In Search of the ‘Moderate Islamists’

pic_giant_091514_SM_Hasmas-Muslim-BrotherhoodBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

It is not out of ignorance that President Obama and Secretary Kerry are denying the Islamic roots of the Islamic State jihadists. As I argued in a column here last week, we should stop scoffing as if this were a blunder and understand the destructive strategy behind it. The Obama administration is quite intentionally promoting the progressive illusion that “moderate Islamists” are the solution to the woes of the Middle East, and thus that working cooperatively with “moderate Islamists” is the solution to America’s security challenges.

I wrote a book a few years ago called The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America that addressed this partnership between Islamists and progressives. The terms “grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted from an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that lays bare the Brotherhood’s overarching plan to destroy the West from within by having their component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and opinion elites.

The plan is going well.

As long as the news media and even conservative commentators continue to let them get away with it, the term “moderate Islamist” will remain useful to transnational progressives. It enables them to avoid admitting that the Muslim Brotherhood is what they have in mind.

As my recent column explained, the term “moderate Islamist” is an oxymoron. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive sharia imposed. There is nothing moderate about sharia even if the Muslim in question does not advocate imposing it by violence.

Most people do not know what the term “Islamist” means, so the contradiction is not apparent to them. If they think about it at all, they figure “moderate Islamist” must be just another way of saying “moderate Muslim,” and since everyone acknowledges that there are millions of moderate Muslims, it seems logical enough. Yet, all Muslims are not Islamists. In particular, all Muslims who support the Western principles of liberty and reason are not Islamists.

If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate. There is, moreover, less to their nonviolence than meets the eye. Many Islamists who do not personally participate in jihadist aggression support violent jihadists financially and morally — often while feigning objection to their methods or playing semantic games (e.g., “I oppose terrorism but I support resistance,” or “I oppose the killing of innocent people . . . but don’t press me on who is an innocent”).

Understandably, the public is inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to people the government describes as “moderates” and portrays as our “allies.” If transnational progressives were grilled on these vaporous terms, though, and forced to concede, say, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the purportedly “moderate opposition” our government wants to support in Syria, the public would object. While not expert in the subject, many Americans are generally aware that the Brotherhood supports terrorism, that its ideology leads young Muslims to graduate to notorious terrorist organizations, and that it endorses oppressive Islamic law while opposing the West. Better for progressives to avoid all that by one of their dizzying, internally nonsensical word games — hence, “moderate Islamist.”

I rehearse all that because last week, right on cue, representatives of Brotherhood-tied Islamist organizations appeared with Obama-administration officials and other apologists for Islamic supremacism to ostentatiously “condemn” the Islamic State as “not Islamic.”

As I recount with numerous examples in The Grand Jihad, this is the manipulative double game the Brotherhood has mastered in the West, aided and abetted by progressives of both parties. While speaking to credulous Western audiences desperate to believe Islam is innately moderate, the Brothers pretend to abhor terrorism, claim that terrorism is actually “anti-Islamic,” and threaten to brand you as an “Islamophobe” racist — to demagogue you in the media, ban you from the campus, and bankrupt you in court — if you dare to notice the nexus between Islamic doctrine and systematic terrorism committed by Muslims. Then, on their Arabic sites and in the privacy of their mosques and community centers, they go back to preaching jihad, championing Hamas, calling for Israel’s destruction, damning America, inveighing against Muslim assimilation in the West, and calling for society’s acceptance of sharia mores.

The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando reports on last Wednesday’s shenanigans at the National Press Club. The Islamist leaders who “urged the public to ignore [the Islamic State’s] theological motivations,” included “former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, [who] later wrote on Twitter that IS [the Islamic State] ‘is not a product of Islam,’ and blamed the United States for its emergence.”

Also on hand were moderate moderator Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va. All of these Islamists are consultants to the Obama administration on policy matters; Magid is actually a member Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Where to begin? CAIR, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is a Muslim Brotherhood creation conceived to be a Western-media-savvy shill for Islamic supremacism in general, and Hamas in particular. At the 2007–08 terrorism-financing prosecution of Hamas operatives in the Holy Land Foundation case — involving a Brotherhood conspiracy that funneled millions of dollars to Palestinian jihadists — CAIR was proven to be a co-conspirator, albeit unindicted. Mr. Bedier, who is profiled by the Investigative Project here, is a notorious apologist for Hamas — the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, which is formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law. He also vigorously championed such terrorists as Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Sami al-Arian (who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide material support to terrorism).

I’ve profiled MPAC here. It was founded by disciples of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and champions of both Hezbollah and the Sudanese Islamists who gave safe-haven to al-Qaeda during the mid Nineties. After the atrocities of September 11, 2001, MPAC’s executive director, Salam al-Marayati, immediately urged that “we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list.” Without a hint of irony, MPAC’s main business is condemning irrational suspicion . . . the “Islamophobia” it claims Muslims are systematically subjected to. Like many CAIR operatives and other purveyors of victim politics, MPAC officials tend to double as Democratic-party activists.

Read more at National Review

CAIR LEADER LIES: “Islamic State is NOT Islamic”

 

Published on Sep 14, 2014 by theunitedwest

Following President Obama’s humorous non-sequitur, “the Islamic State is NOT Islamic…” Foxs’ Megyn Kelly tangled with Hassan Shibly the leader of CAIR, Florida as he attempted to defend the President’s incoherent statement. Following Shibly’s efforts to position himself, his organization CAIR and Islamic doctrine as something separate and distinct from the beliefs of the Islamic State, The United West is releasing this video expose’ about Hassan Shibly, CAIR and their parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood showing how these Muslim Brotherhood individuals and organizations are indeed in the business of Islamic propaganda. Check out Tom Trento’s investigative report on Muslim Brothers who have infiltrated the Obama Administration and work in collaboration with the President.

 

Megyn Kelly vs Muslim Guest (Hassan Shibly) Is Isis Islamic Or Not?

Has the New York Times Just Provided Proof of Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations in the U.S.?

McCain-Brookings-Institutionby Katie Gorka:

For years, a handful of national security experts, NGOs, and members of Congress have been trying to raise a red flag over what they suspected were active influence operations by the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

(The RAND Corporation defines influence operations as “the collection of tactical information about an adversary as well as the dissemination of propaganda in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent.”)

On June 13, 2012, five members of Congress called for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence operations in the Obama administration.  The five members– Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Rooney (R-FL), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)– were widely criticized for doing so, even by their own Republican leadership, including John McCain (R-AZ), John Boehner (R-OH), and Mike Rogers (R-MI).

At the time, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said, “It’s not right to question the loyalty of fellow Americans without any evidence.”  Well, now we have the evidence.

The New York Times published a comprehensive article on September 7th entitled, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks.”  The article documents multi-million dollar donations to Washington-based think tanks that include the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council, by foreign governments as a way of buying influence in Washington.

For example, the government of Qatar made a $14.8 million donation to the Brookings Institution.  It is a matter of public record that Qatar is a key funder and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and, indeed, that supporting Muslim Brotherhood parties has been a cornerstone of Qatar’s foreign policy.

According to Middle East Monitor, The Emir of Qatar, Shaikh Tamim bin-Hamad, said that support for the Muslim Brotherhood is a “duty” for which no thanks are necessary.  Qatar is home to the pro-Brotherhood channel Al Jazeera, to Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Qatar has directly funded a number of Muslim Brotherhood entities, including Hamas and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar has also provided refuge to many exiled Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

While The New York Times does not make explicit the link between Qatar’s position on the Muslim Brotherhood and its support for the Brookings Institution, the Times does report that the former prime minister of Qatar sits on the Brookings board and that Brookings staff meet regularly with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities.  The report says that Qatar’s large donations to Brookings buy something of a guarantee that Brookings will burnish the image of Qatar.  It does not go into specific policies or positions that Brookings has advanced as a result of this alliance. But a close look at Brookings’ publications makes clear that promoting the Muslim Brotherhood has been a key part of that agenda.

In particular, Shadi Hamid, Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center, has consistently argued that the United States must learn to live with political Islam and that supporting the “non-violent” Muslim Brotherhood is the West’s only way of forestalling further radicalization and future threats from the “violent” Islamists such as Al Qaeda. For example, in one article, Shahid argued that the U.S. should exert its influence in Egypt and Jordan to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in the upcoming elections: “With much-anticipated elections in both countries scheduled for 2010 and 2011, the Obama administration as well as the U.S. Congress have the opportunity to weigh in and address the question of Islamist participation, something they have so far avoided doing.”

The fact that the New York Times has provided proof of foreign-government influence operations in America’s national security community should now raise serious concerns about some major policy decisions in recent years, where foreign interference was suspected but never proven.

Read more at Breitbart 

Revealed: Hamas-Backing Qatar, Also Funding Brookings Institute, Home of Former U.S. MidEast Envoy Indyk‏

Israeli President Shimon Peres shaking hands with nited States Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Martin Indyk. Photo: Mark Neiman/GPO.

Israeli President Shimon Peres shaking hands with nited States Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations Martin Indyk. Photo: Mark Neiman/GPO.

The Algemeiner, by Dave Bender:

Questions are emerging over possible conflicts-of-interest after The New York Times highlighted Qatari funding for U.S. think tanks, including the Brookings Institute, employer of  former U.S. envoy Martin Indyk, who was directly involved in recent negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

“Qatar, the small but wealthy Middle East nation, agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world,” according to The Times.

The report comes just weeks after Israel vociferously voiced objection to Qatar’s funding of its major adversary, terror group Hamas.

In July, then Israeli President Shimon Peres told United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who was visiting the region, that Israel would not stand by while Qatar continued to finance Hamas militants.

In his last full day in office, Peres, a historically dovish leader, struck a defiant tone in a statement delivered to the media after meeting Ban at the President’s Residence, in Jerusalem.

“Qatar does not have the right to send money for rockets and tunnels which are fired at innocent civilians,” Peres said. “Their funding of terror the must stop.”

Newsweek‘s Benny Avni reported that the Qatari government also paid for the UN Secretary-General’s flight through the Middle East at the time, where his first stop was Doha, where he denounced Israel’s Operation Protective Edge.

While Brookings said its personnel were “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in 2012, The Times noted, the Qatari foreign ministry said that – thanks to a new accord with the institute, “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.”

Additionally, in a recent report appearing in the UK-based Telegraph, both Qatar and Kuwait were singled out for openly, and even avidly, aiding fundraising efforts for Islamic State/ISIS terrorists who are currently engaged in fierce clashes with the Syrian army alongside Israel on the Golan Heights.

Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal, who lives in the Qatari capital, Doha, said on Aug 21, that “Our relationship with Qatar is not new… We appreciate Qatar’s stand, the brave political stand of its government and people,” after a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. “Qatar’s support is not just for Hamas movement, the country extends its support to all the Palestinian people,” Meshaal said, according to local media.

In comment over the figures in The Times’ report, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of Jerusalem-based funding watchdog, NGO-Monitor, told The Algemeiner that, “Indyk’s Brookings activities have been a part of the focus of this article, and the fact that Qatar is a primary funder of Brookings and that Qatar is also a major funder of Hamas are very clear conflicts of interest that Indyk never acknowledged, which makes all of the activities even more problematic than before.”

“Indyk was never forthcoming about that issue, and that’s the overall criticism that he’s faced,” Steinberg said.

Steinberg says that the report exposes a wider issue of NGO influence on U.S. and Israeli politics.

“This is a problem that Israel has faced for 20 years, and now it’s clear that this is something that the Americans are waking up to,” he noted.

“This isn’t just about Qatar,” he said. “It’s about Norway, it’s about the European Union. What the article didn’t say, for instance, was that the European Union provides money to political groups, NGOs, and think tanks, to lobby against the death penalty.”

“And, of course, they’re heavily manipulating Israeli politics in a much more intensive effort, basically to control the Israeli democratic process on issues like war and peace, and boundaries.”

Steinberg said that such issues “…have to be addressed just like funding for academic programs that specialize in the Middle East and are funded by Saudi Arabia, or another oil-rich countries; all are problematic because they inevitably have the spin the donor puts on them.”

On Facebook, commentator Rabbi Shmuley Boteach termed the article, a “devastating expose” of the Brookings Institute as an “agent of Qatar.”

 

Also see:

Islamists Pressure FBI to Drop Training on Muslim Brotherhood

The Council on American Islamic Relations' National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (left) with founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right. (Photo: © Reuters)

The Council on American Islamic Relations’ National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (left) with founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right. (Photo: © Reuters)

Teaching about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is essential to counter-terrorism prosecutions, and the challenges facing the U.S. today.

By Ryan Mauro:

A political alliance of 75 organizations led by Islamist supporters has published a letter demanding the removal of anti-Muslim material from FBI training. This purported objective is incontestable, but the thinly concealed objective is to end instruction about the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

The letter refers to legitimately offensive instances of anti-Muslim content in FBI documents, specifically a 2005 memo that used the fake name of “Mohammed Raghead.” Derogatory language has no place in governmental instruction.

However, this legitimate example of inappropriate teaching is conflated with examples of appropriate teaching that makes Islamists uncomfortable. It is another application of the “Islamophobia” strategy that has been used by Islamists for decades.

The bloc tries to put the “Mohammed Raghead” transgression in the same category as the work of John Guandolo, former FBI Special Agent who served in the counterterrorism division of the Washington Field Office.

Guandolo is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and developed a training curriculum on the topic in 2006 that was endorsed as “groundbreaking” by the FBI’s executive assistant director. You can read the Clarion Project’s interview with Guandolo here.

The letter states, “Echoing the ‘red under every bed’ hysteria of the McCarthy era, Guandolo believes that ‘hundreds’ of covert members of the Muslim Brotherhood are active in the United States…”

Simply acknowledging the existence of Muslim Brotherhood activities in the U.S. is branded as anti-Muslim, even though internal documents belonging to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood are publicly available and show a large presence of the group in the U.S.

In the Holy Land Foundation trial, the Justice Department even identified several entities of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and labeled them unindicted co-conspirators. One of these, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), belongs to the coalition protesting FBI education about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more at Clarion Project

JIHADIS AND FELLOW TRAVELERS WANT A USG RE-EDUCATION PROGRAM

muslimgroupcoalitionBreitbart, by CLARE M. LOPEZ:

In a chilling 14 August 2014 letter to Lisa O. Monaco, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism advisor at the National Security Council (NSC), reminiscent of the Red Chinese and Soviet gulags, a group of 75 signatories urged the Obama administration to “implement a mandatory retraining program for all federal, state, and local law enforcement officers” who have been exposed to “anti-Muslim” training.

Former FBI counter-terrorism Special Agent, former head of the FBI SWAT team and former combat Marine John Guandolo– a member of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) Team B IIand Founder of Understanding the Threat– was singled out for particular criticism, as was FBI analyst William Gawthrop.

Among the signatories to the letter are CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S. HAMAS wing), the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC), which includes Helping Hand for Relief & Development USA, the charitable wing of Muslim Brotherhood front group, Islamic Circle of North America), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), whose Executive Committee includes the likes of Siraj Wahhaj (named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Ihsan Bagby (member of several U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations including the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)). To round out the Islamic representation, there are two Shi’ite affiliates, the Imam Hussain Islamic Center and Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA, which seems to have only a Facebook presence online).

Joining them in signing the letter was a gaggle of fellow travelers drawn from across a span of leftist organizations. Perhaps it’s all the ghastly publicity from the Middle East that’s been drawing attention to how Islamic Law (shariah) really looks when it’s implemented in all its barbaric fulsomeness. Or maybe the signatories just decided it was time for the old Red-Green alliance to reprise the glory days of its original efforts to remove training about how Islamic terrorism takes its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, when a 19 October 2011 letter to Monaco’s predecessor, John Brennan, succeeded in launching a U.S. government-wide purge of such curriculum. Then again, it’s possible somebody pulled out a dog-eared copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to review some tips on how to neutralize Guandolo’s stunningly effective law enforcement training about Islam, shariah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Red-Green coalition obviously has realized (likely with dawning horror) that even if Guandolo weren’t still out there reaching sheriffs’ departments across the country, the residual effects of earlier pre-purge training still inform countless law enforcement counterterrorism programs. And the thought that such training lately must only be reinforced by the never-ending stream of atrocities out of the Middle East may have been just enough to tip the group over into serious panic. Hence the letter to Ms. Monaco to urge a little brainwashing, just to make sure nobody somehow connects any of those awful beheadings and crucifixions with Islam (see Qur’anic verses 8:12 and 5:32-33 for details).

First came the physical purge of the training materials. Now must follow the psychological purge of all those minds that absorbed that training. Stalin and Mao—never mind Qutb and Khomeini—would be so proud.

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

Also see:

American Muslim Organizations Pen Letter Against Surveillance of Islamist Groups

fbi_agents_AFPBreitbart, by KYLE SHIDELER:

Fresh off the successful elimination of the highly respected NYPD intelligence program, the Islamist-left alliance which seeks to utterly neuter American intelligence and law enforcement has set its sights on the last line of defense: your local law enforcement.

Federal Law enforcement has already faced a complete purge of training materials, aiming to eliminate any vestige of information regarding how Jihadi terror groups draw their threat doctrine from Islamic sources. Long established specialists on political Islam, counterterrorism, asymmetrical warfare and counterinsurgency have lost their jobs, been publicly ridiculed, or, if they wish to continue to instruct, suffer through turning over their intellectual work products to a faceless committee to determine what can and cannot be said about America’s enemies. This review committee is so secretive that even Congressional staffers on the relevant committees have been denied information about their identities.

That purge was kicked off by a letter sent by 57 organizations, including multiple organizations with known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Now, another letter has been sent featuring 75 organizations, including many of the same Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups.  As in the first purge, the letter writers claim to be responding to a news story featuring leaked classified information. In 2012, it was a Wired.com story by Spencer Ackerman. This time around it’s Glenn Greenwald (of Snowden fame)’s piece on the -completely legal- electronic surveillance of several individuals with known Islamic extremism and terror ties.

In the letter, the organizations call for an auditing of all intelligence and law enforcement training materials, and mandatory retraining for any federal, state or local law enforcement official who has ever received the training the group finds objectionable. They also seek to extend the training purge to any federal, state or local law enforcement organization which has receives federal money.

This reeducation program, if enacted by the Obama Administration, will represent a final victory for Islamists seeking to control U.S. policy on dealing with the jihadist threats.

Tellingly, the day prior to the letter’s official unveiling, Mohammed Elibiary, himself instrumental in the first training purge, essentially declared “checkmate” on twitter saying, “With my 22+ yrs in @GOP, friends thru out 100s US security/policing agencies & academia; no future presidency will reverse reforms underway.”

Sadly, Elibiary may be correct. If the pattern from the 2012 purge experience holds, we can expect a rapid response from the Obama administration in support of this letter, and equally rapid implementation of its demands. If so, at the very time respected Middle East analysts like Ali Khedary are saying that the Obama Administration “doesn’t take the threat of transnational jihad seriously,” we may find that no one, from the FBI, CIA and DOD analysts, to the small town sheriff’s deputies, will be so much as permitted to say the word jihad in their training.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy

**********

Gorka: 11 Years After 9/11 – What Went Wrong With American Policy

Published on Nov 3, 2012 by emetonline

 

Also see:

BLIND TO TERROR: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S DISASTROUS MUSLIM OUTREACH EFFORTS AND THE IMPACT ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY BY PATRICK S. POOLE

 

Michigan Rep Doubles Down on Support for Islamist Event

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (right), spoke at an Islamist event honoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the “Ground Zero Mosque” project (left).

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (right), spoke at an Islamist event honoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the “Ground Zero Mosque” project (left).

Rep. Rogers attendance at this event—and more importantly, his refusal to cancel after being given the facts—is a testament to the growing political influence of Islamists on members of the U.S. Congress from both political parties.

By Ryan Mauro:

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was booked as the keynote speaker for an Islamist event on May 30. The event honored Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who rose to prominence as the former leader of the “Ground Zero Mosque” project.

Rogers represents the 8th district in Michigan, which includes Dearborn — an Islamist stronghold in America.

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under the Reagan Administration, was the first to bring attention to the matter. He wrote a letter to Rep. Rogers asking him to cancel his appearance at the event.

The organization he embraced was the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD). It has a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Institute of Islamic Thought(IIIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that was once the subject of a federal terrorism-financing investigation. Its leaders met with then- President Morsi in September 2012, the Brotherhood leader of Egypt, where he “welcomed the participation of IIIT in the reform of higher education in Egypt.”

A confidential source inside the Muslim Brotherhood informed the FBI that IIIT is a Brotherhood front as early as 1987. The source reported that IIIT sought to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States,” with one stepping stone towards that end being to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.” The informant said IIIT leaders already “claimed success in infiltrating the United States government with sympathetic or compromised individuals.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Florida Congressman Accepts Money from Radical Muslim Group

garcia-joe-450x321

Click here if you wish to sign a petition to encourage Congressman Garcia to return the money that he received from Emerge. Please be respectful in your comments.

by :

Emerge USA is a Florida-based organization whose unstated goal is to give radical Muslims a political voice in America. One way they do this is by getting their leaders placed in key positions of power. Another way is by making friends with those already in power. United States Representative from Florida, Joe Garcia, is one of those friends. He has accepted thousands of dollars from Emerge for his 2014 reelection bid, and he has returned the favor by helping the group raise more money.

Earlier this month, Emerge held its annual fundraising dinner in Miami, at the DoubleTree Hotel and Airport Convention Center. Featured at the event was Sayed Ammar Nakshawani, an Islamic lecturer from England who is a devotee of Iran’s deceased terrorist leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and who has called for the destruction of Israel.

In a speech found on YouTube and the lecture section of his website, titled ‘Sayed Khomeini’s Quds Day,’ Nakshawani states, “The shame in this world is that, if we put ourselves down to a two-state solution, we would allow a country which has broken 60 UN resolutions to have their own freedom of peace. It is barbaric that this Zionist state is allowed to continue.”

Emerge advertised Nakshawani in an event flyer as well as an Emerge-produced video of Nakshawani telling people to attend.

Given Emerge’s past, having this man speak was no surprise. What was a surprise, though, was that a sitting U.S. Congressman, Joe Garcia, would also be speaking at the event, even after the leader of his political party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, cancelled her keynote address in front of the same group just two years prior.

One of the two co-chairmen of Emerge is South Florida attorney Khurrum Basir Wahid. According to his bio, Wahid specializes in defending “individuals charged with allegedly committing or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism.”

Wahid’s clients include: Rafiq Abdus Sabir, who received a 25 year prison sentence for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda member Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was given a life sentence for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush; Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, who is presently under house arrest in Virginia; and Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, a Miami, Florida imam who was convicted of funneling tens of thousands of dollars to the Taliban for the express purpose of murdering American troops.

Prior to helping found Emerge, Wahid was a legal advisor for the national office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a director of CAIR’s Florida chapter. In 2007 and 2008, CAIR was named by the U.S. Justice Department as a co-conspirator to the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas.

In 2011, Wahid himself was placed on a U.S. government terrorist watch list.

Read more at Front Page

Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?

670876846CSP, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD) is a Washington-based non-profit organization that, like many working these portfolios, happens to have worrisome ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is, moreover, engaged in a top priority of what the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” – namely, interfaith dialogue. The Brothers cynically engage in such “bridge-building” in order to induce individuals and institutions of other creeds to provide them with political cover, thereby enabling subversive Islamist efforts to insinuate into this country the supremacist shariah doctrine – all in the name of religious freedom.

On May 30th, the ICRD will further display its true colors. It will have as its guests of honor at a gala fundraising dinner two preeminent stealth jihadists – Faisal Rauf and his wife, Daisy Khan. The couple gained international notoriety in 2010 when they sought to build a 15-story mosque complex in a building so close to Ground Zero that it was badly damaged in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

The only surprise in all of this is the dinner’s keynote speaker: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI).

Now, I am personally fond of Rep. Rogers. In the land of the blind that is our Congress – which is almost completely bereft of lawmakers who focus on national security, let alone provide leadership in that portfolio – he is the one-eyed man, for sure. He has been willing to tell the truth about the world becoming more dangerous when few in his party, let alone the Democrats in Washington, have done so. A former Army officer and FBI special agent, he has championed a strong defense and sought to stave off the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater impulses of legislators determined to dismantle the NSA in the wake of the Snowden treachery.

So, I wrote the chairman last week laying out the ties between the ICRD and various American Muslim Brotherhood fronts and leaders. These include: one of the Brotherhood’s preeminent fonts of ideological purity, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT); the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement (AMCE), whose stated mission is to secure “the deliberate appointment of qualified Muslims to key advisory bodies and policy-relevant positions in government in order to shape U.S. policy choices”; and, through the AMCE, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). ICNA, ISNA and CAIR were listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history: U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, et.al.

Consequently, I urged Chairman Rogers in my 21 May letter to withdraw from the ICRD fundraiser: “While there is certainly no objection to qualified Americans, of any religion, serving in U.S. policy-making positions, it appears that members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a subversive terrorist organization with intimate ties to terrorism, are using the ICRD as a venue for an ongoing influence operation to manipulate U.S. policy. Your attendance at this event would risk further legitimizing this event to the detriment of U.S. national security.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Rep. Rogers has evidenced an inadequate appreciation of the civilization jihad the Muslim Brotherhood is waging inside the United States. (To read the Brotherhood’s secret plan for this jihad, see here.). Notably, in July 2012, he joined Senator John McCain and House Speaker John Boehner in criticizing Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other legislators. They had quite properly written five federal agencies’ inspectors general requesting investigations of the roles being played in shaping U.S. policies by individuals shown to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in this country (see: see Part 8 of the free, online course atwww.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com).

This is a particularly bad time for the chairman of the House intelligence oversight committee to have a blind spot with respect to Islamist influence operations. After all, the Obama administration appears determined to admit more Muslim Brothers into this country as they are being rolled up in Egypt. That would be the practical effect of its recent decision to rewrite unilaterally and extra-constitutionally federal immigration statutes by allowing individuals to apply for refugee status if they have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism. Last week, a young Egyptian Brotherhood sympathizer, if not member, appears to be the first to have put this opportunity to the test.

In addition, as Adam Kredo observed at the Washington Free Beacon, the Obama State Department is continuing the embrace of Islamists begun while Hillary Clinton was in charge:

The State Department’s Counter Terrorism (CT) Bureau promoted on Friday a controversial Muslim scholar whose organization has reportedly backed Hamas and endorsed a fatwa authorizing the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The CT bureau on Friday tweeted out a link to the official website of Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, the vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a controversial organization founded by a Muslim Brotherhood leader “who has called for the death of Jews and Americans and himself is banned from visiting the U.S.,” according to Fox News.

Mike Rogers is right that the world is becoming more dangerous thanks to the rising capabilities and malevolence of global jihadists. The reality, however, is that the threat is growing in no small part because of the success jihadists are having in undermining our situational awareness and subverting our policies. We need Chairman Rogers for the remainder of his tenure in Congress to be part of the solution to that problem, not compounding it with his own case of willful blindness.

Sedgwick County Sheriff Surrenders to Hamas

vlcsnap-231158UTT, By John Guandolo:

Sedgwick County Sheriff Jeff Easter today cancelled next week’s planned UTT 2-day training program, caving in to complaints by Hamas and local Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Wichita and other parts of Kansas.

For more details, watch the local ABC Report

The loudest complaints came from Hamas spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. Hooper works for the Hamas organization called the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). For those confused about CAIR being Hamas…

CAIR is HAMASIn a December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal – an Al Qaeda operative – the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.” A massive amount of evidence entered into the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation (“HLF”), Dallas, 2008) identified CAIR as the fourth organization created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in America. The Palestine Committee is Hamas. Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government.

When CAIR petitioned the Federal Court to remove it’s name from the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list in the HLF case, the trial Judge Jorge Solis wrote in his 2010 unsealed opinion, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.” CAIR was left on the Co-Conspirator list. CAIR appealed the ruling and the appellate court ruled unanimously to keep CAIR listed as an “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” in the largest Hamas trial in U.S. history because of the overwhelming evidence.

Other Muslims in the community who complained to the Sedgwick Sheriff’s office were leaders and spokesmen from the local Muslim Students Associations (the first Muslim Brotherhood organization established in America in 1963) and the Islamic Society of Wichita – a Muslim Brotherhood organization and a subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America which is the largest MB organization here and a financial support entity for Hamas per the evidence at the HLF trial.

These are the groups and individuals who have led the charge to shut this training down in Wichita…enemies of the United States.

Because of the nature of the threat from the Islamic Movement in the United States (an insurgency), the burden falls to local police to be the tip of the spear in countering their efforts here. When local police leaders are not aware of this and do not understand their critical role in the larger war, the war will be lost.

In the press release today the Sedgwick Sheriff’s Office stated: “The Sheriff’s Office will find an instructor, either from the Department of Justice or another subject matter expert to present such material in the future.” Unfortunately for Wichita law enforcement, this material is not being presented by any other organization in the nation besides UTT. A few years ago during a 3-day program at Headquarters Marine Corps for approximately 115 professionals from FBI (to include the National Joint Terrorism Task Force personnel), CIA, DHS, DIA, NSA, local and state police, military, and others, a Counterterrorism Supervisor from FBI Headquarters stood up in front of the entire crowd and stated he never heard any of the material presented but confirmed it was true and factual based on the evidence and materials presented. When asked, none of the other attendees were aware of this information either, including the men and women from the FBI’s National Joint Terrorism Task Force in attendance.

So, by canceling this training in Kansas, the Sedgwick County Sheriff has not only emboldened our enemy – namely the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas – he has ensured that local law enforcement will NOT get the very training they need to protect and defend their communities.

***********

Contact the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office HERE

WHAT ABOUT HUMA?

huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-apBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR:

Hillary Clinton is coming under scrutiny for serial fiascoes that occurred while she was Secretary of State. It’s about time.

These are among the decisions that Hillary made, or at least presided over, that are emerging as real liabilities – for the country, as well as for her future presidential prospects:

  • Mrs. Clinton refused to designate Nigeria’s Boko Haram as a terrorist group when various other government agencies urged to do so, long before it grabbed international headlines by kidnapping hundreds of schoolgirls.
  • She personally engineered the opening of formal relations with the Muslim Brotherhood before it came to power in Egypt. The latter was a strategic setback of the first order for U.S. interests, one that was facilitated by the Obama administration’s recognition and empowering of this jihadist group and by its undermining of our ally, Hosni Mubarak.
  • The Clinton State Department insisted that nothing be done to challenge the narrative that everything was going swimmingly in Libya after its “liberation” by jihadists backed by U.S.-enabled NATO air strikes. This folly, in turn, led to State’s refusal at the highest levels to authorize requested security upgrades for our special mission compound and CIA facility in Benghazi.
  • Hillary Clinton co-founded the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a multi-meeting “dialogue” with the European Union and the Islamists’ international front, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This initiative has been used to advance the OIC’s agenda of curbing free speech in America and elsewhere in the West that might “offend” Muslims – something Mrs. Clinton said she would use “old-fashioned techniques of peer-pressure and shaming” to ensure.
  • Such techniques, and worse, were evident in September 2012 when then-Secretary of State Clinton lied that a video that gave such offense was responsible for the attacks on U.S. missions and personnel in Egypt and Benghazi. She actually achieved her stated goal to have the person who made the almost-entirely-unseen internet film, “Innocence of Muslims,” arrested and prosecuted. In fact, to this day, that filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is the only individual punished in connection with the Benghazi attacks.

Such policy malpractice – or outright malfeasance – has already cost four Americans their lives and may lead to the loss of many more.

For that reason, the new House Select Committee on Benghazi must focus on the nature and consequences of Hillary Clinton’s conduct with respect to the policies that led up to the attacks of September 11, 2012; what transpired that evening; and the cover-up that followed. To really get to the bottom of these matters, however, Chairman Trey Gowdy and his colleagues must also examine with care the role played by a top Clinton lieutenant who has, to date, been almost completely unmentioned in the reporting, leaking, and congressional inquiries about Benghazigate: Huma Abedin.

This is all the more curious since Ms. Abedin (pictured, above) has extensive family and personal ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. (See Andy McCarthy’s rigorous analysis of those ties here.)

The question is this: How many of the dubious decisions involving U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially the aforementioned ones – pursuant to which the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists were consistently advanced – were influenced by a woman long associated with the world’s preeminent jihadist organization sworn to our destruction?

A similar question was formally posed nearly two years ago by Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) (a member of the Gowdy select committee), and Tom Rooney (R-FL) in a letter to the Inspector General of the Department of State. They requested that the IG conduct “a formal investigation or evaluation of the extent to which Muslim Brotherhood-tied individuals and entities have helped achieved the adoption of [several enumerated] State Department actions and policies, or are involved in their execution.”

Rep. Bachmann was personally savaged by Senator John McCain and others for having raised such perfectly legitimate questions. Ever since there has been little evident appetite – on Capitol Hill, in the media, or elsewhere – to pursue them and where they lead.

But now, the select committee has a mandate to get to the bottom of the Benghazigate scandal. If Rep. Gowdy and Company are to do so, they must examine with care the decisions about “State Department actions and policies” that led inexorably to that murderous attack – and that have the potential to threaten many more of us unless corrected. And doing that will require the select committee to establish precisely who the decision makers were and ensure that they are held accountable at last.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.

DHS Secretly Allowed Suspects with Terror Ties Into Country

 

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

U.S. Homeland Security police officers / AP

BY: Adam Kredo:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretly assembled a terrorist “hands off” list that permitted individuals with terrorist ties unfettered entrance into the United States, according to document released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa).

The existence of a “hands off” list that permitted easy entrance for suspect individuals into the United States has drawn concern from Grassley, who released a cache of internal DHS emails detailing the list’s existence and discussion about permitting an alleged member of the Muslim Brotherhood to enter the United States.

The emails—sent between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—reveal a row over the admittance of one alleged Muslim Brotherhood official tied to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terror groups.

While the individual in question is not named in the heavily redacted emails, the Washington Free Beacon has learned that the person referenced is Jamal Badawi, a Canadian Islamist leader who has praised suicide bombing and is close to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Additionally, the emails reveal a larger campaign by DHS and its former head Janet Napolitano to purge internal records of hundreds of terror suspects, including Badawi, who had his records purged in December 2010.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon and had reviewed unredacted versions of the emails indicated that many files pertaining to foreign terror suspects may have been purged by DHS. The sources said congressional investigators are currently looking into the matter.

The emails between ICE and CBP that were released by Grassley show confusion as to why Badawi was being permitted entrance into the United States.

“I’m puzzled how someone could be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, be an associate of [redacted], say that the U.S. is staging car bombings in Iraq and that [it] is ok for men to beat their wives, question who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and be afforded the luxury of a visitor visa and de-watchlisted,” one official wrote in the May 2012 emails released by Grassley.

“It doesn’t appear that we’ll be successful with denying him entry tomorrow but maybe we could re-evaluate the matter in the future since the decision to de-watchlist him was made 17 months ago,” the email states.

One of the unnamed officials goes on to state: “Based on a review of the statements of the subject, I think it is clear that he [Badawi] meets the definition of endorsing and inciting.”

Grassley, in his initial letter to DHS on the matter, asked that officials explain why Badawi was removed from the terror watch list and to “describe the nature, extent, and reasons for the involvement of the DHS secretary or her staff in the removal of the individual from the watchlist.”

Read more at Free Beacon

Brotherhood Influence Op Inside U.S. Academia: Success

Hartford Seminary

By Ryan Mauro:

In 1988, an FBI informant warned that the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood front, was focusing on getting “peacefully get inside” U.S. academia. Proof of that mission’s success comes in the form of Hartford Seminary, a non-denominational, interfaith graduate school with extensive Islamist ties.

IIIT’s latest newsletter has a photo of Dr. Heidi Hadsell, President of Hartford Seminary and Dr. Vanda MacMurty, chairman of Hartford Seminary’s board, visiting IIIT headquarters in Virginia on April 21.

The photo shows them standing next to IIIT leaders Yaqub Mirza, Jamal Barzinji, Abubaker Al-Shinghieti, Ermin Sinanovic and Hisham Altalib. Several of these IIIT officials are the original founders of the organization when it was set up as a Muslim Brotherhood front.

The picture is a symbol of the close relationship that IIIT has established with Hartford Seminary, including a $1 million donation to endow a faculty chair in Islamic Chaplaincy at the school in March 2013. Separately, Hartford received $17,500 in 2008 from an Iranian government front.

In July 2012, Dr. Hadsell spoke at an IIIT fundraiser where she thanked it for its assistance “particularly in the area of Imam training and education, and the study of Christian-Muslim relations in general.” She was also booked to speak at a scheduled IIIT event at the Woodrow Wilson Center on December 9 that was cancelled.

IIIT Executive Director Abubaker Al-Shingieti is a Hartford Seminary trustee.

Much more at Clarion Project

National Intel Partners: Islamists In, Muslim Reformers Out

Hooper and Awad

The U.S. gov’t is letting Islamist groups and their global propaganda machines determine who has ‘credibility.’

By Ryan Mauro:

Newly declassified documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that personnel in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI, or, for the ease of our readers,“National Intel”) were well aware of the work of anti-Islamist Muslim activist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, acknowledged that he was promoting the right message, but chose instead to favor and work with pro-Islamist groups.

As our previous expose showed, when five members of Congress specifically asked National Intel about their relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhoodentity, National Intel falsely told the congresspersons that it did not use Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and individuals for outreach. However, files show that such a relationship existed.

And while National Intel embraced groups with radical histories, Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam, was shunned. This happened even though one of Jasser’s writings was passed around National Intel as an example of the type of messaging that was needed.

***********

Impact on National Security From Embracing Islamists

When MPAC released its counter-terrorism study, Building Bridges to Strengthen America, National Intel was excited and receptive. Multiple emails were exchanged within National Intel to spread word of it. The office staff was invited to a MPAC briefing about it on April 8, 2010.

Then a two-hour meeting was arranged with MPAC’s Governmental Liaison on November 18, 2010.

Unfortunately, information about the Muslim Brotherhood in MPAC’s study is limited to this idea: “Conservative groups like the Muslim Brotherhood pose long-term strategic threats to violent extremists by siphoning Muslims away from violent radicalism into peaceful political activism.” [emphasis added]

The study also disputes the notion that the Brotherhood acts as a “conveyer belt” leading Islamists to engage in terrorism. Instead, MPAC presents the Brotherhood as a “conveyer belt” leading awayfrom violence. The footnote for the sentence references an article titled, “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.”

On October 25, 2011, MPAC announced that Building Bridges was cited in the National Intel’s National Counter-Terrorism Center and the Department of Homeland Security policy document, “Countering Violent Extremism: Guidance and Best Practices.” It was the sole non-governmental organization source.

Noticeably, the language used by MPAC study about the Brotherhood is similar to the language used by Clapper in his January 2012 testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

During that testimony, Clapper stated: “Al-Qaeda probably will find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services and advocate religious values. Non-violent, pro-democracy demonstrations challenge Al-Qaeda’s violent jihadist ideology and might yield increased political power for secular or moderate Islamist parties.”

When reading Clapper’s testimony, it’s easy to see the parallels between his opinion and those of the pro-Brotherhood groups that were advising his office.

MPAC also used its relationship with National Intel to complain about materials that it felt promoted “Islamophobia.”

For example, on July 11, 2012, MPAC’s Young Leaders Government Summit delegates met with National Intel and National Counter-Terrorism Center staff, including Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Stephanie O’Sullivan, National Intel’s Civil Liberties Protection Officer Alexander Joel and Matthew Rice of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Directorate of Strategic Operational Planning.

At that meeting, MPAC’s delegates complained about National Intel’s counter-terrorism policy plan titled, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.”

The section they took issue with reads: “…communities—especially Muslim American communities whose children, families and neighbors are being targeted for recruitment by Al-Qaeda—are often best positioned to take the lead because they know their communities best.”

Virtually anyone reading this would view the statement as being pro-Muslim in nature. It states the factual problem — Al-Qaeda recruitment of Muslims — and says that Muslims are the solution. Further,  it assumes that Muslims are also against Al Qaeda.

But for MPAC’s delegates, the mere acknowledgement that Al-Qaeda would like to recruit Muslim-Americans is offensive.

In a follow-up later on July 17, 2012, MPAC again criticized the policy plan because it “assumes that young American Muslims are susceptible to the threat” and that could cause their “marginalization.”

MPAC was also upset with a National Intel calendar that had photos of terrorists on it because it “disproportionately presented terrorists from Muslim majority countries. It also insinuated a problematic message: That only Muslims are terrorists.” The group warned of “unintended consequences” negatively affecting Muslims.

Read more at Clarion Project