Why Won’t GOP Chairman Mention ‘Islamic Terror’ in New Bill?

MikeMcCaulConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 20, 2015:

Here’s the good news: congressional Republicans finally have a bill to address the homegrown terror threat.

The bad news?  It has nothing to do with combating homegrown Islamic terror, and in fact, is a verbatim reflection of this Administration’s agenda to expunge any mention of Islam from the growing terror threat.

Worse, this effort will likely enlist terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as CAIR – the unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism trial in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial – in the effort to combat “extremism.”

Last week, the House Committee on Homeland Security, led by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) passed the Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015 out of committee by voice vote.  This legislation would create a new $40 million government agency within the Department of Homeland Security – the Office for Countering Violent Extremism – and would be tasked with working across the federal government and throughout communities to develop strategies and data concerning “violent extremism.”

Freeze frame for a moment.

Even if you’ve never heard of the term “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) and its broader agenda before reading this article, you should be highly skeptical.  The fact that a Republican chairman is promoting a bill that does not contain a single reference to “Islamic” terrorism should at a minimum mystify even the most moderate Republican, and more rightfully so anger those who realize Islamic radicals are by far the number one domestic terrorism threat.  The fact this bill creates a new agency during the Obama presidency with broad and vague powers to combat generic “extremists” should raise goose bumps on any conservative’s patriotic neck. Especially given reports as recent as February of this year that the Department of Homeland Security considers “right wing” groups to be a greater threat than Islamic terror.

Now take a trip down memory lane to mid-February when the White House conducted a summit on…you guessed it: Countering Violent Extremism (CVE).  Not only did this summit abjure any effort to focus on Islamic terror, the White House invited the very Islamic extremist foxes to guard the hen house.  As Breitbart reported at the time, several leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston, the mosque that has radicalized numerous terrorists including the Boston bombers, were invited to the summit. These individuals have actually persecuted moderate Muslims for cooperating with federal authorities to root out terrorists.  The summit also featured Muslim extremists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Quite an Orwellian two-day fest, indeed.

But the effort of our federal government to seamlessly parlay the threat of Islamic terror into a coined term “countering violent extremism,” runs much deeper than this year’s pro-Islamic summit at the White House.  The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a California-based Islamic group with ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, has worked with government officials over the past decade to expunge all mention of Islamic terror from official reports assessing terrorism threats.  Regarding ties to the MB, Andy McCarthy explains the connection in-depth. For starters, MPAC was founded by disciples of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah, and following 9/11, MPAC executive director defended Hezbollah and accused Israel of being complicit in the attacks. No wonder the Obama Administration refuses to mention the term or any variation of “Islamic radicals.”   In his must-read magnum opus Catastrophic Failure, former intelligence officer Stephen Coughlin presents in painstaking detail how these subversive Islamic groups have succeeded in censoring all mention of Islamic terror from the federal government’s lexicon.

CVE agenda chart

In chapter 7 of the book, Coughlin shows how the bipartisan 9/11 Commission made reference to Muslims and Islam hundreds of times while barely using the terms “violent extremism.”  In 2007, MPAC criticized the language of the 9/11 Commision’s references to Islamic terrorism and recommended that the government “find another terminology.”  Not surprisingly, more recent intelligence reports and terror threat assessments have not mentioned the word Islam even once – just like the McCaul bill.  Coughlin notes that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division has taken the lead on pushing the “CVE” agenda when it published its training and guidance manual on CVE in 2011.  The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

Unfortunately, Rep. McCaul has a history of coddling CAIR’s leadership in his committee work on Homeland Security, as illustrated by this picture of him with their representatives as first reported by Breitbart.  This is also not the first time McCaul has exhibited poor judgement in concocting a bill that advances Obama’s dangerous agenda while selling it as a conservative solution. Earlier this year he used his committee to promote a Trojan horse border bill that weakened current law but effectively adopted Obama’s premise about the nature of the border crisis.  Last year, he purged a number of experienced immigration and counter-terrorism staffers from the committee, leaving a huge gap in savvy and institutional knowledge as it relates to issues like the CVE agenda.

Conservative members of the House need to educate themselves quickly on the broader implications of this bill and where it is coming from.  They must either block the bill or demand amendments that will actually align the substance of the bill with the plain language of the title.  The best way to do this would be by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and freezing its assets.  There is no better way to “counter violent extremism” than by stopping the MB from engaging in subversion and funding radical mosques.

It’s bad enough Republicans have no desire to stop Obama’s dangerous fundamental transformation of our country.  Can they at least not offer to step on the gas pedal for him?

Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.   

Also see:

Brookings Goes to Bat for Al Qaeda-linked Group…Again

1720491514 (1)Center for Security Policy, by Kyle Shideler, July 15, 2015:

Fresh off their annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum that proved to be a who’s who meeting of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, The Qatari-funded Brookings Institute is once again going to bat for an Al Qaeda-linked group of militants known as Ahrar Al Sham. Author Charles Lister takes the occasion of the publication of an Op-Ed in the Washington Post by Ahrar Al-Sham’s “head of foreign political relations” Labib  al-Nahhas to laud recent Ahrar Al Sham statements of “moderation”:

While clearly being sharply critical of current U.S. policy, Nahhas’ most powerful message was a genuine call for political engagement—“we remain committed to dialogue,” he said. Coming from an armed Islamist group that came close to being designated and whose facilities have been targeted by U.S. aircraft at least once, this call does show an extent of political pragmatism. Ahrar al-Sham has not called for American support one key Ahrar al-Sham decision-maker told me, but instead desires “the chance for a new start, in which we acknowledge the mistakes of the past and make it clear that a political track is possible, but with the right players and the right principles.”

Such engagement in any form does not have to be a prerequisite for the provision of support, but can be merely of value in and of itself. In the case of Ahrar al-Sham specifically, such engagement would not come without its inherent risks, but it may also prove practical in ensuring at the very least that al-Qaida does not come out on top in Syria.

For this reason and others, Ahrar al-Sham’s senior leadership has been managing a gradual process of external political moderation—or some might say maturity—for at least the last 18 months.

That Ahrar Al-Sham is some how moderating, maturing, or distancing itself from Al Qaeda is a bag of goods that Brookings authors have been attempting to sell for some time. In January of last year, Brookings authors Michael Doran and William McCants, together with co-author Clint Watts, published an article calling Ahrar al Sham the “Al Qaeda-linked Group Worth Befriending”.

Lister denigrates evidence that Ahrar Al-Sham was led by an Al Qaeda leader and confidante of Ayman Al-Zawahiri as “a popular claim”, and attempts to pass along the claim by Ahrar Al Sham and other Islamist groups that they only fight alongside the Al Qaeda linked group in order to provide a “subtle counterbalance”.

Lister also quotes one local Syrian rebel describing Ahrar Al Sham  as “too “intellectually close” to the Muslim Brotherhood”, a description which ironically seems to fit Brookings Institute just as well.

Yet even while reminding us that “actions speak louder than words,” Lister doesn’t find fit to mention that Ahrar Al Sham has recently joined yet another coalition together with Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al Nusra and other AQ-linked outfits in Syria in order to form Ansar Al Sharia, coincidentally (or not) the same cover name used by Al Qaeda in Tunisia, Libya and Yemen.

Perhaps the last word on whether or not to take Ahrar Al Sham’s statements of moderation seriously comes from the Al-Qaeda linked group themselves. The group’s military commander Abu Saleh Tahhan recently tweeted in reference to their association with Al Nusra,

“Anyone who thinks we would sell out those close to us in exchange for the approval of strangers is an idiot, anyone who imagines that we would privilege a neighbor over someone from our own home is a fool…”

The Bridge to Shariah Initiative

2539196848

How Much More Influence Will His $32 Billion Gifts Buy Him?

Center for Security Policy, July 1, 2015:

The Bridge Initiative, a project of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, has attacked a recent online survey of 600 Muslims in the United States that was commissioned by the Center for Security Policy (CSP). Its transparent purpose is to obscure or otherwise deflect attention from an ominous reality: This poll, like several others conducted previously, established that significant numbers of those polled embrace practices enshrined in the Islamic supremacist code, known as shariah – practices that are antithetical to the U.S. Constitution, the freedoms it enshrines, the public safety and even the national security.

Consider the Facts

The Alwaleed bin Talal Center’s attack on the CSP poll focuses, first and foremost, on the methodology used to canvas attitudes within the Muslim community. Specifically, it cites a quote from the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) to support its dismissal of the findings of this poll.

In so doing, however, it ignores the fact that the AAPOR has also stated: “There are times when a nonprobability online panel is an appropriate choice, as there may be survey purposes and topics where the generally lower cost and unique properties of Web data collection is an acceptable alternative to traditional methods.” At the recommendation of its opinion research firm, The Polling Company, the Center for Security Policy concluded that the opt-in online survey method was the “appropriate choice” for polling a population in the United States as relatively small as the Muslim community.

Such opt-in online surveys have been conducted by a number of reputable firms including Harris Interactive, as well as such prominent clients as Aetna, Yamaha, and the New York Giants. They have also been a staple of media reporting, including on a variety of controversial subjects such as perceptions of media bias and policy views on gay marriage, government surveillance anddrone strikes.

Beyond a disagreement with methodology, however, the attack goes on to assert flatly This survey does not represent the views of American Muslims.” [Emphasis in original.]

The Alwaleed Center supplies no research or data to support such a claim – the more remarkable for an organization finding fault with others’ opinion research. Moreover, there is considerable evidence available from other sources that substantially confirm the findings of the CSP/Polling Company poll. Some of those sources utilized other sampling techniques than the online opt-in method.

For example, in 2007, a public opinion survey of Muslims in the United States conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 26% of younger Muslims believe suicide bombings are justified. The same poll found that Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times as likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified. It also found that 5% of American Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, and that 26% of U.S. Muslims wanted to remain distinct, as opposed to being assimilated into the U.S.

A 2011 Pew Research poll replicated that last result, and also found that one in ten native-born U.S. Muslims have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, and, for the record, that Muslims in America were four times as likely to say that women should not work outside the home, that 49% said they were “Muslim first,” and that 21% said that there is a fair or great amount of support for Islamic extremism in their community.

In 2012, a Wentzel Strategies poll found that 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam of Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment.

And in 2013 Pew Research found that 19% of American Muslims believe suicide bombings in defense of Islam are at least partially justified.

These data reinforce the key finding of the Center for Security Policy/Polling Company survey: While most of those polled indicate a different view, non-trivial minorities of the respondents subscribe to jihadist beliefs and practices that, if acted upon, would constitute a potential threat to the nation and/or its people.

Consider the Source

The question occurs: Why does the Bridge Initiative at the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding deride one of the sources of such troubling evidence and dispute the obvious, alarming conclusion to be drawn from it?

The truth is that the Alwaleed bin Talal Center is not a credible source for “understanding” Muslims or their faith. It has, from its inception as the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU) at Georgetown University, been led by Dr. John Esposito. Esposito has been described as “a magnet for Arab and Muslim money.”

That may explain the myriad contributions Esposito has made to misunderstanding in his area of putative expertise. Notably, renowned Middle East scholar Martin Kramer once said that he “more than any other academic, contributed to American complacency prior to 9/11.”

In his many Islamic apologetic works and speeches over the years, Esposito has argued that democracy had been defined by “a world hegemonic discourse of Western cultural imperialism.” As a result, Americans “have to transcend their narrow, ethnocentric conceptualization of democracy” in order to understand the “Islamic democracy that might create effective systems of popular participation.” “Most” Islamic movements had decided that violence was “counterproductive,” he argued, and instead “speak of the need to prepare people for an Islamic order rather than to impose it.”

As a result, Esposito claimed, the violence of the 1980s would diminish and disappear, and instead “the nineties will prove to be a decade of new alliances and alignments in which the Islamic movements will challenge rather than threaten their societies and the West.” In the event, Islamic leaders on whom he “pinned high hopes” did nothing of the sort. Instead, they sought to promote shariah domestically and serve the cause of jihad against the dar al-Harb (the House of War or non-Muslim world).

A further concern is the fact that, under Esposito’s direction, the Alwaleed Center has “developed questionable ties to individuals and organizations directly involved in Islamic terrorism.” Esposito himself has expressed “vocal support and praise” for his self-described “good friend“, now-convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, whom he called “[o]ne of the most impressive people I have met under fire.” Al-Arian is listed as a researcher at the Center, where his son and family spokesman Abdullah Al-Arian serves as well.

John Esposito has also praised Muslim Brotherhood senior jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whosesupport of suicide bombing (including against American troops in Iraq) has revealed him for the jihadist figure he is – a reality that resulted in his being barred from entering the United Sttates. Esposito actually served with Qaradawi and multiple other Muslim Brotherhood figures on the steering committee of the Brotherhood-associated Circle of Tradition and Progress.

Likewise, in July 2000, the Alwaleed Center held a joint conference with the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), publisher of a journal for which Esposito served on the Board of Advisory Editors. Not six months before, UASR had been singled out by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee as a front group for the designated terrorist group Hamas. The committee described in detail the group’s founding by the head of the Hamas Political Bureau and its employment of Hamas financiers. The committee also found that the UASR was “providing a headquarters for Hamas operatives in the United States,” and cited its publication of works “extolling the imminent victory of Hamas over the Jews.” In fact, Esposito’s “co-chair for the conference was then-UASR executive director Ahmed Yousef, who fled the United States in 2005 to avoid prosecution and currently serves as the spokesman for the HAMAS terrorist organization in Gaza.”

Additionally, Esposito was an advisory board member of Institute of Islamic Political Thought led by known Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas operative Azzam Tamimi. Esposito also has close tiesto the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), part of the Safa Group Network of Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations raided by law enforcement over suspicion it was providing material support for Hamas and another designated terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In 2005, the controversial Georgetown Center on Muslim-Christian Understanding was renamed in recognition of a $20 million gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud. Prince Alwaleed has been an enabler of Islamic supremacist causes and organizations around the world. He achieved international notoriety when then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani returned a $10 million check bin Talal contributed after 9-11 because it was accompanied by a press release that – while it denounced the attack – implied that U.S. policy had caused it. He explicitly called on the United States to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause,” and claimed that the charge that “[o]ur Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek.”

At the time, Esposito defended the Prince’s remarks, saying Alaweed was “trying to give people the context in which this [terrorist attack] occurred.” Since then, the Saudi billionaire has been linked to attempts to sanitize presentations of Islam and its supremacists in America’s K-12 education as well. Indeed, his Center at Georgetown is listed as an educational consultant and the principal researcher and textbook-reviewer for the Council on Islamic Education (CIE), which former Education Secretary Bill Bennett has accused of badly slanting K-12 educational materials in a pro-Islamic direction.

In addition to Georgetown University, bin Talal has also given generously to Harvard University and other academic institutions. Part of its influence operations aimed at academia involve items authored and posted by the Alwaleed Center’s staff like “Why We Need the Islamic Call to Prayer at American Universities.”

Bin Talal has also invested heavily in the Western media, including through his ownership of sizeable shares of AOL Time Warner and NewsCorp (the parent company of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post). He even owns a chunk of Twitter. Interestingly, investigative journalist Deborah Weiss entitled a recent report on the launch of the Bridge Initiative “Tweeting Islamist Propaganda,” skewering its “strange amalgamation of radical leftist politics and support for Islam.”

Finally, the Alwaleed bin Talal Center has collaborated with one of the most prominent of the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas-tied organizations: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). For example, in 2007, the two influence operations jointly conducted a workshop just two months after federal prosecutors named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).

At the time, the HLF was the largest Muslim charity in the United States. It was shuttered after five of its principals were convicted of material support of terrorism after funneling more than $12 million to Hamas.) The joint event with CAIR was entitled “Islamophobia and the Challenge of Pluralism,” which ultimately became the name of Esposito’s next book. (Interestingly, the web page for the conference has been removed).

For all these reasons, the Alwaleed bin Talal Center’s critique of the Center for Security Policy and the poll of the recent, alarming opt-in online sample of Muslims can be seen for what it is: a manifestation of a wealthy Saudi prince’s influence operation designed, not to increase “understanding,” but to promote disinformation and suppress information at odds with the Islamists’ agenda. With the revelation today that Prince Alwaleed will be giving away his $32 billion fortune to various organizations and causes, it must be expected that we will soon be facing vastly more effort along these lines. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-01/saudi-arabia-s-prince-alwaleed-pledges-to-give-away-32-billion)

In short, a more honest depiction of the Bridge Initiative at the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding would be to call it the Bridge to Sharia Initiative.

Also see:

Iran Courting Native Americans in Canada: Leaked Document

Terrance Nelson, former chief of Manitoba's Roseau River

Terrance Nelson, former chief of Manitoba’s Roseau River

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 24, 2015:

Saudi Arabia is greatly concerned about how the Iranian regime is establishing relationships with Native American tribes in Canada, according to a newly-leaked Saudi intelligence document.

The Islamist government of Turkey is likewise reaching out to Native American tribes inside the United States.

The secret document from Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Agency, dated May 25, 2012, was sent to the Saudi Prime Minister and approved by the Saudi Crown Prince and Foreign Minister. Saudi intelligence appears to confirm that Iran is becoming friendly with Native Americans in Canada and has even mobilized them for pro-Iran, anti-American political activism.

The memo states that Saudi intelligence is monitoring “the attempts by the Iranian government to take advantage of the situation of the Indians of Canada, in order to build connections with them, to gain from their reservations and lands, to carry out various activities and investments.”

Saudi intelligence reports that Native American leaders recently protested against American and Canadian foreign policy in front of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa. It states that the Indians expressed pro-Iran sentiments at the rally.

It also reports that two tribal leaders from Manitoba Province met with Iranian embassy officials and said they’d take a trip to Tehran. The Indian leaders said they want Iranian investment in their reservations and would like to send 200 children to Iran to study administration and development.

The intelligence memo notes that the Canadian media has reported on the matter and pointed out Iran’s hypocrisy in embracing the Native American minority while oppressing its own minorities.

Read more

Saudi Arabia Buying Regional News Influence: Cables

King Salman of Saudi Arabia (Photo: © Reuters)

King Salman of Saudi Arabia (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 23, 2015:

Leaked cables from Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry reveal that the Wahhabist government is spending millions of dollars to influence regional media coverage. One cable shows that the Saudis granted $5 million to a popular Lebanese television channel named Murr TV, known locally as MTV (no relation to the MTV network based in the U.S.).

The secret document reveals that a directive was given on May 8, 2012 to form a committee to exploit Murr TV’s financial troubles by offering a bribe in return for pro-Saudi coverage. The committee had representatives from the Saudi Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Culture, Media and General Intelligence Agency.

Murr TV’s board chairman requested $20 million from the Saudis. The committee met on May 15, 2012 and decided that only $5 million would be offered.

The network’s website boasts of its “independence,” saying it started in 1991 and began covering news in 1995. The Lebanese government was unhappy with its coverage and shut it down in 2002. It then re-launched in 2009.

“MTV displayed a fervent commitment to acting as the fourth power, disclosing the untold about abuses of power and corruption, and speaking the mind of a suffocated public opinion, being consistently and unswervingly objective and responsible, and defending the public interest,” the website says.

It is owned by Gabiel Murr, a Christian involved with the oppositionchallenging the Lebanese political forces favorable to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and Hezbollah. MTV aired stories about human rights abuses and interviewed opposition leaders.

A 2014 study found that MTV is the top source for television entertainment in Lebanon. It is the third most popular news channel.

The leaked cable indicates that this is only one front in the Saudi campaign to influence regional news media.

“Emphasizing that in principle the support to any foreign media should serve the policy of the Kingdom and its interests. The committee doesn’t see anything to prevent the support of MTV within this policy,” the committee is reported as stating.

Other leaked cables show that the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Media sponsored two dozen media outlets in countries like Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Guinea, and Mauritania. Wikileaks says these payments ranged from $33,000 to as little as $500.

It’s possible that the Saudis were satisfied with Lebanese MTV simply continuing coverage that undermines the Syrian and Iranian regimes and Hezbollah, but the wording of the document suggests an actual promotion of the Saudi point-of-view. At the very least, the Saudis would demand favorable coverage that looks past its support for Islamist extremism and human rights abuses.

Saudi funding for media outlets is dangerous for Western security because a favorable treatment of Saudi Arabia means a favorable treatment of the radical ideology its governance is based on, often referred to as “Wahhabism.” If the Saudi point-of-view is promoted, that means promoting Wahhabism, hostility to the West and Islamist terrorism.

Yet, media outlets and political forces in the region, including Christians, are so desperate for funding that they are willing to get into bed with the Saudis.

Another cable reveals that Samir Gagea, the leader of a Christian political party opposed to the Syrian regime, asked for Saudi financial aid. He’s quoted as saying, “I’m broke. I’m ready to do what the Kingdom demands.”

The Saudis weren’t the first choice of the Christians. After all, the Saudis persecute Christians and ban the construction of churches. There is a power vacuum being filled by the Saudis that could instead by filled by the West. There is a middle-ground between Shiite extremism and Sunni extremism but those in-between these two sides are currently compelled to choose one or the other.

If we are to ever defeat Islamist radicalism and achieve peace in the Middle East, Saudi influence over the region’s media and politics will have to be countered.

Blindfolded America

John-Brennan-CIA-660x350-1434704398
Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

Time for Huma Abedin to Come Out of the Shadows

huma_hillary_7_ap_605_605-450x244Frontpage, June 19, 2015 by :

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s longtime confidante, is currently the vice chair of her 2016 presidential campaign. “I’m not sure Hillary could walk out the door without Huma,” Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald said back during the days of Hillary’s first run for the presidency. Huma and Hillary are inseparable, including having been linked together on a private e-mail network while Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State and Ms. Abedin was her deputy chief of staff. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected president of the United States, Ms. Abedin will no doubt be right there with Hillary as her right hand person in the White House. And that may well be a major coup for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose strategic plan calls for destroying Western civilization from within and “‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

In view of her background that involves the Muslim Brotherhood, it is time for Huma Abedin to come out of the shadows and reveal exactly what she did and whom she communicated with while at the Clinton State Department.

Huma Abedin is the daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who has had ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood.  During her youth, Huma lived with her family in Saudi Arabia, where they had re-located from Michigan and where she was exposed to the Wahhabi jihadist ideology, before returning to the United States at the age of 18.

In the late 1990’s, while Huma Abedin was interning in the Bill Clinton White House and began her long association with Hillary Clinton, she served as an executive board member of George Washington University’s Muslim Students Association, which had its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Huma Abedin later worked at the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). Her mother was the editor of JMMA, taking over from Huma’s father after he had died. Huma’s tenure as assistant editor overlapped with that of a wealthy Saudi individual with reported al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood ties, Abdullah Omar Naseef, who had recruited her father to move to Saudi Arabia to lead the IMMA think tank.  Although Huma severed her own ties with the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs when she began her service in Hillary Clinton’s State Department, Huma’s brother and sister have remained involved with the journal.

The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs – an Abedin family project in which Huma Abedin was deeply involved – espouses the Islamic supremacist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Andrew McCarthy noted, Huma Abedin herself “spent 12 years working at a journal intended to aid Islamic domination of the West.”

Nevertheless, Hillary relies on Huma Abedin and trusts her completely, which will give Ms. Abedin extraordinary influence in a Hillary Clinton administration.

“The picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider,” according to a May 2013 report in the New York Times.

While serving as Hillary’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin had access to the most highly sensitive government information, which included developments in Libya both before and after the tragic killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans that resulted from the Sept. 11, 2012 jihadist terror attack in Benghazi.  Moreover, with Huma whispering in her ear as her key adviser on the Middle East, Hillary oversaw the Obama administration’s pivot towards engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups in Egypt and Libya.

The Obama administration decided in 2011 to formally expand its engagement with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group, after the Obama administration had so enthusiastically supported the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Hillary Clinton declared at the time that “we welcome…dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.” The Obama administration then reportedly intervened behind the scenes to help the Muslim Brotherhood’s choice for president, Mohammed Morsi, prevail in the presidential run-off election over his more secular army-backed rival.

Huma Abedin’s mother Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin is a chairperson of the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which had strongly advocated for Sharia laws to replace more secular laws in Egypt under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood dominated government. As Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org noted in a Frontpage Magazine article entitledHuma Abedin’s Mother and an Islamist Agenda, “Huma did not keep a distance from her mother’s activities when she introduced Secretary Clinton to her activist mother. During Clinton’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the US Secretary of State visited and spoke at the Islamic college of Dar El-Hekma together with Huma, where Dr. Saleha Abedin was a vice-dean and one of its founders.”

That visit took place in 2011, at the very time that the Obama administration was expanding its outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood and was embracing the “Arab Spring.”

Read more

Also see:

MSA National Retreat to Feature Muslim Brotherhood and Homeland Security Speakers

poster3Cultural Jihad, May 15, 2015:

The Muslim Students Association (MSA) will be holding it’s National Leadership Retreat (NLR), June 2-7 2015 at Camp Lindenmere in Henryville, PA

MSA’s Facebook page states that the NLR is a “critical platform that” will:

  • Provide participants with personal development opportunities
  • Allow participants to network with other activists and MSA Officers from different parts of the nation. This network will become a critical resource of support that participants can use beyond the Retreat for their personal and institutional development
  • Create opportunities to exchange best practices, challenges and solutions participants might be experiencing on the local level
  • Connect local MSA activists and officers with the new vision, mission and leadership of MSA National

Scheduled speakers  include:

Dr. Altaf Hussain –  former two-term national president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA National), a current executive committee member of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), chair of the Leadership Development Committee of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Peaceful Families Project – dedicated to the prevention of domestic violence. Dr. Hussain was recently elected the Vice President of ISNA in 2014.

Dalia Mogahed (by video) –  chairman and CEO of Mogahed Consulting, a Washington, D.C.-based executive coaching and consulting firm specializing in Muslim societies and the Middle East. She is former executive director of and senior analyst for the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, where she led the analysis of surveys of Muslims worldwide, including in the U.S. and Europe. With John L. Esposito, Ph.D., she is coauthor of the book “Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think.”

Corey Saylor – legislative director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Shaykh Yahya Rhodus – frequent Islamic teacher and lecturer.  Past instructor at Zaytuna Institute.

Ehsan Zaffar – a senior adviser at the Department of Homeland Securitywhere he advises the Office of the Secretary on civil rights and civil liberties issues. He teaches courses at the intersection of national security, homeland security and civil rights/civil liberties.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

COMMENT/ANALYSIS:  The Muslim Students Association (MAS) was formed in 1963 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood which explains the backgrounds for most of the speakers.

– – –

Three of the groups listed for Dr. Hussain (MSA, MANA, and ISNA) have been identified as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.    As for the Peaceful Families Project, it’s board membership includes:

  • Salma Elkadi Abugideiri, the daughter of the late Ahmed Elkadi –former leader of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (1984-94).
  • Muna AbuSulayma, former general secretary of the charitable foundation of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and daughter of  global Muslim Brotherhood leader Dr. AbdulHamid Abu Sulayman.
  • Imam Magid,  Imam of All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center in Sterling, Virginia and served as the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

– – –

Dalia Mogahed’s affiliation with the MB is not as clear.  The Global Muslim Daily Watch notes:

Dahlia Mogahed was born in Egypt and lived in the U.S. since the age of 5. She is the daughter of Elsayed Mogahed, an Egyptian immigrant who is a former engineering scientist at the University of Wisconsin and director of the Islamic Center of Madison (ICM). The website of the ICM links mainly to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations and Souheil Ghannouchi, the President of the Muslim American Society (MAS), close to the Egyptian Brotherhood,  was ICM Imam and President for several years.

Mogahed has been a vocal supporter of other MB front groups and other Islamists according to a 2010 Investigative Project report.

– – –

Corey Saylor has been with CAIR for over ten years.  CAIR’s ties to the the MB was firmly established through documents seized during the Holy Land Foundation investigation regarding terrorist funding.

– – –

Dept. of Homeland Security representative Ehsan Zaffar is a frequent speaker at Muslim and Arab-American focused events.

Judicial Watch Pinch-Hitting for the FBI

201305301_fbi_agents_largeFamily Security Matters, by Janet Levy, April 30, 2015:

Despite the growing menace and media savvy of the terrorist Islamic group ISIS, the FBI appears to be, once again, failing in its investigative and enforcement responsibilities. The agency that let us down with 9/11 and, afterward, reacted mainly in a flurry of political correctness and appeasement toward Muslims is now trying to reassure the American public that we have nothing to fear from ISIS on the North American continent.

This despite warnings from the nonprofit Judicial Watch of ISIS activism in Mexico, and recent ISIS-related arrests in Minnesota.  More is needed from the nation’s top domestic intelligence and security agency than this whistling in the dark if we are to be safe in our own country.

Official government estimates of ISIS recruits vary widely from 20,000 to 50,000.  Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the federal National Counterterrorism Center, who places the number at more than 20,000, reports that fighters hail from 90 countries, with an estimated 3,400 from Western countries, including over 150 from the United States.  Rasmussen admits that there is “likely more information out there that we have not yet been able to collect,” and that there could also be “greater numbers of foreign fighters, and potentially even greater numbers of individuals from western countries and the United States who’ve traveled to the conflict zones.”

Meanwhile, FBI assistant director for counterterrorism Michael Steinbach has reinforced the level of risk by admitting, “Certainly I would not be truthful if I told you we know about all the returnees.”

This equivocation and uncertainty by government sources contrasts dramatically with the recent findings of Judicial Watch, a government watchdog with more than 20 years of investigations and litigation in pursuit of open and honest government.  Last week, Judicial Watch revealed in anonymous accounts from a Mexican army officer and police inspector that two ISIS camps exist perilously close to the U.S. border west of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico – one only eight miles from El Paso, Texas, and the other very close to Columbus and Deming, New Mexico.

According to Judicial Watch, Mexican army and law-enforcement personnel discovered Arabic and Urdu documents, layouts of a nearby U.S. military installation, and prayer rugs in an area  controlled by a powerful Mexican cartel engaged in drug trafficking and human smuggling across the understaffed and poorly controlled U.S. border.  Mexican intelligence sources reported to Judicial Watch that ISIS maintains a network of “spotters” in New Mexico’s East Potrillo Mountains for terrorist border crossings and to monitor activities at nearby universities, government facilities, and power plants.

In September last year, Judicial Watch reported that ISIS operatives across the border were planning car bomb attacks in the United States and that U.S. agents were on alert to deal with “this imminent terrorist threat.”  Despite assurances by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security that no credible threats had been identified, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks (R-Glendale) said, “It is true that we know that ISIS is present in Ciudad Juarez, or they were in the last few weeks.”

Franks has long been accustomed to government inaction in the face of Islamic threats, having been one of five congressional signatories of the much derided and ignored 2012 report identifying Muslim Brotherhood operatives who had infiltrated the U.S. government at the highest levels of national security.  But his 2014 border concerns were similar to those voiced independently by Texas governor Rick Perry, Congressman Lou Barletta (R-Penn.), Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas).

All these claims have been derided by Democrats as Republican hysteria related to Obama’s executive amnesty program for illegal immigrants, even though, in August 2014, the Texas Department of Public Safety issued a bulletin to law enforcement entitled “ISIS Interest on the U.S. Southwest Border.”  The bulletin referred to ISIS social media messaging about how to cross the U.S.-Mexico border to carry out “unspecified border operations.”

Immediately following the recent Judicial Watch disclosure, FBI supervisors called a meeting with the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez.  Based on information supplied to Judicial Watch by an anonymous “high level intelligence source,” the goal of the meeting was to “devise a press strategy on the JW report as well as to uncover the identity of the informants.”

According to a Facebook posting, Congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-El Paso) asked the FBI director, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and the secretary of homeland security if currently any terrorist threat exits on the U.S. southern border.  O’Rourke posted that “[t]hey answered that there was not nor has there ever been any terrorist, terrorist plot or terrorist organization that was able to exploit our border with Mexico.”

Yet, just this week, federal authorities arrested yet another group of individuals seeking to travel to Syria and fight alongside ISIS.  Six Minnesota men were charged as part of an ISIS terror probe exposing a “peer-to-peer” network model of recruitment organized through social media and local contacts.  This is becoming an increasingly common occurrence in the United States and Western societies as more young Muslims and new converts glorify the Islamic State and aspire to join its quest for a caliphate.

In light of JW disclosures, the question must be asked: how credible are FBI reports on the domestic ISIS threat, as well as Islamic terrorist threats in general?

The bureau has been embroiled in controversy for more than a decade for its obvious appeasement activities and policies toward Muslims.  After missing the 9/11 plot, the FBI hired Arab-American Muslim translators recruited through Muslim Brotherhood sources.  Those sources included the American Muslim Council, an organization founded in 1990 by Abduraman Alamoudi, a self-admitted supporter of Hamas and Hezb’allah who is currently serving a prison term for a 2003 assassination attempt on the late Saudi prince Abdullah.  The FBI also turned to the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood front and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Hamas funding trial.  As recounted in investigative journalist Paul Sperry’s 2005 book, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington, the FBI employed several translators of questionable loyalties before completing background checks and approving required security clearances.  Sperry revealed that former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmunds claimed that some Muslim translators celebrated the attacks in house, purposely mistranslated documents, and even notified targets of investigations. [emphasis added]

Following the 9/11 attacks, then-FBI chief Robert Mueller required FBI agents and new recruits to attend Muslim sensitivity workshops led by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), another Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF Hamas funding trial.  Taking a cue from the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Strategic Plan for America,” widely referred to as the “Explanatory Memorandum,” the words “jihad,” “Islam,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” were purged from the FBI lexicon in 2007.  In 2009, responding to the demands of CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, the FBI purged all counterterrorism training materials deemed critical of Islam and “re-educated” FBI agents exposed to so-called “Islamophobic” training.

All of these measures are in line with the objectives presented in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum “to prevent the infidel from learning about Islam.”  Even FBI agents who taught directly from Muslim Brotherhood strategic documents and Islamic doctrinal tracts were disciplined and sidelined, even though their material had been previously approved by upper management.

Recently, the FBI assured Chicago police that no links exist between the North American Islam Trust (NAIT) and the Muslim Brotherhood, even though a federal judge ruled that “ample evidence” associated NAIT with the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Hamas.  Further, documents in the HLF financing case name NAIT as being part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But Chicago police chief James Kruger conveyed the FBI message, saying, “I can reassure the community that there is no threat to our community and that NAIT is a legitimate non-profit religious organization as filed with the IRS and the Illinois Department of Revenue.”

It is indeed alarming that FBI actions and statements continue to be on the order of “nothing to see here, move along,” even as the threat from radical Islamists grows worldwide and advances in America.  Tragically, government inaction has reached the point where the work of an independent government watchdog organization has greater legitimacy than the federal agency charged with investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities necessary to keep Americans safe.  Have we reached a point where the FBI is so politicized and compromised by outside influences that it can no longer do its job effectively?

Foreign Money Promotes Radical Islamist Agenda in Canada

Richard Fadden, National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, appears at Senate national security and defence committee hearing witnesses on Bill C-51 in Ottawa on Monday, April 27, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Richard Fadden, National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, appears at Senate national security and defence committee hearing witnesses on Bill C-51 in Ottawa on Monday, April 27, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

by IPT News  •  Apr 30, 2015 

Millions of dollars are flooding into Canada from Gulf states to promote a radical Islamist agenda, according to testimony by the prime minister’s national security adviser, the National Post reports.

“I think it’s fair to say, without commenting on the particular country of origin, there are monies coming into this country which are advocating this kind of [Islamist extremist] approach to life,” Richard Fadden said Monday during a national security hearing concerning a new counter-terrorism bill.

Fadden, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said that large sums of money are sent to religious-affiliated institutions in Canada to promote an “extreme Islamic jihadist interpretation of the Qur’an.”

He also described the obstacles to tracking how the money is spent because of Canada’s respect for religious freedom.

“The difficulty is in most cases the monies are not coming from governments; they’re coming from fairly wealthy institutions or individuals within some of these countries. It makes it doubly difficult to track,” Fadden said. It is “quite difficult” to determine where they money ends up.

Last year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) raided the offices of the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN-Canada) after federal auditors accused the Muslim charity for transferring $15 million to Hamas. The Canadian government subsequently added IRFAN-Canada to its list of banned terrorist organizations.

IRFAN-Canada lost its charity status in 2011 following a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit that exposed the organization as an “integral part” in Hamas’ international fundraising infrastructure.

The issue of foreign Islamist financing has been the subject of previous Canadian Senate committee hearings. In February, Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association in Winnipeg, testified that her organization refused $3 million dollars in donations from overseas “because there are strings attached to it, and we want to be a Canadian Muslim organization.”

A 2004 report by the Council on Foreign Relations revealed that Saudi Arabia is promoting its brand of radical Islamist ideology in Canada by funding certain Islamic institutions. The Saudi government acknowledged that it funds Muslim institutions in Canada, including mosques in Ottawa and Calgary and an Islamic center in Quebec.

The task force said that Saudi Arabia spent hundreds of millions of dollars to finance 1,359 mosques and 210 Islamic centers around the world.

“This massive spending is helping to create the next generation of terrorists and therefore constitutes a paramount strategic threat to the United States … This massive spending is an integral part of the terrorist financing problem. It fosters virulence and intolerance directly at the United States, Christians, Jews and even other Muslims,” the report said.

Also see:

***

Trudeau calls warnings about Muslim radicalization “fear mongering”

Hussein Hamdani suspended from National Security position

History of the Soviet-Islam Connection

4261455653Listen to Frank Gaffny interview with Trevor Loudon at Center for Security Policy

TREVOR LOUDON, a New Zealand political activist, speaker, and author of “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the US Congress”:

PART ONE:

  • The Soviet science of subversion from WWII to today
  • How agents of influence destroyed the Australian/New Zealand/United States military alliance
  • Was the European Peace Movement merely an instrument to destroy NATO during the Cold War?
  • Tracing the current Administration’s three greatest achievements back to the Communist Party USA, courtesy of Frank Marshall Davis

PART TWO:

  • The American Civil Liberties Union’s origins as the security apparatus of communist America
  • Using constitutional projections to empower enemies of the United States
  • The Council for a Livable World’s promotion of U.S. disarmament
  • The rise of George Soros and how the Center for American Progress continues to disseminate socialist ideals

PART THREE:

  • Is George Soros supporting radical attacks on the U.S. justice and economic system?
  • Threats from Islamists and their links to communism, as seen in the Palestinian Intifada Movement
  • Vladimir Putin’s anti-western propaganda now integrating radical Islam
  • Evidence that Pres. Obama has a foot in both the Islamist and Marxist camps

PART FOUR:

  • Is the U.S. internal security apparatus being destroyed from within?
  • Purging of anti-Islamist material from American military and law enforcement training manuals
  • Controversy over Rep. André Carson’s appointment to the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence

Did the Clintons’ Greed Endanger U.S. National Security?

724476682

CSP, by Fred Fleitz, April 23, 2015:

Although Peter Schweizer’s new book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” will not hit bookstores until May 5, it has already set off a firestorm of controversy that foreign governments bought influence with the Clinton’s – including when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State – by contributing millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paying the Clinton’s millions in speaking fees.

Bill Clinton, according to Schweizer, earned $48 million in speaking fees while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State.  Although Hillary Clinton claimed she and her husband were “dead broke” in 2000, their current net worth is estimated between $100 million and $200 million.

The Clinton’s and their attack dogs have already launched an offensive against Schweizer’s book and are trying to discredit him because he is a conservative.  Several media organizations, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and Breitbart news have advance copies of the book and exclusive rights to the research compiled by Schweizer.

Most press stories on the Schweizer book have focused on the impropriety of the Clinton Foundation taking large foreign donations while Clinton was Secretary of State and how those donations may have influenced U.S. foreign policy.  Mrs. Clinton also has been criticized for tens of millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation while she headed the State Department from regimes that persecute women such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the UAE.

A more troubling angle in the Clinton Foundation scandal surfaced over the last few days: that foreign donations to the foundation may have put U.S. national security at risk.

According to an article in today’s New York Times, some of these contributions involve Uranium One, a Canadian uranium mining company that was taken over by the Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency.  The Uranium One takeover gave Russia control of one-fifth of U.S. uranium production and advanced Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal of controlling most of the global uranium supply chain.

Because uranium is considered a U.S. strategic asset with implications for national security, this deal had to be approved by a several U.S. government agencies, including the State Department.  According to the Times article, while the Russians were gradually assuming control of Uranium One from 2009 to 2013, the Uranium One chairman used his family foundation to make $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.  The Times article states that “those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clinton’s, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.”

According to an April 18  Newsweek article, the Clinton Foundation also accepted donations from a firm that was violating nuclear trade sanctions against Iran.  Interpipe, a Cyprus-incorporated company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, sold oil pipelines to Iran in 2011 and 2012 in violation of U.S. sanctions but was not sanctioned for these sales while Clinton was Secretary of State.  Fox News host Megyn Kelly reported last night on “The Kelly File” that between 2009 and 2013, Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.  Kelly reported that Pinchuk also pledged more than $20 million more to the foundation.

The Fox News Channel will air a special report anchored by Bret Baier, “The Tangled Clinton Web” on the Clinton Foundation scandal on Friday, April 24 at 10 PM ET.

For years, the Clinton’s have glided past the sea of scandals that engulfed Bill Clinton’s presidency and Hillary Clinton’s complicity in the Obama administration’s foreign policy disasters.  I believe the Clinton Foundation story dwarfs all previous Clinton scandals because it appears to be an unprecedented case of foreign governments and entities buying influence with a U.S. government official.  But the Uranium One and Pinchuk contributions could make this story significantly worse since they suggest the Clinton’s were prepared enrich themselves even at the cost of endangering U.S. national security.

The Clinton Foundation scandal obviously requires media attention, congressional hearings, and an investigation by the Justice Department.  Despite their unmatched skill at deflecting controversy and blaming their enemies, could this this scandal be too big even for Bill and Hillary Clinton to skate by?

KRAUTHAMMER: CLINTON FOUNDATION ‘GIGANTIC ACCESS INFLUENCE MACHINE’

How the Iran lobby sidetracked the nuclear talks: part 2

Photo by: Vahid Salemi FILE - In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 file photo, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks at a ceremony to commemorate the late Khadijeh Saghafi, wife of late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, in Tehran, Iran. Rouhani has dismissed pressure from the U.S. Congress over a preliminary deal on Iran's nuclear program, saying that Tehran is dealing with world powers not American lawmakers. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

Photo by: Vahid Salemi
FILE – In this Sunday, April 12, 2015 file photo, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks at a ceremony to commemorate the late Khadijeh Saghafi, wife of late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, in Tehran, Iran. Rouhani has dismissed pressure from the U.S. Congress over a preliminary deal on Iran’s nuclear program, saying that Tehran is dealing with world powers not American lawmakers. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

– – Thursday, April 16, 2015:

In the previous article, we saw how the Iranian regime’s panic over the 2002 outing of its theretofore clandestine nuclear weapons program drove its subsequent decisions about how to deal with the publicity and mollify, or at least occupy, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and the United States (U.S.).

Having been well-trained by its mentors at the Soviet KGB, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) quickly established a two-tier system: those nuclear sites, such as Natanz, Isfahan, Arak, and later Fordow, that had been exposed were turned into show sites. IAEA inspectors were invited in, and the so-called EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom), later joined by the rest of the UNSC to form the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, UK, and U.S.), began negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

The haggling went on for a decade and counting. At no time from 2003 to this day, however, did Iran itself willingly offer up (as obligated under its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory status) any information about other clandestine sites in its sprawling nuclear weapons program. For unexplained reasons, nor did the IAEA, P5+1, or UNSC compel it to despite an international sanctions regime ostensibly aimed at getting Iran to comply with six UNSC Resolutions demanding it halt all nuclear enrichment and come clean about its past nuclear activities with “possible military dimensions.”

While international trade relationships, intra-UNSC rivalries, and a reluctance to alienate Iran right out of the talks altogether might explain some of the failure to press Iran about the clandestine elements of its nuclear weapons program, at least for the U.S., there was another player involved in the game: the Iran Lobby.

As discussed in a February 2009 occasional paper by this author and published by the Center for Security Policy under the title, “Rise of the Iran Lobby: Tehran’s Front Groups Move On—and into—the Obama Administration,” “a complex network of individuals and organizations with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran” had organized by the early 2000s to influence U.S. government policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A follow-on paper, “The Iran Lobby: Alive, Well, and Changing the Face of the Middle East,” published by the Center in October 2014, chronicled what I termed “the disastrous fruits of that network’s efforts.” The term “Iran Lobby,” by the way, was first noticed in the Iranian media itself, in 2007. It seemed a most apt description of the circle of influence operators that were pursuing and achieving positions of influence at the upper levels of U.S. national security then, and certainly all the more so, now.

After more than a dozen years of maneuvering behind the scenes of Washington, DC policymaking, the Iran Lobby today has succeeded in infiltrating the Department of State, National Security Council (NSC), and the nuclear negotiations themselves. Led by NIAC (the National Iranian American Council) and its founder and president, the Iranian-born Trita Parsi, the Iran Lobby counts among its affiliates and supporters a Who’s Who list of influential individuals and organizations ranging from former ambassadors and oil executives, to a bevy of Middle East and Iran experts from leading NGOs and think tanks.

The objective was always clear: shift official U.S. policy on Iran to a position supportive of Tehran’s agenda that sought protracted negotiations to buy time for its nuclear weapons development, financial concessions that eased sanctions and released frozen assets, and a conciliatory posture that eschewed any discussion of military options to deal with Iranian intransigence, ignored Iranian support for Islamic jihad (terrorism), pretended its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program didn’t exist, turned a deaf ear to non-stop genocidal threats against the Jewish State of Israel, and generally acquiesced in its regional geo-strategic ambitions.

Above all, there was to be absolutely no discussion of Iran’s parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Astonishingly, today, the Iran Lobby has achieved all of this and more.

Not surprisingly, the Iranian leadership mocks the Obama administration, especially Secretary of State John Kerry and his hapless negotiating team. In January 2014, just weeks after the supposed landmark ‘breakthrough’ of the November 2013 “Joint Plan of Action,” Kerry’s Iranian counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, actually laid a wreath at the tomb of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hizballah terror chieftain responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans from the 1983 Marine Corps barracks bombing to 9/11.

The same month, Iran’s ‘moderate’ president Hassan Rouhani tweeted about how, in Geneva, the world powers “surrendered to Iranian nation’s will.” A senior Iranian TV commentator noted with rare honesty that the Geneva agreement was but “the Treaty of Hudaybiyya.” Following the 2015 April Fool’s Day ‘framework’ agreement, Iranian leadership figures were quick to describe the U.S. version as a “U.S. version” “lie” and declare it “not acceptable to Iran.” Meanwhile, Iran’s Bassij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi declared that “erasing Israel off the map” was “non-negotiable.”

And yet, the American team practically begged the Iranians to keep talking and give them something, anything to hold up as a ‘success.’

To understand this sorry state of affairs, it is only necessary to understand the function and purpose of hostile influence operations and how the Iran Lobby in America has finessed its way to turning U.S. foreign policy with Iran completely on its head. As described above, maneuvering Tehran-regime-friendly figures into positions of power and influence is the name of the game.

One Sahar Nowrouzzadeh could be Exhibit A for how this works: apparently a former NIAC employee, she now appears on a list of senior White House aides who attended a secure video conference on 31 March 2015 with the U.S. negotiating team in Lausanne, Switzerland. She is listed as the National Security Council Director for Iran.

Meanwhile, her former boss, NIAC’s Trita Parsi, appears in a photo published by the Iranian Fars News Agency, greeting Fereydoon Rouhani (the president’s brother) at the Lausanne talks. Parsi’s Facebook page shows another photo of the NIAC leader smiling at the talks alongside his Research Director, Reza Marashi, and NBC reporter Ann Curry. Marashi’s NIAC bio lists his former employment at the State Department’s Office of Iranian affairs. According to reports, at least Parsi has been present at previous nuclear negotiations in Geneva and Vienna, as well.

This is what a successful infiltration operation looks like. Apparently, Parsi thinks so, too, because on 2 April 2015, he posted the following on his Facebook Page:

“Trita Parsi

“April 2 at 5:22pm ·

“Oops. Just realized I haven’t eaten lunch today. Been too busy gloating…”

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

Videos: Clare Lopez and John Guandolo sounding the alarm on USCMO influence operation

uscmo2014HEY, US CONGRESS – “THROW THE TERRORISTS OUT!”

By Tom Trento of The United West:

On Monday April 13 and Tuesday 14 Muslim Terrorists walking around the United States Congress will demand that our elected Representatives change federal law thereby making it harder to investigate Muslim terrorists. I know, crazy stuff, but it is happening right in broad daylight! THANK Allah that we at The United West are experts at investigating Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and exposing their influence operations for all Americans to understand and properly respond. To accomplish this we are launching a five-part investigative series entitled: “Muslim Terrorists Lobby 114th Congress.” Our show today focuses on what the Members of the 114th Congress should do when the terrorists ENTER their offices. And what is that? THROW THEM OUT THE DOOR! Why in the world should an elected Member of Congress give any time to KNOWN terrorists who have a written agenda that includes destroying the essence of the Capitol building in which they are meeting! Watch this show as it is FULL of critically important information to help all Americans properly, professionally and legally DEFEAT this Muslim Brotherhood political influence operation.

***

Newsmax: Ex-FBI Agent: DC’s National Muslim Day Pushes Radical Islam

National Muslim Advocacy Day, being held Monday on Capitol Hill, is a cunning bid by radical Islam to gain political power in the U.S., counterterrorism expert John Guandolo tells Newsmax TV.

“This kind of event has several key elements to it. The first is they’re trying to declare the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations is a Muslim political party in the U.S. and candidates are going to have to be vetted by them,” Guandolo, a former FBI agent, said on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”

It’s also a demonstration to the Muslim community in the U.S. and outside the U.S. that they have a very heavy hand inside our leadership realm and inside Washington, D.C.

“Because here are open Hamas organizations — the American Muslims for Palestine, the Council on American Islamic Relations — and they’re just wandering freely around the D.C. area.”

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations describes itself as “a coalition of leading national and local American Muslim organizations.”

The event is expected to draw Muslim delegates from across the nation and will “connect national, regional and state Muslim organizations, community members with more than one-third of the U.S. House of Representatives and a half of the Senate,” the group said in a statement.

But Guandolo — author of “Raising a Jihadi Generation: Understanding the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in America,” published by Guandolo Associates LLC — said the event is a “smaller piece in the larger civilization jihad.”

“[That] is the term the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic memorandum says that they are doing. So this political warfare, subversion, and propaganda … fulfills a part of that,” he said.

“No. 1, they have a political presence. [And] It’s political warfare in the sense they’re establishing a much louder voice, at least in their opinion, up on Capitol Hill.

“And [there’s] the idea that, ‘Hey, members of Congress, if you don’t accept us, then you obviously are racists, bigots, and Islamophobes.”’

Guandolo said he was surprised some participants would even be allowed on Capitol Hill “without the FBI, DHS, and Capitol police arresting them — because these guys are leaders of Hamas in North America.”

Grover Norquist Stays on NRA Board

Grover-Norquist-2-AFP-Getty-Images-640x480Breitbart, by AWR HAWKINS, April 13, 2015:

On April 11, the NRA board of directors were announced at the Nashville convention, and they included Grover Norquist, the NRA board member over whom Glenn Beck threatened to quit the NRA.

According to Mediate.com, in mid-March Beck threatened to quit the NRA if they did not end their relationship with Norquist. Beck said these things due to his concern that Norquist had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and he claimed that the NRA reacted to his concerns by launching an investigation into Norquist.

Beck then made clear what he intended to do if Norquist were re-elected: “If this man is elected, or re-elected and confirmed on the board of the NRA, I may drop my membership in the NRA.”

We are about to find out how serious Beck’s commitment to quitting really is, because Norquist’s re-election to the board was announced on April 11.

The Hill reports that Beck already quit the GOP over “Obamacare and illegal immigration.”

Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney also voiced concerns about Norquist, and Norquist responded by saying the allegations against him were old charges that were simply being recycled.

He was re-elected in a board election that was nothing if not ordinary.

Also see: