going to bully you and we’re going to force you and penalize you and it’s really just hurting the lower income families by doing this.

SCOTT: Absolutely. One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully — this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.

GUILFOYLE: Well — but you’re standing up for all Floridians. So I think that’s fantastic. And you know, this is so important we get the message out there and that we learn about these issues because it’s going to be facing the other states as well. Governor, such a pleasure. Thank you for coming on here tonight.

SCOTT: Nice talking to you, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right.

SCOTT: Have a great evening.

Clinton Machinery has Sand in the Gears

The book hits the shelves today.

Then my buddy Charles Ortel has been digging deep for the last several weeks on the Clintons and ‘inurement’. Charles declares that the Foundations are actually to flawed to fix. The legal team and the inner circle of those employed by the Clinton Foundation(s) have stated there were mistakes and they are ‘re-filing tax returns. (do you get to do that?)

Per the Internal Revenue Service:

A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.

 

Judicial Watch Lawsuit Exposes ‘Clinton Cash Machine’

Judicial Watch’s independent work recently resulted in extensive coverage of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s corruption of the State Department.

A Judicial Watch lawsuit was central to the ongoing scandal involving the Clintons and the money they raised while Hillary was secretary of state.

Last year, Judicial Watch forced the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran, among others. The story on these documents that got the ball rolling can found be here. The headline says it all:  “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions.”

Dedicated investigating, legal work, and journalism (Judicial Watch’s Micah Morrison in partnership with The Washington Examiner) produced the key documents that led to much more investigating by others. Notably, Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer used Judicial Watch-produced documents to help with his headline-making book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. This book helped feed major media interest in the story that Judicial Watch has been highlighting since 2008.

The headlines tell the whole story:

Now, in the midst of this cavalcade of reporting on Clinton corruption, Judicial Watch has disclosed yet more documents in its Clinton accountability lawsuit.

The organization has recently highlighted 126 more pages of documents from the State Department related to Hillary Clinton’s conflicts of interest during her time as secretary of state. These documents were forced out of the State Department thanks to a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department back in May 2013.

Incredibly, the State Department has also turned over almost 1,000 records to the Clinton Foundation, beginning in January 2014, for review prior to public release.

The Obama State Department allowed Hillary Clinton to remove and destroy government email records, and now it has been made clear that the State Department has been improperly giving government documents to the Clinton operation – documents that should have been turned over to Judicial Watch and the American public years ago.

The latest group of documents again raises the specter of foreign potentates compromising American foreign policy by giving cash to the Clinton machine. One new document shows that State Department officials had concerns in January 2011 about Bill Clinton’s activities related to Saudi Arabia. An email chain, begun on January 25, 2011, includes several members of the State Department’s Legal Advisor Office, and the subject line “Clinton Foundation Request – Saudi entities.” The discussion is almost entirely redacted in the three-page email chain. This is Obama transparency at its best. If nothing else, Bill and Hillary have a friend in the Obama administration in helping cover their tracks. The timing of the email suggests it was about the Saudi government and that the event netted the Clintons $300,000.

We already have the documents about this lucrative event. The Clinton Foundation told the State Department he would participate in the 2011 Global Competiveness Forum, a five-day event in Riyadh. The event was co-sponsored by the Dabbagh Group Holding Co., which “comprises 28 autonomous companies, operating in diversified businesses in 30 countries. Mohammed Husnee Jazeel currently serves as Dabbagh Group’s CFO.” The Clinton Foundation described the event as:

[A]n annual meeting of global business leaders, international political leaders and selected academics and journalists. It was founded in 2006 by the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA) and is held under the patronage of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz.

Established in 2000, the SAGIA encourages investment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and provides licensing and support services to investors.

The “ticketed event” targeted “the Saudi Arabian business community.”

Also discussed is a Clinton Foundation request regarding an undisclosed country in Asia in August 2010: “Spoke to Jim [James H Thessin], on this and he plans to speak to the EAP [East Asian & Pacific Affairs] PDAS [Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary] and get his views.”

A June 2010 message chain addressed to then-Deputy Chief of Mission in Tanzania Larry E. Andre and others is labeled “URGENT RE: Clinton Foundation Issue, ” and states: “Former POTUS Clinton is on the ground in Tanzania… we need guidance fairly urgently to still be relevant.”

Also in the documents is a fully redacted June 2011 exchange between longtime Clinton associates Cheryl Mills and Doug Band.

Band assisted in creating the Clinton Global Initiative and is a founding partner and president of Teneo. Also previously disclosed, documents show that the State Department approved a consulting arrangement between Bill Clinton and Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as criticism mounted over Teneo’s ties to the failed investment firm, MF Global.

Mills defended Bill Clinton during his 1999 impeachment trial. She also was on the Clinton Foundation’s board prior to joining Mrs. Clinton at the State Department. Mills reportedly negotiated the “ethics agreement” on behalf of the Clintons and the Foundation that required the Clintons to submit to rigorous conflict-of-interest checks. Despite this, and in apparent violation of Obama administration ethics rules, the documents Judicial Watch forced out show Mills was involved in ethics reviews as chief of staff for Mrs. Clinton at the State Department.

There’s another interesting tidbit that speaks to Clinton cover-up tactics with which Americans are all too familiar. There’s a January 2013 email from Clinton Foundation Scheduler Margaret Steenburg to State Department attorneys saying a list of speech hosts for conflict-of-interest review was provided to them. The list, however, is conspicuously absent from the FOIA production documents.

The State Department just disclosed that it turned over 128 records to the Clinton Foundation for review under Exemption 4 of FOIA. Exemption 4 allows the withholding of commercial information about third parties that could cause them competitive harm. More than 1,000 records have been turned over to the Clinton Foundation under this unusual review process, resulting in more delay.

The lawsuit which first exposed the Clinton foreign fundraising racket at the State Department continues to be obstructed by Mrs. Clinton’s political operation. Remember that Mrs. Clinton is obstructing the release of information about the very scandal she is dismissing as “politics.”

With these revelations of State Department concerns about the Clinton machine’s Saudi and Asian dealings, this simple FOIA lawsuit is once again providing the road map for those tracking Hillary Clinton’s abuse of office as secretary of state. In the meantime, the State Department seems to be more concerned about helping Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign than following federal disclosure law.

Finally, the State Department promised to conduct a supplemental search of email records allegedly turned over late last year by Hillary Clinton. The State Department has been silent on obtaining or recovering other emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret accounts or any secret accounts of her top staff, including Cheryl Mills.  And it is silent as to when Judicial Watch will get those documents.

Judicial Watch’s litigation continues. As the Clinton campaign distracts, lies and denies, the court process will move forward and more truths about Hillary Clinton’s abuse of office will come to light.

Pam Geller and those Before Her

Did the Yazidis draw cartoons? Did James Foley draw cartoons? Did Daniel Pearl draw cartoons?

How is it that Islam has assumed exclusive power with the declaration they are the judge, jury and executioner of what is blasphemy?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has this on Pam Geller. Ah but, they do have a right to do so as noted by the Supreme Court decision in 2011 in the case of picketing a funeral.

All media, even global media has become Sharia compliant for not standing long ago on free speech and now for blaming the Garland, Texas attack on those who are taking a stand.

Pam Geller, Tom Trento, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and Louis Gohmert are all declaring a call to action, a clarion call and offering sage advise. Are we as a nation listening? Two hundred plus years later why they forced to do this? They are telling you the same as many historical figures before them. LISTEN

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
George Washington

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
Harry S. Truman

Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Geller is taking a stand with her organization noted here.

Robert Spencer is doing the same here, offering books and lesson plans.

Tom Trento is tireless in his efforts as noted here.

Geert Wilders has been at the mission for a very long time in Europe.

Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers:”

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).

“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).

“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).

 

Challenge: What the U.S. has in Common with UK

It only happens somewhere else, some other country, some other people. Militant Islam is over there somewhere…well not so much as noted with the Garland, Texas attack on free speech and a planned attack on Ft. Riley.

 New Jersey

Here is your challenge, as you read below, replace ‘those’ places with what you know has occurred in America just in the last five or six years. Then ask yourself if we have a national security problem, where jihad is in our front yard.

Here are some tips:

Teens from Colorado

From Louisiana to Jihad

Kansas to bomber

Born in Illinois

How to Radicalize an Entire London Borough

by Samuel Westrop

  • Schoolchildren in Tower Hamlets grow up under the shadow of non-violent but extremist ideology, funded by the British government. Meanwhile, the British media and politicians are busy debating the causes of radicalization.
  • “Non-violent” but extremist Islamic movements seek to offer their own networks as alternatives to the jihadists.

In February, three London schoolgirls flew to Istanbul, from where they travelled by road to Syria to join the Islamic State. British police have confirmed that at least 700 Britons have now joined the terrorist group as fighters. Over the past year alone, 22 British women, most under the age of 20, are believed to have travelled to Syria to become “jihadi brides.”

In February, three girls from Bethnal Green Academy, in London’s Tower Hamlets, travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State as “jihadi brides”: 15-year-old Amira Abase (left), 15-year-old Shamima Begum (middle), and 16-year-old Kadiza Sultana (right).

These three London schoolgirls, who lived in the borough of Tower Hamlets, were not the first from there to travel to Syria. They were not even the first Islamic State recruits from their school — nor, it seems, will they be the last.

In December 2014, a friend and fellow pupil of the three London schoolgirls travelled to Syria after being “in covert phone contact with an unknown woman.” These four 15- and 16-year-old Islamic State recruits were all pupils at the Bethnal Green Academy in Tower Hamlets.

The Telegraph recently revealed that a fifth Bethnal Green Academy pupil also attempted to leave Britain to join the Islamic State, but was stopped after police boarded the aircraft as it was about to take-off.

Then, in March 2015, a British court made four more pupils of Bethnal Green Academy “wards of the court” and confiscated their passports. The four girls, also age 15 and 16, were “barred from travel after showing an interest in going to Syria.”

What made a total of nine young girls, from the same London school, attempt to travel to Syria and join the Islamic State?

For one of the girls, The Guardian cited “upheavals at home… 18 months of sadness following death of mother from cancer and father getting remarried.”

Muhammad Abdul Bari, a prominent British Islamist leader, based in Tower Hamlets, claimed the girls were “definitely convinced by the slick IS media. I think it was online radicalisation.”

The Daily Mail has reported, meanwhile, that Abase Hussen, the father of one of the girls, was previously filmed “at the head of an Islamist rally led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary and attended by Michael Adebowale, the killer of soldier Lee Rigby.”

These claims perhaps illuminate the motivation of one or two of the girls, but they do not explain how nine young girls, all from the same school, attempted, with some success, to join the world’s most ruthless terrorist movement.

Bethnal Green Academy has denied that its students could have been radicalized at school. The principal, Mark Keary told the BBC that, “Police have advised us there is no evidence radicalisation took place at the academy.” He added that, “Students are unable to access Facebook and Twitter on Academy computers.”

A number of teachers at the Bethnal Green Academy, however, do seem to harbor extremist views. Tasif Zaman, a “Graduate Achievement Coach” at Bethnal Green Academy, has expressed support for Babar Ahmad, a British Islamist convicted on terrorism charges by a U.S. court in 2014. After the September 11 attacks, Ahmad ran a website that urged recruits to take martial arts courses, read books on military warfare and train with weaponry. Ahmad’s website called for jihad against “infidels” and explained how to send funds to named Taliban officials in Pakistan. Tasif Zaman has also called for the release of Shaker Aamer, whom the senior Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah once described as an “extremely active” recruiter for the terror group.

Another staff member at Bethnal Green Academy, Nabila Akthar, serves as the “Student Voice and Events Coordinator.” Akthar is also “Head of Membership Services” for the Leaf Network, an Islamic group that regularly hosts extreme Islamist activists, including:

  • Muddassar Ahmed, who works closely with Tablighi Jamaat, an extreme Islamic sect, which security officials have named as a recruiting ground for Al Qaeda;
  • Anas Al-Tikriti, a leading British Muslim Brotherhood operative and a vocal supporter of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas; and
  • Farooq Murad, the son of the “Supreme leader” of Jamaat-e-Islami and a trustee of the Islamic Foundation. The Foundation’s other trustees, in 2003, were reported to be on a UN list of people associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The assumption that radicalization is an online process has been widely cited, but little evidence is ever offered. That local Islamist leaders, such as Muhammad Abdul Bari, echo these claims, only serves the interests of “non-violent” but extremist Islamic movements, which seek to offer their own networks as alternatives to the jihadists.

The Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim counter-extremism think tank, has concluded that, “the vast majority of radicalized individuals come into contact with extremist ideology through offline socialisation prior to being further indoctrinated online.” In 2008, a briefing note written by the British security services noted: “personal interaction is essential, in most cases, to draw individuals into violent extremist networks.”

Islamist movements such as Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood have been keen to attribute support among British Muslims for the Islamic State to “slick IS media.” They do so to downplay evidence that their own “non-violent” Islamist groups are part of the conveyor belt theory of radicalization, in which some extremists gradually become terrorists.

The role of “non-violent” extremists within the conveyor belt, however, is not solely the influence of a single preacher, activist or group. The teachers at Bethnal Green Academy, despite their extremist views, were not directly responsible, of course, for the radicalization of nine young schoolgirls. These teachers are, however, part of a culture of extremist Islamic thought, under which these young girls grew up.

The dominance of Islamist ideology is a systemic problem in certain areas of Britain. Tower Hamlets offers a particularly vivid example of the pervasive influence of Islamist ideology over a local Muslim population.

In a recent speech, Home Secretary Theresa May said the borough of Tower Hamlets was beset with “corruption, cronyism, extremism, homophobia and anti-Semitism.” The Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, was recently removed from office after a High Court hearing found him guilty of electoral fraud. The journalist Andrew Gilligan reports that Rahman, “achieved power with the help of the Islamic Forum of Europe, an extremist group that wants a sharia state in Europe.”

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) is a key Islamist institution in Tower Hamlets. Undercover filming in Britain has revealed IFE activists explaining that they exercised “consolidated… influence and power” over the local government of Tower Hamlets.

Speakers invited by the IFE have included the late Al Qaeda leader, Anwar Al-Awlaki, as well as Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose forces have fought alongside the Taliban against British troops.

The IFE was originally established by the Jamaat-e-Islami operative Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, sentenced to death in November 2013, by the Bangladeshi War Crimes Tribunal, for his role in the abduction and murder of 18 journalists and intellectuals when he led the Al-Badr killing squad during Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Liberation.

In 1995, a British television documentary reported that another leading Tower Hamlets Islamist, Abu Sayeed, was also a senior member of the Al-Badr death squad, and had similarly fled Bangladesh to live in Britain. In Britain, Sayeed became a “head teacher of a Muslim school and a co-opted member of Tower Hamlets Education Council.”

As yet another example, in 2013, Tower Hamlets Councillor Lutfa Begum stated, at a council meeting, that the “IFE do lots of jobs for Tower Hamlets local people. They are working with… local schools. They are working with teachers.”

The Islamist-dominated local government and schools, and extremist groups, appear to be all heavily intertwined.

These problematic institutions in Tower Hamlets have been propped up with taxpayer’s money that was designated for counter-extremist purposes. In 2013-14, Tower Hamlets council allocated 451,000 euros (about $500,000) to the Al-Huda Mosque and Cultural Centre, which manages its own “supplementary school.”

During that period, the mosque hosted an event with Abu Suhaib Bassam, an Islamist preacher who has called for the killing of blasphemers; encouraged Muslims to commit to jihad, and who has said: “The love of this worldly life and the hatred of death — this is the symptom of the disease of the Jews.”

In 2011, Lutfur Rahman’s Tower Hamlets Council granted £105,887 (about $170,000) to the Osmani Trust, a charity run by trustees of the IFE. According to the journalist Andrew Gilligan, some of this money was paid as part of the government’s “preventing violent extremism” program. The Osmani Trust runs weekend schools, organizes workshops in Tower Hamlets primary schools and works to “help young people into education.”

One of the managers at the Osmani Trust, Muhammad Rabbani, also trained recruits for the IFE. In 2009, Rabbani told his recruits: “Our goal is to create the True Believer, [and] to then mobilise these believers into an organised force for change who will carry out dawah [preaching], hisbah [enforcement of Islamic law] and jihad.”

Rabbani is now the Managing Director of CAGE, a pro-terror lobby group linked by the media to the Islamic State executioner “Jihadi John.”

The East London Mosque, another important Tower Hamlets Islamist institution, is an affiliate of the IFE. The mosque has a long history of promoting extremist speakers. In October, the mosque hosted Imam Abdullah Hasan, an Islamist preacher and IFE activist who describes Jews as “devil-worshippers” and has praised Osama Bin Laden.

Since 2006, the East London Mosque has received at least £3 million (over $4.5 million) of taxpayers’ money, some of which was funded by the government’s counter-extremism program.

More importantly, the East London Mosque manages its own school, the London East Academy. In March, the Evening Standard reported that Zubair Nur, a 19-year old graduate of the school, was believed to have joined the Islamic State.

There had been warnings. In October 2014, after emergency inspections by the education regulator Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, stated that students at the school were at risk of “extremist influences and radicalisation.”

Furthermore, one of London East Academy’s governors, Gulam Robbani, was Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s election agent. Robbani’s fellow governors at the school included other local government officials as well as Abdul Qayyum, the Imam of the East London Mosque. Qayyum was also a signatory to the Istanbul Declaration, a document that advocates attacks on Jewish communities and British troops.

Schoolchildren in Tower Hamlets grow up under the shadow of extremist ideology, much of it funded by the British taxpayer. Meanwhile, British media and politicians are busy debating the causes of radicalization. Factors they cite include: online propaganda, institutionalized Islamophobia, British foreign policy, poverty, or even the pressure of police scrutiny. None of these claims, however, has ever been substantiated.

The most important influence, in fact, seems to be the prevailing extremist culture imposed on British Muslims by “non-violent” Islamist networks, and which successive British governments have allowed to cultivate. By permitting Islamist groups to represent British Muslims, and then equipping them with funds and political recognition, Britain has actually advanced intolerance — and for far too long.

Over the past decade, a considerable number of commentators, moderate Muslim activists and the occasional journalist have warned of the dangers of allowing extremist preachers and terror-connected groups to exert such extensive influence over local government, schools, universities, charities, prisons and even interfaith groups.

Although these issues have consumed national debate for years, very little has been done in response. It is not surprising that British Muslim schoolchildren are now rushing off to fight with terrorist groups such as the Islamic State. Tower Hamlets is only a microcosm of a much larger problem of radicalized Muslim communities all across Britain. The question of the extremist grip over British Islam is still waiting to be properly addressed.