Losses in Midterms for Candidates Who Supported Islamists

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (l) was opposed by prominent Islamists Omar Suleiman (upper right), Zahra Billoo (bottom right) and Hatem Bazian for comments the governor made at an Islamists conference in support of Israel.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (l) was opposed by prominent Islamists Omar Suleiman (upper right), Zahra Billoo (bottom right) and Hatem Bazian for comments the governor made at an Islamists conference in support of Israel.

By Ryan Mauro:

Yesterday’s congressional elections resulted in losses for numerous candidates who have supported American Islamists. The biggest defeat came in the form of the re-election of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, who became the Islamists’ top target after he briefly endorsed Israel’s right-to-exist at a major Islamist conference.

Failure to Stop Michigan Governor’s Re-Election

In August, the Clarion Project reported on Governor Snyder’s decision to speak at the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity whose events are full of radical speakers.

Snyder had resisted pressure to drop his speaking engagement and his office unbelievably defended ISNA as a moderate organization that accepts Israel’s existence. At the event, Snyder praised the Islamist-filled speaker lineup.

However, one sentence the governor uttered triggered a ferocious blowback: “I’m a strong supporter of Israel and believe in its right to exist.” Islamists close to ISNA blasted him as anti-Muslim and disrespectful. ISNA itself then issued an action alert calling on Muslims to contact his office.

Despite the Islamist backlash against him, Snyder was re-elected.

Illinois Governor’s Re-Election Bid Fails

A second blow to Islamist political influence was delivered with the defeat of Illinois Governor Pat Quinn.

Quinn had praised the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity with documented links to Hamas. CAIR’s executive director recentlyendorsed sharia governance and rebuilding a caliphate.

In December 2013, Quinn was the keynote speaker for the radical convention of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim American Society, two groups with extensive histories of radicalism.

When Quinn was introduced, the speaker recalled meeting him at the Hamas-linked Mosque Foundation and declared, “This is the kind of governor that we support and that we like.”

Race for Maryland Governorship

A third defeat for the Islamists was the loss by of Lieutenant-Governor Anthony Brown in his bid to be Maryland’governor.

Brown spoke for a CAIR event in May even though official FBI policy prohibits participation in CAIR fundraisers due to its Hamas links.

Maryland’s current governor, Martin O’Malley, is a possible presidential candidate and CAIR has used O’Malley/Brown officialsfor fundraising, including even their attorney general.

The O’Malley-Brown administration also endorsed a $100-million mega-mosque project in Maryland supported by the Islamist government of Turkey. The project is also backed by ICNA and ISNA leaders.

O’Malley was also the chairman of the Department of Homeland Security’s Working Group on Violent Extremism that reviewed counter-terrorism training. The committee included officials from these same Islamist groups and produced Islamist-friendly guidelines.

Read more at Clarion Project

Facts & Evidence Expose MB/Hamas in Arizona While Local Media Collaborators Defend Stealth Jihadis

Screen-Shot-2014-09-20-at-11.16.17-PM-300x224UTT, By John Guandolo, Sep. 20, 2014:

Friday in Tempe, Arizona, UTT (Understanding the Threat) rocked the worlds of over 300 prosecutors and law enforcement officials by detailing the threat from the Islamic Jihadi Movement to the United States using facts and evidence.

The audience stated – without one dissenting voice – they were unaware of the information presented and the information is essential for them to protect the citizens of Arizona from the jihadi threat.  Most attendees were shocked and angered this kind of training is not made available to every local, state, and federal law enforcement officer in the nation.  They also realized why the specific Islamic organizations around Arizona so vigorously opposed the training…because it identifies those same organizations as a part of a massive jihadi network in America using facts and evidence.

Cries of bigotry and “islamophobia” rang out from the muslim community in Arizona led by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) organizations like CAIR, MAS (Muslim American Society), the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, and the Islamic Community Center of Tempe.

Local media outlets jumped in on the side of the jihadis by disparaging the training and its participants with ad hominem attacks without any mention of the massive amount of evidence which easily identifies these very organizations as Hamas/MB front groups.

A week prior to the event USA Today covered a story of the local NBC affiliate (Channel 12) which couldn’t even get the name of the UTT Founder John Guandolo right, referring to him as “Joe Guandolo.”   In that report, filed by Brahm Resnik, the reporter stated Guandolo posted a blog calling local Muslim leaders of CAIR, MAS, and the Islamic Centers of Tempe and Phoenix “Hamas and MB” because they opposed the training program for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.  In fact, one minute of research on Mr. Resnik’s part would have yielded evidence from the largest terrorism trials in U.S. history detailing that UTT posted this information because it is true and factual, not as a “smear” retort to pressure to shut the training down.

In fact, NBC Channel 12 used videos with the tagline “Courtesy of CAIR” on them, never once mentioning that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is one of four entities in America created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in America.  Nor did NBC Channel 12 or Mr. Resnik mention that CAIR’s entire purpose for being created is to serve Hamas in the U.S. and the discussion to created CAIR was at a 1993 meeting of the Hamas leaders in Philadelphia where the FBI tapped phones and microphones meeting rooms and discovered the founding leaders of CAIR (including their current Executive Director) are recorded in numerous conversations talking about all the things terrorists discuss when they don’t think anyone is listening.

Funny, but Mr. Resnik and NBC Channel 12 also failed to note that the U.S. Department of Justice stated in a December 2007 filing in a case of a jihadi caught overseas that “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”

Several years ago the FBI cut off all formal contact with CAIR because of their ties to Hamas.  I guess Mr. Resnik and Channel 12 are smarter than the FBI.

Immediately following the event, local Phoenix Fox News 10 reporter Mia Garcia participated in a propaganda piece for our enemies which detailed protests against the UTT training in Tempe by “Muslim student groups” and allowed an unidentified woman to rant about the training, even claiming Guandolo stated “all Muslims” are somehow connected to terrorism – which is an outright lie.  UTT makes it clear during all training that there are a number of people who self-identify themselves as “Muslim” who do not subscribe to Sharia law or jihad and are not involved in these activities in any way.

What Ms. Garcia also failed to mention was the fact the Muslim “student group” protests were organized by the local Muslim Students Association (MSA).  The MSA was the first national Islamic organization created in America in 1963 by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and today serves as a primary recruiting node by the MB for student age Americans for jihad.

Interestingly, neither NBC Channel 12 nor Fox News 10 in Phoenix mentioned anything about the US v Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history – which identified the largest Islamic organizations in America as a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here whose stated goal is to wage Civilization Jihad  “eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The FBI 2004 raid in Annandale, Virginia where the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America were discovered were was also left of the list of things these “news” outlets failed to note.

Had any of this come across their radar, they would have known that local Arizona representative of the Muslim American Society (MAS) that continues to loudly protest this training represents and organization which has been identified by the U.S. government  as the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood” here.

A little more research would have given Mr. Resnik and Ms. Garcia some insight into the mountain of evidence that the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was identified in the US v HLF trial as the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood on the continent.  NAIT’s financial records demonstrated they sent large sums of money over a period of years directly to Hamas leaders and organizations overseas which is why NAIT is identified by the U.S. government as a Muslim Brotherhood organization and an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case (largest Hamas case in American history) because they gave money directly to a designated terrorist organization.

The properties of the Islamic Centers in Tempe and Phoenix are owned by NAIT.

In the law enforcement world this is called an “Investigative clue.”

While other media outlets in Arizona have also been negligent in their silence on this matter, these two networks in particular – NBC Channel 12 and Fox News 10 – could only be grossly unprofessional at what they do, or willing partners with easily identifiable jihadi (terrorist) organizations.  Is there a third option?

That’s not a smear, these are facts.  In the law enforcement and prosecutorial world, we also call this “evidence of a crime.”

UTT shed light on the truth this week.  The enemy hates it which explains why they are so vehemently opposing it.

“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear their deeds will be exposed.”

The Buckley Program Stands Up for Free Speech

6a00d83451c36069e20168eb9dbef6970cBy Bruce Thornton:

The William F. Buckley Program at Yale University lately showed bravery unusual for an academic institution. It has refused to be bullied by the Muslim Students Association and its demand that the Buckley Program rescind an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak on campus September 15. Hirsi Ali is the vocal Somalian critic of Islamic doctrine whose life has been endangered for condemning the theologically sanctioned oppression of women in Islamic culture. Unlike Brandeis University, which recently rescinded an honorary degree to be given to Hirsi Ali after complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Buckley Program rejected both the MSA’s initial demand, and a follow up one that Hirsi Ali share the stage with one of her critics.

The Buckley Program is a rare instance of an academic organization staying true to the ideals of free speech, academic freedom, and the “free play of the mind on all subjects,” as Matthew Arnold defined liberal education. Most of our best universities have sacrificed these ideals on the altar of political correctness and identity politics. Anything that displeases or discomforts campus special interest groups––mainly those predicated on being the alleged victims of American oppression–– must be proscribed as “slurs” or “hateful,” even if what’s said is factually true. No matter that these groups are ideologically driven and use their power to silence critics and limit speech to their own self-serving and duplicitous views, the modus operandi of every illiberal totalitarian regime in history. The spineless university caves in to their demands, incoherently camouflaging their craven betrayal of the First Amendment and academic freedom as “tolerance” and “respect for diversity.”

In the case of Islam, however, this betrayal is particularly dangerous. For we are confronting across the world a jihadist movement that grounds its violence in traditional Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. Ignoring those motives and their sanction by Islamic doctrine compromises our strategy and tactics in defeating the jihadists, for we cripple ourselves in the war of ideas. Worse yet, Islamic triumphalism and chauvinism–– embodied in the Koranic verse that calls Muslims “the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men” because they “enjoin the right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah”–– is confirmed and strengthened by the way our elite institutions like universities and the federal government quickly capitulate to special interest groups who demand that we endorse only their sanitized and often false picture of Islam. Such surrender confirms the jihadist estimation of the West as the “weak horse,” as bin Laden said, a civilization with “foundations of straw” whose wealth and military power are undermined by a collective failure of nerve and loss of morale.

This process of exploiting the moral degeneration of the West has been going on now for 25 years. It begins, as does the rise of modern jihadism, with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Islamic revolution. The key event took place in February 1989, when Khomeini issued a fatwa, based on Koran 9.61, against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses, which was deemed “against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran,” as Khomeini said. Across the world enraged Muslims rioted and bombed bookstores, leaving over 20 people dead. More significant in the long run was the despicable reaction of many in the West to this outrage against freedom of speech and the rule of law, perpetrated by the most important and revered political and religious leader of a major Islamic nation.

Abandoning their principles, bookstores refused to stock the novel, and publishers delayed or canceled editions. Muslims in Western countries publicly burned copies of Rushdie’s novel and encouraged his murder with impunity. Eminent British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper suggested Rushdie deserved such treatment. Thirteen British Muslim barristers filed a formal complaint against the author. In their initial reactions, Western government officials were hesitant and timorous. The U.S. embassy in Pakistan eagerly assured Muslims that “the U.S. government in no way supports or associates itself with any activity that is in any sense offensive or insulting to Islam.”

Khomeini’s fatwa and the subsequent violent reaction created what Daniel Pipes calls the “Rushdie rules,” a speech code that privileges Islam over revered Western traditions of free speech that still are operative in the case of all other religions. Muslims now will determine what counts as an “insult” or a “slur,” and their displeasure, threats, and violence will police those definitions and punish offenders. Even reporting simple facts of history or Islamic doctrine can be deemed an offense and bring down retribution on violators. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, earned the wrath of Muslims in part for her contribution to Theo van Gogh’s film Submission, which projected Koranic verses regarding women on the bodies of abused women. Van Gogh, of course, was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. And this is the most important dimension of the “Rushdie rules”: violence will follow any violation of whatever some Muslims deem to be “insulting” to Islam, even facts. In effect, Western law has been trumped by the shari’a ban on blaspheming Islam, a crime punishable by death.

Read more at Frontpage

**********

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Urges Yale MSA To Refocus Energies

Published on Sep 17, 2014 by Washington Free Beacon

Think Tanks for Sale or Rent

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
September 15, 2014

In a eyebrow-raising 4,000-word exposé, “Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks” published in the New York Times on September 7, Eric Lipton, Brooke Williams and Nicholas Confessore look into the novel issue of foreign governmental financing for American think tanks.

The trio found that while the total scope “is difficult to determine … since 2011, at least 64 foreign governments, state-controlled entities or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States-based research organizations.” Using the sketchy available information, they estimate “a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years. The total is certainly more.”

In exchange for this largesse, the research institutions in question offered their donors two main benefits: One, they pressured staff members both to “refrain from criticizing the donor governments” and “to reach conclusions friendly to the government [that had provided] financing.” And two, they have been “pushing United States government officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors’ priorities.” The result: Overseas money has thrown doubt on the legitimacy and objectivity of think-tank research while “increasingly transforming the once-staid think-tank world into a muscular arm of foreign governments’ lobbying in Washington.”

My responses, a week later, to this bombshell of a report:

Some of this funding has been given clandestinely, with think tanks taking money under the table while benefiting from a moral image of disinterestedness. In the most prominently egregious example, the government of Qatar, as the NYT reported, “funneled hundreds of millions to Hamas-led Gaza and encouraged its rocket and tunnel assault on Israel,” also signed a four-year $14.8 million deal in 2013 to fund the Brookings Institution where Martin Indyk serves as vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program. Indyk worked for Secretary of State John Kerry from July 2013 to June 2014 as special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. As someone on the same payroll as is Israel’s mortal enemy, how could Indyk be expected to act in a neutral way?

Martin Indyk (right) with his former boss, Secretary of State John Kerry.

The president of Brookings, Strobe Talbott, not only did not apologize or show a shred of embarrassment that foreign governments underwrote some 12 percent of his funding, but had the temerity to respond that “think tanks should take money from foreign governments.” Deploying such self-serving buzzwords as “governance” and phrases like “the philanthropic culture is changing,” he fatuously argued that it “is entirely appropriate for us to work with [governments] when we have the capacity to contribute analysis and prescription on issues that they are dealing with in the policy realm.”

 

The Brookings Institute, founded 1916, is both the oldest American think tank and a leader ​in taking monies from foreign taxpayers.

The Times article exposed – astonishingly – the corruption of liberal establishments such as the Brookings Institution, the Center for American Progress, and the National Democratic Institute. How honest, honorable, and unexpected from a newspaper that has become the nation’s billboard for unthinking liberal bromides. Conversely, the exposé found not a penny going to conservative institutions such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute. (If the Times continues with journalism of this caliber, I might even pay for its iPhone app!)

 

Mitchell Bard tells about the real Middle Eastern lobby working in Washington.

Similarly, concerning the Middle East, where the article mentions several countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) whose governments play this influence-and-opinion-buying game, not one of them is called Israel. This pattern emphatically verifies the thesis presented by Mitchell Bard in the subtitle his 2010 book, The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East (Harper). As Steven J. Rosen, formerly of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, notes, if “measured by level of effort, if not results, the Arab lobby is equal, or superior to, anything done by the friends of Israel.”

Finally, the Times exposé placed all think-tanks on the defensive. If white-shoe organizations like Brookings are on the take, none of us is exempt from suspicion. In this light, the organization I head (slogan: “Promoting American interests”) immediately issued a press release, “The Middle East Forum Takes No Funds from Foreign Governments,” which stated unequivocally that “we have never sought or taken funding from any foreign government, nor from any agent of a foreign government. And we never will.”

More broadly, as John B. Judis argues, “foreign funding of think tanks is corrupting our democracy.” Therefore, it’s time for all research organizations presenting themselves as providing objective analysis to take a similar pledge, or else to label clearly who bought and paid for their conclusions.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

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

CAIR goes after “National Security Summit” I’m moderating

By Allen West:

One of our cherished freedoms is our First Amendment right of free speech. It is a freedom the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us as a result of England’s attempt to silence their voices — as detailed in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence grievances.

So how is it we’ve come to a point in America where any special interest group feels it is entitled to or capable of silencing the voices of others? And even more disturbing, this special interest group is clearly aligned with America’s enemies.

The group of which I speak, of course, is the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR). We’ve addressed this group countless times here as an unindicted co-conspirator of the largest terrorist funding case in the United States, the Holy Land Foundation case in Houston, Texas.

As well, CAIR is listed on the FBI no-contact list as a result of its questionable affiliations. CAIR is nothing more than a Muslim Brotherhood front group in America and its fundraising efforts have served to benefit the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas. And when it comes to stifling free speech in America, let’s remember CAIR’s efforts to stymie Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s recognition at Brandeis University where their tactics of fear, intimidation, and coercion made the administration there fold like a cheap chair. CAIR used that success as a rallying cry in a fundraising email to its supporters — aka “stealth jihad terrorist sympathizers.”

cair-488x630

Now CAIR is using social media and the same ol’ tactics to try and cancel another event and this time they picked the wrong fight because I’m involved in it. CAIR very kindly posted the entire flyer on its Facebook page. Its part of a speaker series entitled, “Israel Security Summit: The Fight for Western Civilization, Israel-Global Jihad-America.” The panelists assembled include two retired U.S. military three-star generals, men who have dedicated their entire lives to the service of our Republic — one, LTG Boykin was an original founding member of U.S. Special Forces Operational Detachment (Delta): “Delta Force.” You can download the complete flyer here.

However, you can see CAIR is already starting its campaign to have this event cancelled. They’re using threats of violence to scare the community of Stoughton, Mass. Now, I have a simple question. Why is it when another Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) wants to hold a conference, no one is trying to get it cancelled? But that doesn’t mean there aren’t many of us who want to sound the alarm and educate our fellow Americans about the goals and objectives of these cultural jihadists.

cair-Twitter-630x539

Spare me the “Islamophobe” bovine excrement. I can’t think of a better time to have a panel to discuss Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaida, AQIM, AQAP, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, Jemmat al-Islamiya, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Taliban, Haqqani Network, Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Turkey — as you can see, we do have a problem with the rise of Islamic totalitarianism and jihadism globally.
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/cair-goes-national-security-summit-im-moderating/#3GeYolCsPs6QwiJJ.99

Also see:

American Muslim Organizations Pen Letter Against Surveillance of Islamist Groups (counterjihadreport.com)

 

 

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

 

Hollywood: Sharia-Compliant

20130813_HOLLYWOOD_movies_TV_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

Hollywood has rarely produced a trustworthy depiction of historical events. My own philosophy of historical fiction is that historic events should serve as background to the conflicts, aspirations, ambitions, betrayals and destiny of the principal characters in the story. Further, the plot in which these characters move – or, even better, when these characters move the plot itself – should not conflict with the historic events, but be in sync with those events. The principal conflicts should be between the characters, not between the story and history. I obeyed this rule while writing the Sparrowhawk series, and also my period detective novels.

Hollywood does not adhere to such rules. I don’t think it has even formulated them.

Thus we have such examples as the 1936 Charge of the Light Brigade, in which the sequence of events of the Indian Mutiny and the Crimean War was reversed (the war, 1853-1856; the mutiny, 1857).  Otherwise it would have required Errol Flynn to survive the Charge and travel to India to rescue Olivia de Havilland from Surat Khan’s filthy clutches. History was tweaked, but not by much, to accommodate the plot. The lavish 1968 Tony Richardson version, however, was a plotless anti-war statement, complete with animated period political cartoons and caricatured Victorian figures. And, because it was an anti-war statement, it was gorier than its predecessor.

There are innumerable films and TV series grounded in history. I could write a book about the subject. I might do that, some day. What looms largest in my mind, however, and at the moment, is David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia (1962). At the age of 17, when I first saw it shortly after its release, I was literally smitten by it. It got me to read up on World War One. Although I entertained doubts about its accuracy, it was a grand scale film, one of the last. My positive appraisal of it gradually diminished over the years, the more I learned about how and why the Allied campaign in the Middle East was conducted.

Clinching my final negative appraisal was Efraim Karsh’s August 9th, 2013 article, “Seven Pillars of Fiction,” originally published in the Wall Street Journal and reprinted by the Middle East Forum. It concluded that Lawrence was indeed a consummate charlatan, and that the “Arab Revolt” was a fiction invented by one ambitious Arab potentate and cashed in on by another, the Saudi “king,” Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. Saud sat out the war and did not participate in any of the warfare conducted against the Turks by Lawrence under the aegis of Hussein ibn Ali, the putative “Sharif of Mecca,” and Prince Faisal, one of his sons. Hussein also sought the title, “King of the Arabs.” I provide many more details of this pragmatic episode of “nation building” in my detective novel, The Black Stone.

It also led me to the conclusion that David Lean, one of the finest film directors to ever peer through a camera lens, was just another ingenuous dupe of the legend of Lawrence of Arabia. At the time, questioning the stature of T.E. Lawrence would have been treated as slanderous heresy. His film, which I still maintain is a magnificent example of what films could be, was inspired by and produced as a result of the success of Terence Rattigan’s 1960 play, Ross, which was closer to the truth in its depiction of Lawrence than was Lawrence of Arabia.

I’ve often written about Hollywood’s Leftist, anti-American crusade, and its penchant for obliging the sensibilities of offended Muslims in the past, for example, herehereherehere, and most recently, here, about the Disney/ABC Family Group‘s capitulation to the demands of the Hamas-connected Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that it cancel a TV program, “Alice in Arabia.” Nick Provenzo wrote about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2006, why Hollywood had little or nothing to say about it, and why Hollywood changed the villains from Muslims to “neo-fascists” in the production of Tom Clancy’s novel, The Sum of All FearsWikepedia has the “low-down” on why the villains’ identities were changed. The screenwriter, Dan Pyne, protesteth too much.

The Disney/ABC decision garnered little or no mention in the mainstream media, nor did the announcement that Disney/ABC would work with Muslim screenwriters to produce future programs that would not offend Muslim feelings or invite chares of blasphemy or “slandering” the good name of Islam. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Muslim Brotherhood front group, announced also that it would provide Disney/ABC with this “talent.”

That boils down to: MPAC wonks voluntarily installed by Disney/ABC as paid censors of its output.  It means: Disney/ABC is willing to submit to Islamic Sharia law, and avoid any criticism of Islam, and the Muslim wonks will be there to ensure that Disney/ABC complies.

*************

Hollywood is but one miserable wing of the “house” the Brotherhood and its Islamic terrorist allies wish to bring down and convert to their own brand of totalitarianism. Just as the Soviets infiltrated our government and our culture in the 1930’s, including Hollywood, just as Hollywood obeyed Washington and refrained from producing movies during World War II critical of our totalitarian ally, Josef Stalin’s Soviet Russia, Islam has made a key beachhead in Hollywood, to guide its Leftist denizens in the Sharia way.

Ultimately, it will not be the Brotherhood’s hands that will help to destroy America, but the pragmatic, amoral, manicured hands of Hollywood, busy “reimagining” it.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Islamists Put America On Trial While Shutting Down Free Speech

lawfare projectBreitbart, by :

Human Rights attorney and the director of the Lawfare Project, Brooke Goldstein, asserts that anyone who is brave enough to speak openly about terrorism and its connection to Islam may find themselves on the “receiving end of a frivolous and malicious lawsuit designed to silence and punish them.”

Goldstein claims over the last 15 years, Islamic groups like the Arab league and the OIC attempt to punish any type of speech they consider offensive to Islam. Moreover, she told Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and the host of Breitbart News Sunday  that such groups pair lawsuits with acts of violence and are becoming more aggressive about invoking fatwas, as they did to the Danish cartoonist. Goldstein, also pointed out that  violence and fatwas ensued across the Muslim world when the state department decided to blame a so called anti-Islam YouTube film for the attack on Benghazi.

The human rights and free speech advocate posits that the lawsuits and violence precipitates an inherent self censorship. Altogether these three free speech denying modalities comprise a phenomenon which Goldstein calls “Islamist Lawfare, which is the use of the law as a weapon of war to silence and punish free speech about these issues of public dissonance.”

Bannon asked Goldstein if she thought there was an over-hyping by the Conservative Right of Islamist overreach in America, or is there a real problem as in the UK, where Sharia Law is now becoming codified into English Common law. Goldstein replied that “I wish it was just hype. But what we can measure now, because this has been a strategy that has been pursued, is the effects of the lawfare.”

Goldstein cited one example where Islamist lawfare was carried out and resulted in a major act of terror on American soil. She referred to a community center and mosque called the Islamic Society of Boston, that in 2005 was being investigated for receiving Saudi funding and was breeding Wasabi Islamic radicalism. The mosque turned around and sued at least 17 media defendants tying up the courts in a two year process stymieing police and discouraging further investigations.

The mosque was able to continue its teachings and sponsorship of radical ideology. Unfortunately, several years later, the mosque  produced the two Tsarnaev brothers, responsible for the bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013, which killed three people including an eight year old boy and wounded many others.

Goldstein expressed her outrage that we have a policy in the government now where the words Islam and Jihad are being redacted from counter terrorism training manuals. She further points out that we have FBI officials and counter intelligence experts “that have been fired because they are Islamaphobic. We have Fort Hood which is reclassified as work place violence, not Islamist terrorism.”

Goldstein concludes that we have an uber PCness  in America that brands people, even if it’s a Muslim criticizing his own religion, as being an Islamaphobe.

***********

Recommended reading:

U.S. Islamists Fundraise for Virginia Congressman

Rabia demonstrators

BY RYAN MAURO:

A pro-Muslim Brotherhood group is holding a fundraiser on March 22 for Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA). The congressmen’s Islamist donors prompted one expert, Paul Sperry, to dub him “the Saudis’ new man in Congress” in the past.

Rep. Connolly has won the support of the leadership of Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights (EADHR) with his opposition to the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Its website shows its sole purpose is to advocate for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

EADHR co-founder, Akram Elzend, is leading the fundraiser. Each attendee is expected to give between $150 and $400 to his campaign. Elzend is an official of the Washington D.C. branch of the Muslim American Society. Federal prosecutors said in 2008 that it was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

Another EADHR leader and fundraiser host is Sameh Elhennawy, who was identified by an Egyptian newspaper as a member of the Brotherhood lobby in America.

The president of the group, Hany Saqr, is listed in a 1992 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood phonebook as a member of its Executive Office. The aforementioned Egyptian report also outed him as a member of the Brotherhood lobby in America.

EADHR co-founder Shaker El-Sayed is the imam of  Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a radical mosque with ties to the Brotherhood and Hamas. Last year, El-Sayed was recorded preaching in favor of violent jihad at a high school.

***

The American Islamists’ financial support for Rep. Connolly’s campaigns isn’t about bribery. A campaign is not won or lost on a few thousand dollars. It’s about access. It’s about becoming a trusted source of guidance for him and his staff….

Rep. Connolly is just another example of the Brotherhood lobby’s success.

Read more at Clarion Project

****************

In case you missed it here, one more time:

Part III – The settlement process (Published March 12, 2011) by John Guandolo

Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. 

Putting It Into Practice 

The above paragraph IS the MB strategy. Civilization-Jihad “by their hands” – OUR hands. The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for destroying the United States is to get us, specifically our leadership, to do the bidding of the MB for them. The Muslim Brotherhood intends to conduct Civilization Jihad by co-opting our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates. Be assured they are doing this with great success.

Political, military, law enforcement, media, and religious leaders are being duped across America by the MB leadership. The approach tactics differ depending on the targeted organization – ie for media the approach may be a “civil rights” basis, while for Christian leaders it will be based on the Muslims’ claiming they are “also followers of Jesus” without the explanation that to the Muslims, Jesus was a Muslim prophet.

Here is how it works: a leader of an MB front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for instance, who has been a Muslim Brother for 40 years, is a classically trained intelligence officer from a foreign nation, has been in the U.S. for 20+ years, and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, approaches a senior government official (usually with zero counterintelligence training). The Muslim Brother says he is from the largest and “most prominent Muslim organization in America” or words to that effect. He explains he has come to help the official discern fact from fiction about Islam and help deter “radicalization” as well as “Islamaphobia” in the local community. The Brother says he has experience in “building bridges” between the U.S. government and the Muslim community, and even produces photographs with other senior government officials and community leaders. The official, unaware ISNA is a MB and Hamas support entity, an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted Hamas case in U.S. history, and the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement here, begins working with this Muslim Brotherhood leader. They have discussions in the government office building where the senior official works, and the Muslim Brother tells the official ISNA is “moderate” (because he says so) but if he or any of the Muslims at ISNA hear of any “radicals” in the area, they will be sure to let the official know. They also talk about the Brother’s concern about how “aggressive” the U.S. government is perceived in the local Muslim community, and the “fear of backlash” against them. “We want to help you,” the Hamas/MB leader will say, “but we need assurances from you that you will not unnecessarily target Muslims for investigation or go into our Mosques unannounced. In exchage, we will besure to tell you if there is anything nefarious going on in the Muslim community.” The government official buys off on this and, in the interest ofdeepening the relationship with the Muslim and the community-at-large, the government official complies with the MB’s request and eases off. The two men have lunch weekly and develop a relationship – the government official thinks the Muslim Brother actually likes him. The Muslim Brother is actually quite likeable. He was trained to be “likeable” during his counterintelligence training in his home country, which he has perfected during his last 40 years of operating for many of those years in hostile countries before coming to the U.S.

Over time, the government official establishes policies and procedures based the advice given to him by the Muslim Brother, which the official has never backstopped to determine if it is factually accurate. A year later, evidence comes to light identifying the Muslim Brother and the true nature of his intentions. The government official must now make a choice. Does he cut off his relationship with his “Muslim friend” and, therefore, admit he was duped and created policies and procedures for his agency based on disinformation fed to him by a Muslim Brother? Or does he silence his subordinates who have brought facts forward clearly identifying the enemy? Sad to say, around the country today, the latter is occurring at a exponentially higher rate than the former.

This is Civilization-Jihad “by their hands,” and evidence of it can be seen in: our universities – many of which have MSA chapters and host Hamas and MB speakers on a regular basis with the support of university Presidents and Boards who silence students challenging the school or Hamas; our intelligence and national security apparatus where analysts and agents on the ground who understand the Muslim Brotherhood threat are disciplined, subject to internal investigations, and threatened with termination for doing their jobs, going after the MB, and speaking up about this threat; our war colleges – at which Muslim Brothers serve as Distinguished Professors or Chairs of Middle Eastern studies programs and pollute the dialogue and suppress any attempt to speak truth into the threats from the Islamic Movement; our financial institutions – many of which are “Shariah Compliant” per the MB’s request and atthe direction of the U.S. Treasury Department; our churches and synagogues – which only seem to outreach to Muslim Brotherhood front groups (note: ISNA is the certifying authority for all Muslim Chaplains in DoD and in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons) and which join the MB in protests against government investigations of anything “Muslim” or “Islamic” (e.g. Congressman King hearings); and the list goes on.

The MB Settled in America to subordinate the Constitution to Shariah. The “Process” by which they did it is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process.” Their methodology is to subvert the primary/foundational institutions in our nation and co-opt our leadership. At a quick glance it appears the score at halftime of this football game is 200-0 in their favor. Time for us to take off the baseball uniforms and engage the MB on the football field.

***************

Guess what else they are doing. Marrying into the families of their influence targets such as Christian Ministers. How can a Minister speak out against Islam when his daughter or son is married to a Muslim? Recall that John Kerry’s daughter is married to an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran.

UK Muslim Brotherhood Leader Featured Speaker At US Muslim Brotherhood Conference; US Officials Also Present

Anas Al-Tikriti

Anas Al-Tikriti

By gmbwatch:

The Muslim American Society (MAS) has announced that UK Muslim Brotherhood leader Anas Altikriti was scheduled to speak last week at a Washington DC conference titled ”Preserving Our Humanity, A Challenge for Democracy” and sponsored by the MAS Public Affairs and Civic Engagement division. According to the announcement, also scheduled to speak at the conference were representatives of the US State and Treasury Departments including Ambassador Richard Schmierer,  Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Anas Al-Tikriti himself is the son of Osama Al-Tikriti, one of the leaders of the Iraqi Islamic Party representing the Muslim Brotherhood in that country.  Al-Tikriti is one of the leaders of the British Muslim Initiative (BMI) and the head of Cordoba Foundation, both part of the UK Muslim Brotherhood. The GMDW reported in March that Altikriti, who once supported the Iraqi insurgency against the US, had been part of a White House meeting with an important Iraqi leader that included US President Obama.

The conference sessions at which Al-Tikriti spoke were titled “The Concept of the Arab Spring Versus the Discourse of Extremism” and “Developing the Modern Narrative on Islam and Civic Responsibility.” Altikriti’s co-speaker on the second panel was Dr. Hatem Bazian, President of the Americans for Palestine (AMP),  a Palestinian advocacy group with strong ties to both the US Muslim Brotherhood and to the Hamas support infrastructure in the US. Video from an April 2004 antiwar-rally shows Hatem Bazian calling for an “Intifada” in the US. Other leaders of the US Muslim Brotherhood speaking at the conference included:

  • Dr. Esam Omeish President Center for Libyan-American Strategic Studies and former President of the MAS

According to its website, MAS-PACE is described as follows:

MAS-PACE is a division of the Muslim American Society (MAS) organized as a civic and educational organization. Its primary purpose is to conduct public relations, educate and mobilize the American Muslim community to participate in public affairs and civic activities on a non-partisan basis, and to activate a new generation of community activists.

The MAS was identified in a Hudson Institute report, authored by the GMBDW editor, as a part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and closely tied to the Egyptian organization.

That UK Muslim Brotherhood leader Anas Al-Tikriti should appear in the US two times in the last two months in the company of US governmental officials, including at a White House meeting that included President Obama, should raise serious questions about US policy towards the Brotherhood in light of recent developments in the Middle East. Long-time US allies in the Gulf such as the United Arab Emirates, itself engaged in a serious struggle to rid itself of Brotherhood influence, already have serious questions about US policy in the region.

CAIR tries to shut down briefing on American jihadi networks

 

Sheriff Jenkins

Sheriff Jenkins

Allen West:

Some might say these are all isolated incidents. But connect these dots: this week we reported on the activists tied to the Muslim Brotherhood hosting a Democrat fundraiser. The Muslim Brotherhood’s own Explanatory Memorandum says “their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.” Our own president said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

So is it any surprise that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tried pressure tactics, threats and even a $15,000 cash bribe to shut down a recent counter-terrorism training program for Virginia law enforcement. As reported by World Net Daily, Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins did not stand down, and the training took place as scheduled – albeit with extra security.

Talk about audacity. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism funding case in America’s history. Where was the Virginia Attorney General? Where was U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder? (Oh, never mind).

Washington-based CAIR, an Islamic lobbying group shunned by the FBI due to its ties to terrorist groups, launched a weeks-long campaign to intimidate Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins into canceling the three-day program, titled “Understanding and Investigating Jihadi Networks in America.”

The lead trainer, former special FBI agent John Guandolo, presented evidence of the radical Muslim Brotherhood’s operations in the U.S. and their jihadi support network, along with a large amount of evidence demonstrating CAIR was created and continues to be an entity of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terror group.

Guandolo detailed for officers how this dangerous Islamic network in America radicalizes, trains and logistically supports jihadi operations in the United States and those launched from the U.S. against overseas targets.

World Net Daily also noted “CAIR has cultivated a number of political supporters, mainly among leading Democrats in Washington, including senior White House officials. Secret Service entry logs show CAIR officials have visited the White House several times during the Obama administration.”

Ladies and gents, first of all, please call Culpepper County Sheriff Scott Jenkins and applaud him for his stand. And if any of you reside in Virginia, please bombard the office of your State Attorney General and ask him “Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot”? As well, make the calls to the office of House Homeland Security Chairman Mike McCaul to hold an investigative hearing.

My fellow Americans, this is deadly serious. Further, since we appear to have an administration that embraces, supports and enables our enemy how can those actions not be described as “high crimes and misdemeanors?” And as for you progressive socialists, how exactly will you defend this?

GUARDIAN FUND LOGO

 

Sign up for updates from allenbwwest.com and donate to the Allen West Guardian Fund to help get minority conservative and veteran leaders elected.

 

 

Also see:

 

American Islamist Coalition Launches with Empty Rhetoric

New Coalition of U.S. Islamists to Attempt to Form Voting Bloc

CAIR unindictedBY RYAN MAURO:

In 1991, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directed its components to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’” in order to wage “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” Seemingly in fulfillment of that directive, eight Muslim groups (seven with solid Islamist records) will announce a coalition on March 12 to increase their political influence.

The new coalition will be announced at the National Press Club. Its name is the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) and one of its objectives is to develop a census that will “create a database that will be used to enhance political participation in upcoming elections.” This coalition undoubtedly will use these census results to make political candidates bend to their will.

U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO)

The Secretary-General of USCMO is Oussama Jamal. Press reports have alternatively titled him as the President and Vice President of the Mosque Foundation that has extensive links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. Jamal accuses the U.S. government of following the “Zionist agenda” in its counter-terrorism investigations and has questioned whether Arabs were actually involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The coalition consists of eight Muslim organizations. The only one without an extensive Islamist record is the Mosque Cares, part of the Ministry of Imam W. Deen Mohammed:

  • The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is labeled by the U.S. Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity (specifically part of its Hamas support structure) and an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The FBI has officially stopped using CAIR as an outreach partner and federal prosecutors have definitively said in court that CAIR uses deception to disguise its involvement with terrorists.
  • The Muslim Alliance in North America is led by a virulently radical cleric named Imam Siraj Wahhaj. The NYPD watches his mosque because of evidence linking it to terrorism and his anti-American record is indisputable. He remains committed to implementing Sharia in America but tells Muslims that it’s better not to talk about it to non-Muslims.
  • American Muslims for Palestine is a group that holds conferences with an all-star line-up of Islamists that support the Brotherhood and Hamas. Its leaders have spewed anti-American rhetoric, spoken in support of violence and preached that Muslims should launch an intifada in the U.S. modeled after uprisings by Palestinians and Iraqis.
  • The Muslim American Society was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America” according to federal prosecutors. Some of its chapters held protests in response to the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt.
  • The Islamic Circle of North America is listed in Muslim Brotherhood documents as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Its national conferences are filled with Islamist speakers and are held jointly with MAS. It is a derivative of the Pakistani Islamist group Jamaat e-Islami and one of its leaders is wanted in Bangladesh for war crimes.
  • The Muslim Legal Fund of America has strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood, with one of its founders joining the Islamist opposition in Syria. The organization raised money for the defense of terrorists convicted in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. That charity is another Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas.
  • The Muslim Ummah of North America is mentioned in U.S. Muslim Brotherhood documents as one of its components. An internal plan for 1991-1992 tasks its Youth Department/Committee with “arranging the youth’s relationship with ‘MUNA’ [Muslim Ummah of North America]” and “supervising the administrations” of MUNA.

The formation of this coalition is an example of the Brotherhood’s own words being followed. As mentioned, its 1991 strategy document told its various fronts to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions.’”

Read more at Clarion Project

Five Signs of Hope (Maybe) for Europe

Prince-Charlesby :

Every now and then readers of this site, while thanking me for my coverage of the Islamization of Europe, have kindly asked if it’s possible for me to provide an occasional break from the endlessly depressing accounts of jihad and appeasement and dhimmitude and, quite simply, report on some good news for a change.

Point taken. Here, in recognition of the hopeful message of Christmas and the New Year’s promise, is a year-end dose of tidings of – well, not great joy, but at least possible positive turnarounds on various fronts.

1. BRITAIN: Walking back a dhimmi policy

The Marks and Spencer story. This one went through the whole cycle (from proud corporate declaration of spineless dhimmitude to meek apology therefor) with incredible – and gratifying – rapidity.

Just a couple of days before Christmas, a customer of the posh London retailer told the Telegraph that a Muslim clerk had refused, albeit politely, to ring up her bottle of champagne because the item offended the clerk’s religious convictions. Confronted with this story, a spokesperson for M&S affirmed that, indeed, out of respect for Islam, the store had a policy of allowing Muslim workers to refuse to serve customers purchasing (for example) alcohol and pork, and to pass these haram customers on to other, less discriminating employees.

Result: a huge public outcry, including a Facebook page promoting an M&S boycott. Within hours, M&S was not only apologizing for its wrongheaded policy but (amusingly) insisting that, in fact, it had no such policy at all, and that in the champagne incident the store’s actual policy had not been properly followed.

2. FRANCE: Walking back a dhimmi report

Here’s another example of outraged reactions to dhimmitude having a real effect. Earlier this month, Le Figaro revealed the contents of a new report – commissioned by France’s socialist prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault – which recommended a veritable blizzard of revolutionary acts by the government, from renaming streets and squares after immigrants to prohibiting the mention of transgressors’ ethnicity in the news media. Among much else, school curricula would be dramatically transformed to make them radically multicultural. Accepting the report on November 13, Ayrault promised that the recommendations would be acted upon tout de suite.

Then the protests started pouring in. “It will no longer be up to immigrants to adopt French culture,” charged Jean-Francois Cope, head of the opposition UMP party, “but up to France to abandon its culture, its values, its history to adapt to the culture of others.” Geoffrey Didier, also of UMP, called the report “a crime against republican assimilation and another step in the communitarian strategy of the Socialist Party.” And National Front leader Marine Le Pen denounced it as “a “declaration of war on the French who are calling for an end to the policy of mass immigration and the reaffirmation of our republican laws and values.” The nationwide outrage led one commentator to describe Ayrault as having “shot himself in the foot.” Confronted with the reaction, Ayrault did a snappy about-face, saying meekly: “Just because I get a report doesn’t mean it’s government policy.”

3. BRITAIN: A Prince who May or May Not Be Snapping out of It

Over the years, Prince Charles’s gushing praise of Islam, his enthusiastic participation in Islamic ceremonies, and his occasional references to his own purportedly serious study of the religion have fed speculation that he was either a secret Muslim or was well on his way to becoming one. (A 1997 article in the Middle East Quarterly, entitled “Prince Charles of Arabia,” carefully sifted through the evidence for this proposition.) As recently as 2010, Charles gave a speech extolling Islamic “spiritual principles” as environment-friendly.

How surprising it was, then, to hear the Prince of Wales saying in a speech earlier this month that “we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately attacked by fundamentalist Islamist militants.” Underscoring that he had been trying for twenty years “to build bridges between Islam and  Christianity,” he lamented that “we have now reached a crisis where the bridges are rapidly being deliberately destroyed by those with a vested interest in doing so, and this is achieved through intimidation, false accusation and organised persecution, including to Christian communities in the Middle East at the present time.” Refreshingly, he made no apparent attempt to draw a false moral equivalency, to put the crisis down to the usual “interreligious tensions”: no, Charles actually said that Muslims were persecuting Christians, and condemned it outright.

This doesn’t mean he’s now a hero of the counterjihad resistance, but it’s something.

Read more at Front Page