CAIR Promo Tools – courtesy of U.S. State Department

By Cultural Jihad:

One wonders if the creators of the original outreach program envisioned it becoming a propaganda tool for Islamic special interest groups falling under the Muslim Brotherhood.

A recent twitter feed from CAIR National ‏(@CAIRNational) included a link for “American Muslims” with a URL featuring a usembassy.gov web address.

Clicking on the link results in a page index of American Muslims with links to about 30 online articles by the U.S. State Department.

CAIRTWEET-04042014-1024AM

While the latest religious demographic information for the United States shows Muslims compose roughly 0.6 % of the population, the U.S. State Department  works with the international community.

01_groupsKeeping this in mind, the current breakdown of world religions according to the Pew Research center shows Christians being most prevalent at 31%  followed by Muslims composing 23%.

A search of the Embassy website for “American Christians” (the quotes were used to match exactly on the phrase) showed 11 results.

A similar search was made on the phrase “American Muslims” with the result of387 results.

The Pew Research center data shows a global population that is 15% Hindu and a search of “American Hindus” showed 2 results on the Embassy/State Department website.

To round out this little exercise, a search for “American Jews” did result in15 results.

What does all this searching signify? -Absolutely nothing … well,  almost nothing …

There was a definite department focus on presenting American Muslim “fluff” articles in 2014.  Almost all those listed in the link tweeted by CAIR show publication dates of April 1, 2014.

Was it part of an organized PR campaign pushed by Islamist backed special interest groups?  Probably.  The U.S. State Department and satellite agencies have provided a comfortable home for a number of individuals that promote an Islamist agenda.

Have your doubts of the influence?  The State Department produced and funded the video “American Muslims: Who Are American Muslims?” – part of a four-part series on American Muslims.

The start of this campaign can be traced back to the outreach effort started by President Bush/Secretary of State Rice to provide U.S. Embassies and Consular officers with a publication – Being Muslim In America – to alleviate fears that Muslims were actually being persecuted in the United States.

Of special note: The U.S. State Department has never produced a similar pamphlet for other faiths, let alone work a program at the level that resulted in the recent media releases.

A quick scan of the  articles being pushed brings up some serious concerns as to what exactly the U.S. State Department is supporting … or if they even have a clue what is being promoted by them (with U.S. tax dollars).

Read more

The “why?” of Muslim Brotherhood outreach

By Leslie Burt:

In his June 4, 2013 report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,”  Patrick Poole asks the question,

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

***

Perhaps the most baffling element to the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach since the 1990s is the steadfast refusal by its supporters to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that testifies to its catastrophic failure. What pathology can explain how prosecutors can identify Muslim leaders and organizations as supporters of terrorism in federal court, and at the same time high-ranking government officials embrace these same leaders and groups as moderates and heatedly defend their inclusion as outreach partners? The answer might only lie in the realm of theology and not psychology.

While it is true that the Muslim Botherhood has, through very effective influence operations, affected U.S. counterterrorism policy we have to remember that it was the U.S. that originally reached out to them starting clear back in the Eisenhower administration. Our intent was to influence them and use them to counterbalance our enemies. However, it has turned out that the Muslim Brotherhood has won the influence game by taking advantage of our ignorance of their true theologically driven agenda. We’ve learned the hard way that they are only moderate while they are politically weak. When empowered, the mask comes off to reveal their true violent extremist nature. The evidence has been there all along for anyone taking the time to examine the history of the Muslim Brotherhood since their formation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna

In my May 6, 2013 post , Anatomy of a Coverup  which I will re-post here, Daniel Greenfield gives what I believe is the definitive answer to Poole’s question. Why are we partnering with terrorists? Do click on the link and read his entire article. It explains a lot.

As the steady drumbeat for a select committee to investigate Benghazi continues, hopefully the drip, drip, drip of new information will edge us closer to examining the whole Middle East foreign policy rationale of the Obama administration. Elections have consequences and foreign policy should be a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections. But CPAC so far is playing it down:

CPAC AGAIN FAILS TO ADDRESS FOREIGN POLICY

Could it be the influence of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan? Sign the petition:

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

dereliction-of-duty-five

Anatomy of a Coverup

We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?

Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

Read more

The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a  transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”

Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”

Related articles

Obama’s Years of Collaboration with Terror Supporters

obama_islam1

This is an excellent review of Patrick Poole’s important piece published last June,

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

FrontPage, by Arnold Ahlert on June 5, 2013

As the Obama administration seeks to move beyond a welter of scandals, a new report by investigative journalist Patrick Poole reveals that the frenzy isn’t quite over yet. On top of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the DOJ’s seizure of reporters’ phone records and the coverup surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the White House’s years-long collaboration with supporters of terrorism is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. Poole’s comprehensive GLORIA Center article, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” details the Obama administration’s extensive relationship with accomplices to terrorism and how these associations have shaped administration policy — and endangered the American public in the process. As Middle East expert Barry Rubin commented on the report, “[Y]ou may think that you know this story — but it is far more extensive than has ever before been revealed.”

The primary question at the heart of Poole’s report is simple:

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations ‘moderates’ and embraced them as outreach partners?

Many of the individuals under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy during the last three administrations. Under the Obama administration, these same Islamist organizations and their leaders have influenced vital policy measures, including a purge of counter-terrorism training that makes it virtually impossible for law enforcement officials “to connect the dots.”

For example, Poole cites the failure of the FBI to carry out an investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, despite Russian warnings. He attributes a portion of that failure to

a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the bureau and throughout the U.S. government under the Obama administration against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.

This regime of “political correctness” (to put it charitably) is no doubt a function of the Obama administration’s choice of Muslim “outreach partners,” which is rife with individuals like Shaykh Kifah Mustapha. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) extended an invitation to Mustapha to tour its top-secret facility in September 2010, as part of the FBI’s civilian training program, despite the fact that he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That trial represents the largest terrorist financing case in history. During the trial, an FBI agent testified that Mustapha undertook fundraising efforts for Hamas, glorified the terrorist group, and encouraged the slaughter of Jews. Furthermore, the visit also followed Mustapha’s previous removal as a chaplain for the Illinois State Police, due to media reports of his terrorist activities.

The same reckless discounting of radicalism and terror ties can be found at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where Janet Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010, despite his honoring Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini at a 2004 conference, and his open support for Islamist godfather Sayyid Qutb. In 2010, Mohamed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was sitting a few feet from Obama at the annual White House Iftar dinner in August, commemorating the Muslim celebration of Ramadan. ISNA was also cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The terrorist connections of Muslim aid programs and their financiers have also been scrupulously ignored. The Obama administration continues to fund the Sunni Ittehad Council to combat Pakistani extremism, despite rallies it held celebrating the assassination of a Pakistani governor opposed to the nation’s use of blasphemy laws to punish religious minorities.

Poole also cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who transition into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Louay Safi is one such individual. Safi, a former top advisor at the Pentagon, appeared at a 2011 press conference in Istanbul as one the leaders of the Syrian National Council, which seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad and is associated with the Brotherhood. That appearance occurred only weeks after Safi met with top White House officials. Safi was yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. According to Poole, Safi’s status at the Pentagon became an issue following the Fort Hood atrocity, “when 13 members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates complaining that not only was Safi endorsing Muslim chaplains for the Defense Department on behalf of ISNA [a Muslim Brotherhood front], but also teaching classes on the ‘Theology of Islam’ to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss under a subcontract with the Naval Postgraduate School.”

Five other men made a similar transformation. Ghassan Hitto, a Dallas businessman, former director of CAIR’s Texas branch, and a recent board member of the Muslim American Society that the FBI has identified as a North American “arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, has become “the provision premier of the Syrian resistance.”

Muthanna al-Hanooti is a former CAIR director and a former federal prisoner convicted for doing business with Iraq as part of a plea deal that stemmed from a far more serious indictment accusing him of attempting to influence Congress on behalf of Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (ISI). He is now regional director for the Detroit chapter of the Muslim Legal Fund of America.

Mahmoud Hussein is the current secretary general of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, recruited while studying at the University of Iowa. He was once president of a now defunct subsidiary of ISNA know as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), which sponsored several conferences featuring terrorists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ishaq Farhan, a longtime board member of the Washington-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) now heads the the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Jordan.

Ahmed Yousef was the director of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), identified as early as 1993 as Hamas’s “political command” in America. According to the terror group’s charter, they consider themselves a “wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Yousef, who fled the U.S. in 2005 on terror-realted charges, is currently a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, and a senior political adviser to their terrorist leader, Ismail Haniyeh.

Poole notes that, because so many of the Islamic outreach partners affiliated with the government turned out to be fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, the government is making “extraordinary efforts” to ignore that reality. This self-orchestrated denial has led to an incredible policy implemented by the Obama administration, one that was formulated as a result of the FBI’s continued relationship with CAIR, despite its aforementioned status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.

It began with the purge of hundreds of documents and presentations from counterterrorism manuals, leading to the creation of the FBI’s “Touchstone Document.” That document finally codified the Obama administration’s increasingly despicable approach to terror. It articulates a new policy that ought to enrage every American, even as it will undoubtedly endanger us all (emphasis added):

Training must clearly distinguish between constitutionally protected statements and activities designed to achieve political, social, or other objectives, and violent extremism, which is characterized by the use, threatened use, or advocacy of use of force or violence (when directed at and likely to incite imminent lawless activity) in violation of federal law to further a movement’s social or political ideologies. This distinction includes recognition of the corresponding principle that mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).

In other words, if a terrorist group performs any “advocacy” function, such as building a school or a day care center, the FBI cannot “jump to conclusions” about individuals associated with the group, even if it is also perpetrating mass murder. Thus, as Poole notes, the terror support of this administration’s Muslim outreach partners “is absolved with a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.”

The result? “This is why Mohamed Majid, who just a few years before was treated as a pariah by the Attorney General of the United States after federal prosecutors named his organization as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, can just a few short years later not only be rehabilitated, but can regularly be found–much as al-Qa’ida fundraiser Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi who preceded him–a frequent visitor to the White House,” writes Poole.

Poole then goes on to reveal a parade of “rehabilitated” terrorists and their organizations that have been, and will continue to be, welcomed into the country by the Obama administration. These include people like Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, who visited the White House in 2012 to demand the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Sudanese war criminal Nafie Ali Nafie, the architect of two genocides in that nation, also got the red carpet treatment, receiving an invitation to the State Department as part of a Sudanese delegation.

Poole further reveals that such monstrous accommodation begets an even more insidious downside. “No sooner had the White House’s new outreach policy been announced, when it became clear that one of the policy outcomes of this relationship was the administration’s enforcement of a blacklist of subject matter experts deemed ‘enemies’ by their Muslim partners,” he writes. Coupled with the “Islamophobic” purge of law enforcement training manuals, the Obama administration began fully embracing this Alice in Wonderland approach to terror, best described as one that allows enemies of the United States to help us decide who our enemies are — and who they aren’t.

Poole uses a quote by Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, to encapsulate the insidiousness of this policy. “I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims…And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence–that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities–the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award,” McCarthy writes. “Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind.”

It is far worse than that. When five members of Congress led by the retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to ascertain the level of Islamic infiltration into the government of the United States, members of both political parties, along with the media, excoriated their efforts to protect the American public. Their ire was further stoked by the group’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family, despite the reality that her mother, brother and deceased father are/were members of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate organization, the Muslim Sisterhood. Ironically, given the parameters of the Touchstone Document, it would now likely be irrelevant if Huma Abedin herself belonged to either branch of the organization.

Yet as this extensive investigation by Poole reveals, Bachmann, et al., have not only been vindicated, they may have underestimated the problem. It remains to be seen if Congress, already up to its necks in administration scandals, will be willing to take this one on as well. As the atrocity in Boston indicates, American lives literally depend on it.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.

Also see:

UK Muslim Brotherhood Leader With Obama In White House; Anas Al-Tikriti Supported Iraqi Insurgents

Anas Altikriti (1st from left)

Anas Altikriti (1st from left)

By gmbwatch:

UK Muslim Brotherhood leader Anas Al-Tikriti, who once supported the Iraqi insurgency against the US, has been part of a White House meeting held last week with an important Iraqi leader. A photo available on the White House Flickr feed shows Mr. Al-Tikriti standing to the right of Osama Al-Nujaifi, Speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, as al-Nujaifi is shaking hands with President Obama. The caption to the photo states:

President Barack Obama greets Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, Iraqi Council of Representatives, after he drops by Vice President Joe Biden’s meeting with the Speaker in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Jan. 22, 2014.

Al-Nujaifi is often described as “the most senior and important Sunni leader” and has been mentioned as a possible future candidate for Iraqi President. According to media reports, during his Washington visit  al-Nujaifi held a series of meetings that included:

  • January 21 Secretary of Defense Charles Hagel (Pentagon)
  • January 22 Secretary of State (unknown location)
  • January 22 Vice-President Joe Biden (White House)
  • January 24 Brookings Institute

One source reported that during his visit, Nujaifi met President Barrack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden twice, as well as senior US officials.” The date and location of any second such meeting is not known nor is it known if Al-Tikriti accompanied al-Nujaifi during his other meetings in Washington. Reports from Iraq suggest that Al-Tikriti’s presence in the delegation has stirred up significant controversy.

Anas Al-Tikriti is the son of Osama Al-Tikriti, one of the leaders of the Iraqi Islamic Party representing the Muslim Brotherhood in that country. Anas Al-Tikriti is one of the leaders of the British Muslim Initiative (BMI), part of the UK Muslim Brotherhood. He formerly was a leader in the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) which had for many years been the most active organization in the UK Brotherhood but he and other leaders of the MAB left in 2007 to form the BMI.  One of the other leaders of the BMI is Mohammad Sawalha, a former Hamas commander. Anas Al-Tikriti also heads the Cordoba Foundation, a UK lobby group for the Muslim Brotherhood purporting to be an independent research center.

In April 2004, Al-Tikriti gave an interview with Islam Online, at that time associated with Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi, in which he said while he hoped that nobody would be killed he supported the right of Iraqis to use “any means and methods” to expel the “occupation”:

I am all for the effort and struggle to free Iraq and end the occupation. I would rather that happen without any silage of blood on any side, the coalition forces or the Iraqis. If there are political avenues that are efficient and would work, then they must be exhausted. However, to expect to rule people with guns and missiles and not expect a reaction in kind is extremely foolish and naive. Also, to occupy a people and expect them not to retaliate is also unrealistic. Even the United Nations recognizes the right of an occupied people to free themselves using any means and methods, and the Iraqis aren’t exempt from that liberty. However, my wish is that not one single Iraqi is killed, not one single American or British soldier is killed…and Iraq is freed from occupation. If that can be achieved, then I’m all for it.

While careful to criticise al-Qaeda, Al-Tikriti hrpeatedly expressed support for insurgents fighting British and American troops in Iraq. In an interview in June 2006 on the MB website, Al-Tikriti blamed the “occupation forces” for being the “real cause of destruction in Iraq” and reaffirmed “the right of the Iraqis to engage in legitimate resistance against foreign occupation abiding by the international laws and traditions”:

Al Tikriti also lashed out at the occupation forces accusing them of being the real cause of destruction in Iraq and killings of the Iraqi people “It was the occupation in the first place which opened the doors for Al-Zarqawi or the Badr Brigades (Shiite militia) which kill the Sunni scholars on a daily bases. It was also the same ugly occupation and through its horrific actions in Abu Gharib and the massacres in Haditha and Ishaqi, that caused some Iraqis to sympathizes with Al-Zarqawi and those like him” Al Tikriti called upon members of the Iraqi resistance to embolden its true patriotic image before the world and refrain from killing for the sake of killing but only to resist the occupation. He concluded by reaffirming the right of the Iraqis to engage in legitimate resistance against foreign occupation abiding by the international laws and traditions.

The GMBDW sees only two possibilities for why Anas Al-Tikriti was allowed into the White House. Either the relevant officials had no idea who he really is, not an encouraging notion, or they did know and did not care. The second explanation is particularly disturbing in light of the common belief in Egypt that the Obama administration is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more

Related articles

Obama ‘letting Muslim Brotherhood run anti-terror ops’

brennan_obama-340x161WND: The Obama administration allowed into government agencies Islamic groups and activists tied to the Muslim Brotherhood who now influence U.S. anti-terrorism policies and endanger the nation, charges a newly released book.

In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott document Obama not only aided the rise to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East but ushered likeminded extremists into the gates of the White House, with Muslim Brotherhood groups serving on important national security advisory boards.

The book further raises questions about whether the Obama administration exposed national security information to U.S. enemies through Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, who has deep personal and family associations with Islamic extremists and even terrorist organizations, according to Klein and Elliott.

Muslim planet

Klein and Elliott warn that while there are various Muslim Brotherhood factions and political branches, each share the goal of establishing a comprehensive Muslim world order by means of a long-term, multiple-stage process, with the end game, the book alleges, being a planet run according to Islamic law.

Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” is available now, autographed, at WND’s Superstore

In the United States, the Brotherhood quietly founded multiple organizations and networks, mostly funded by Persian Gulf states, according to “Impeachable Offenses.”

These groups seek influence by lobbying sympathetic members of Congress and infiltrating organizations aligned with various Palestinian and Islamic causes. Identifying these organizations and exposing the agendas of the activists who run them is often difficult, notes the authors, since the groups repeatedly deny ties to the Brotherhood, especially after the 9/11 attacks.

Muslim Brotherhood in the White House

Speaking in February 2010 at what became a controversial question-and-answer session with Muslim law students at New York University, current CIA director John Brennan announced the Obama administration was working to calibrate policies in the fight against terrorism that ensure Americans are “never” profiled.

At the session, Brennan stated that seeing a percentage of terrorists released by the United States return to terrorism “isn’t that bad,” since the recidivism rate for inmates in the U.S. prison system is higher.

He also criticized parts of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 as a “reaction some people might say was over the top in some areas,” that “in an overabundance of caution, [we] implemented a number of security measures and activities that upon reflection … after the heat of the battle has died down a bit, we say they were excessive.”

While Brennan’s remarks drew scrutiny in the blogosphere and in some conservative media outlets, Klein and Elliott note that perhaps the biggest story remains untold – his controversial speech was arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group that has deep ties not only with other Brotherhood fronts but to the White House and national security agencies.

Brennan’s NYU session was organized by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, according to the group’s website. ISNA, whose members asked Brennan scores of questions during the event, stated the meeting was intended to initiate a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”

ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, which itself was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The two groups are still partners.

ISNA is known for its promotion of strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.

Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation.”

Brennan is not the only Obama official to address the radical ISNA. Klein and Elliott relate that in May 2011, Obama’s then-deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough, was hosted by an ISNA-affiliated mosque to give a speech touted as part of a White House initiative to reach out to Muslims. McDonough is currently Obama’s chief of staff.

In another of scores of examples cited in “Impeachable Offenses,”in July 2011 Obama’s faith adviser, Eboo Patel, spoke at the main event of a three-day convention held by the Muslim Brotherhood-founded Muslim Students Association.

Patel appeared on a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible coconspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj has defended the convicted WTC bomb plotters and has urged the Islamic takeover of America.

Read more

 

 

Wolf Demands FBI Punish Agents For CAIR Contact

IPT News:

Recognizing the Wrong People

by Clare M. Lopez:

It is high time we stopped empowering those who wish us ill: not just to recognize a blood-soaked regime, but to keep on recognizing it.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt [FDR], reversing the policy of four presidents and six of their Secretaries of State not to recognize the Soviet government, in 1933 extended “normal diplomatic relations” to the Soviet Union, the totalitarian slaughterhouse of Josef Stalin. As meticulously researched by Diana West in her new book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character,” the reasoning behind Roosevelt’s decision was never made clear; what was clear, however, since the 1917-1919 Bolshevik seizure of the Russian government by force, was the Soviet reign of blood and terror. According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author ofThe Gulag Archipelago, by the late 1930s, Stalin’s regime was shooting tens of thousands of people per month. Yet, for reasons that remain murky, FDR was influenced, inspired, or somehow persuaded to normalize U.S. relations with Stalin, in exchange for a page of Soviet concessions, not worth the paper they were written on, which pledged that the USSR “would not attempt to subvert or overthrow the U.S. system.”

Churchill, FDR, and Stalin at Yalta. (Photo credit: US Navy)

What West documents is the subsequent process of infiltration, influence, and “occupation” by an army of communist agents and fellow travelers; here, however, the focus is on what that original 1933 decision has meant for future generations, most especially our own, when confronted with decisions about whether or not to recognize enemies who make no secret of their enmity and intention to destroy us.

Whatever FDR’s thinking, West points out that this decision — not just to recognize the blood-soaked communist regime, but to keep on recognizing it – fundamentally transformed what Robert Conquest, the great chronicler of Stalin’s purges, called “the conscience of the civilized world.” And perhaps not just our conscience: as West writes, “[b]ecause the Communist regime was so openly and ideologically dedicated to our destruction, the act of recognition defied reason and the demands of self-preservation.” In other words, quite aside from the abdication of objective morality represented by FDR’s decision, there was a surrender of “reality-based judgment,” the implications of which on the ability of U.S. national leadership to make sound decisions involving the fundamental defense of the Republic resonate to the current day.

Fast forward to late September 2010, when Mohammed Badi, the Egyptian Supreme Guide of the openly, avowedly jihadist Muslim Brotherhood [MB], literally declared war on the United States (and Israel and unfaithful Arab/Muslim rulers). Badi spoke plainly of “jihad,” “force,” and “a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” There was no ambiguity in his message: it anticipated the “demise” of the U.S. in the face of Muslim “resistance.” Even as the Muslim Brotherhood, from the earliest years after its 1928 founding, has always been forthright about its Islamic supremacism and objectives of global conquest, a caliphate, and universal shariah [Islamic Law], Badi’s pronouncement was as clear and menacing as Usama bin Laden’s 1996 “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” or his 1998 declaration of “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” – and garnered about as much understanding from the U.S. and Western political leadership of the time – which is to say, very little.

As explained, in fact, in a series of masterful online lectures for the Center for Security Policy [CSP] by Stephen Coughlin, a former Major in the U.S. Army and one of this country’s foremost scholars of Islamic Law, Badi’s October 2010 declaration of jihad against the U.S. followed in direct response to al-Qa’eda’s call to war as published in the inaugural issue, in July 2010, of its online Inspire magazine. This was the alignment of forces that shortly would plunge the Middle East and North Africa [MENA] region into chaos and revolution.

The third and final element to fall into place came in January 2011, in the form of fatwa from Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the pre-eminent seat of Sunni learning in the Islamic world for over 1,000 years. That landmark declaration, issued at the IslamOnline.net website by Dr. Imad Mustafa, Professor of Fiqh and Its Origins, at the Universities of al-Azhar and Umm al-Qary, made clear that “offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it…and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula…”

As we know from Islamic books of law such as the “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,” “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahadasignifying warfare to establish the religion…” (Reliance, o9.0, ‘Jihad’). So, there was not much room for doubt about what was being discussed: an alignment of al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood under the theological sanction of al-Azhar to transition together to a more militant phase of jihad against the West, Israel, and westernized Middle Eastern regimes that have failed to enforce shariah. The green light from U.S. President Barack Obama had already been given months previously, at his milestone June 2009 Cairo speech.

Yet, with every menacing signal plainly presented by the Brotherhood, as with the blatant criminality of the Soviet regime, the senior national security leadership of the U.S. in 2010-2011 still seemed oblivious to the jihadist threat. So oblivious, in fact, was the Department of State under Secretary Hillary Clinton that in early July 2011, it changed a long-standing policy of no official U.S. government recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood, and indicated that henceforth the U.S. proactively would pursue “engagement” with the Egyptian jihadis. The timeline is just about eight months from the Muslim Brotherhood’s declaration of war against the U.S. to full normalization of relations — initiated by the United States — minus any cessation of Muslim Brotherhood hostilities against the U.S. or its allies or even so much as a hudna [temporary ceasefire].

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Update: Gatestone has removed the post but Gates Of Vienna has it in full

Obama Addresses American Islamist Convention

obama isnaBY RYAN MAURO:

President Obama addressed the 50th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America via videotape, praising the U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity for its partnership with his administration. A Clarion Project report showed that the convention’s roster of speakers includes many extremists.

“Over the last half-century, you’ve upheld the proud legacy of American-Muslims’ contributions to our national fabric and this gathering is a testament to that tradition,” Obama says to ISNA.

The gathering is anything but a testament to American tradition. The speaker with the most sessions (eight), Zaid Shakir, preached earlier this year that the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it grants equality to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Siraj Wahhaj, who is teaching five sessions, has a history of anti-American preaching and now advises Muslims to avoid discussion ofSharia because “we are not there yet.”

ISNA’s 50-year history is nothing to be exalted. In 1991, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo placed ISNA at the top of a secret list of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The document said the organization’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…”

In 2007, federal prosecutors named ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity housed within ISNA. The U.S. government identified ISNA as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The designation was upheld in 2009 due to “ample” evidence linking ISNA to Hamas.

An FBI informant inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network identified ISNA as a Brotherhood front as early as 1987. The source was documented as being “convinced” that the Brotherhood fronts have “a secret agenda which includes the spread of the Islamic Revolution to all non-Islamic governments in the world which does include the United States.”

President Obama complimented ISNA’s engagement of non-Muslims:

“I’m especially grateful to the work that ISNA has done to advance interfaith understanding and cooperation here at home and around the world,” Obama said.

ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances is led by Sayyid Syeed, previously the Secretary-General of ISNA. In 2006, he was recorded saying, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.”

Syeed was also the Director of Academic Outreach for the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, from 1984 to 1994.

The aforementioned FBI source specifically warned in 1988 that IIIT’s leadership talked about a six-phase plan to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The current objective was to “peacefully get inside the United States government and also American universities.”

Syeed, whose interfaith work is praised by President Obama, was one of IIIT’s leaders at the time that warning was written.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

 

The FBI and the Muslim Brotherhood

ijg3D_mo9KB8-450x333 By :

A recent report in Mother Jones magazine has given the lie to FBI Director Robert Mueller’s defense of his agency’s failure to take any action against Nidal Hasan, despite intercepting a series of emails between the mass murderer and terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, beginning as early as 2008. Appearing on CBS News last Thursday, Mueller was asked if his agency “dropped the ball.” ”No, I think, given the context of the discussions and the situation that the agents and the analysts were looking at, they took appropriate steps,” he responded.

Mueller’s statements are shocking in light of the mountain of evidence showing FBI dereliction of duty, which is now finally getting the media attention it deserves. On the other hand, Mueller’s remarks make perfect sense given the Obama administration’s long and disturbing track record of allowing Islamists to shape U.S. national security policy, including at the FBI. Mueller himself has been Obama’s point man in that effort.

Recall that in 2012, the FBI eliminated 876 pages and 392 presentations from its counterterrorism training manuals. At the time, FBI spokesman Christopher Allen said that the Bureau found some of the material to be inaccurate, too broad or, in some cases, offensive, because it allegedly characterized Muslims as prone to violence and/or terrorism. Four criteria were used in the purge, including the politically incorrect metrics of “poor taste” and “stereotyping.” Former Congressman Allen West (R-FL) made a stir at the time for characterizing the purge as “cultural suicide” that was influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated groups.

Unfortunately, West was exactly right. On February 16, 2012 the Washington Post revealed that the FBI met with a coalition of Muslim groups eight days earlier to consider a proposal that “a coalition of Muslim and interfaith groups … establish a committee of experts to review materials used in FBI anti-terrorism training.” Those meeting with Mueller included the Muslim Brotherhood front groups the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), despite its listing by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-funding trial, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC’s president, Salam al-Marayati, had previously written an LA Times column threatening the FBI with non-cooperation from the Muslim community if the FBI didn’t apologize to Americans Muslims and establish a proper vetting process along with an inter-agency task force to conduct an independent review of the training material.

Despite these revelations, the Obama administration has stonewalled investigation into FBI “guidelines” on Islam curricula, forcing the government watchdog group Judicial Watch to sue both the FBI and the DOJ for their failure to honor Freedom of Information Act requests. But remarkably, the FBI has continued to push the envelope. In late 2012, the Bureau released a new document online called “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training.” The document contains a disturbing clause instructing agents that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).” In other words, even those who may be involved with a terrorist group’s “charity arm,” which many groups have as a funding mechanism and as a means of cover, cannot be assumed to be supporting terrorism and must be given the benefit of the doubt.

In June of 2013, investigative journalist Patrick Poole revealed how far the Obama administration has taken its warped philosophy. In “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” Poole extensively chronicles the administration’s effort to take some of the same groups it has called terrorists in federal court and turn them into “outreach partners.”  Poole further cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who later transitioned into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts.

Even many people under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy (long before the Foot Hood massacre took place). According to Poole, this was part of “a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the [FBI] and throughout the U.S. government … against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.”

Read more at Front Page

Muslim Self-Esteem… or the Stars

0moon-mosque-cajie_236081432-450x325By :

On July 20, 1969, an audience of 500 million people watched a man set foot on the surface of the moon and plant an American flag in the gray powder of the Sea of Tranquility.

In July 2010, NASA chief Charles Bolden, an Obama appointee, told Al Jazeera that his boss had given him three priorities… none of them involving space exploration. The foremost priority for the agency once tasked with sending a man to the moon was “to reach out to the Muslim world… to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

A small step for one man had become a great step for Muslimkind.

This week marked the 44th anniversary of the moon landing. Three months earlier, an irritated Bolden had responded to critics of a directionless NASA by saying, “NASA will not take the lead on a human lunar mission. NASA is not going to the Moon.”

It was a neat reversal of Kennedy’s original speech in which he said, “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

In 2008, Obama’s position paper said that he “endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020.” He lied. In 2010, he announced that returning to the moon was not a worthwhile goal because it “lacked innovation”.

These days we choose harder tasks than going to the moon. It was neat seeing Neil Armstrong take a stroll in the Sea of Tranquility, but that’s child’s play compared to the truly difficult task of making Muslims feel good about their historic contribution of pilfering Algebra from the Hindus.

The Space Shuttle, that final relic of space exploration, was scrapped and the remaining shuttles were passed out as pork to politically connected museums. The replacement Constellation program was also scrapped.

As far back as 2007, Obama had called for delaying the Constellation program, which would have replaced the space shuttles, for five years in order to pay for his education program. He was the only major candidate to do so.

Once he got into office, the delay became a full-fledged cancellation.

Read more at Front Page

998216_10151476548281765_556787831_n

 Be proud, America. We are exceptional. Not only did we land on the Moon, we did it with full public disclosure all the way. NASA didn’t patent anything…instead, whole new industries and new ways of managing projects were created and shared with the world. (Did you know that ultrasound was developed so the welding on the Saturn V second stage could be inspected?) This is what free Americans do when we get the chance. There has never been a country like this in history. Celebrate it.

Doug Pratt- Pratt Hobbies Rocketry

The Fatal Fallacy of Muslim Outreach

Muslim_Brotherhood_Emblem (1)By Pamela Geller:

When the government engages in “Muslim Outreach,” what are its objectives?  To make us safe?  To undermine the vicious ideology that commands our conquest, subjugation, and oppression?  Or to appease and capitulate to these supremacist groups?  Clearly it is the last, and the consequences of such foolhardy and delusional efforts render us less safe, as in the case of the Boston Marathon jihad bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Those devout Muslims in Boston designed bombs to tear through the flesh and bone of babies, mothers, and families, and only a couple of brave politicians have shown interest in the motive.  Is that what we have become as a nation?  A people?

The Boston bombers have said they slaughtered Americans in the cause of Islam.

Yet it was only Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX) who has shown any interest in the implications of this.  Gohmert is a hero, a singular man of courage.  He pressed FBI director Robert Mueller last month until finally Mueller admitted that the only contact that the FBI had with the Boston bombers’ terror mosque was “outreach.”

Outreach is a euphemism for submission.  With the Boston jihad bombings, the mosquerade of “outreach” achieved its goal of deceiving and “subduing” the dhimmi FBI.  Americans were murdered in cold blood, but the FBI’s “outreach” with the terror mosque was successful.

Gohmert, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, also blasted the FBI in April over how political correctness prevented investigators from honing in on the Boston bombing suspects.  The Obama administration scrapped all mention of jihad and Islam from all FBI training manuals.  That scrubbing came at the insistence of Muslim groups with which the FBI and other agencies were engaged in “outreach.”

And in Tennessee, under the guise of “Muslim Outreach,” Obama’s Department of Justice has vowed to criminalize postings on social media that offend Muslims.  So Muslim Outreach has become the apparatus for Sharia implementation.  U.S. Attorney Bill Killian led a seminar there recently about how civil rights laws could be used to criminalize criticism of Islam.  Will Killian vow to criminalize the vicious Jew-hatred commanded in the Quran?  Will Killian ban the hate speech in the Quran?  No, but he has vowed to criminalize postings on social media that criticize Islam or offend Muslims.

In January 2012, I received the first in a series of DOJ bundles in response to my FOIA request filed close to a year before that.  Specifically, I asked for “records relating to the meeting of the ‘Monthly Outreach Meeting’ with Muslim and Arab groups at the Civil Rights Division. Specifically, include lists of attendees at each monthly meeting, the agenda of each meeting and any minutes or summary prepared subsequent to each meeting. Please also specifically note the meetings at which the Attorney General of the United States attended.”

The principal impact of reading through the material was the sheer bulk of it.  Hundreds and hundreds of pages of e-mails, documenting nearly daily friendly contact, consultation, cooperation, and collaboration between the DOJ and Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood groups.  One thing was clear: the Muslim Brotherhood had fully infiltrated command and control at the Department of Justice civil rights division.

Read more at American Thinker

 

 

Another White House Play Date with Muslim Jihad

imagesBy Michelle Malkin:

Forget Paula Deen. There are far more dangerous bigots and poisonous haters spoiling the American landscape. They cook up violent rhetoric and murderous plots against our troops, our citizens and our allies 24/7. And they have direct access to the White House.

Earlier this week, the indefatigable Investigative Project on Terrorism blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s latest flirtation with Muslim jihad. Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah bragged on his website that he had met with Team Obama on June 13. IPT reported that bin Bayyah was invited by National Security Council official Gayle Smith “to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars.”

Someone associated with bin Bayyah deleted his website reference to the meeting, but the Internet is forever. The White House has now ‘fessed up to the confab. According to Fox News, a senior official spun the troubling event as a discussion about “poverty, global health efforts and bin Bayyah’s own efforts to speak out against al-Qaida.”

Bin Bayyah’s moderate Muslim costume shouldn’t fool anyone. This sharia thug, who has worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to boost his progressive-friendly cred, lobbied the United Nations to outlaw all mockery and criticism of Allah. He raised money to benefit the terror group Hamas. He is a top lieutenant of Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, who exhorts followers to kill every last Jew; sanctioned suicide bombings and the killing of our soldiers; expressed support for executing apostates and stoning gays; and declared that the “U.S. is an enemy of Islam that has already declared war on Islam under the disguise of war on terrorism and provides Israel with unlimited support.”

As jihad watchdogs have reported, the administration has rolled out the red carpet for dozens of Muslim Brotherhood officers, flacks and sympathizers. IPT noted last year: “White House visitor logs show that top U.S. policy-makers are soliciting and receiving advice from people who, at best, view the war on terrorism as an unchecked war on Muslims. These persons’ perspectives and preferred policies handcuff law enforcement and weaken our resolve when it comes to confronting terrorism.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Qaradawi Associate Meets At White House; Abdallah Bin Bayyah Close To Saudi With Ties To Al Qaeda and Hamas Support

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah posted this photo of his June 13 White House meeting.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah posted this photo of his June 13 White House meeting.

By :

The website of Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, a Global Muslim Brotherhood figure who belongs to an organization that once called for attacks on US troops in Iraq, has announced that he recently visited the White House where he met with senior White House officials and representatives of other government agencies including an aide to President Obama and US OIC Envoy Rashad Hussain. According to the announcement:

White House Meeting

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah visited the White House where he met with senior advisers and aides to President Obama and called for the protection of the Syrian people and the Muslim minority in Myanmar.

The distinguished scholar Professor Abdullah bin Bayyah, President of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance and Vice President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, visited the White House where he met with Ms. Gayle Smith, a senior aide to President Barack Obama, and Mr. Rashad Hussain, U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He also met with a number of experts including the director of public relations in the White House and representatives from seven government agencies.

Shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah addressed the audience by speaking about humanity’s need for two kinds of justice, namely: a) justice in which everyone is equal and one person does not oppress another, nor does one state oppress another state, and b) a justice specific to the powerful, which is to help lift the injustices from vulnerable peoples such as the Syrian people, the Palestinians, and the Muslims in Myanmar. In this context, Shaykh bin Bayyah thanked President Obama for demanding the rights of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar (formerly Burma) during his recent visit there. Likewise, the Shaykh called on the U.S. government for urgent action to help lift the injustice on the Syrians.

The meeting also touched on issues of development in the Islamic world whereupon Bin Bayyah pointed out the importance of adopting a ‘grassroots’ form of development which stems from the bottom of the community pyramid to the top rather than the other way around in terms of facing poverty seriously. For her part, Ms. Gayle Smith was pleased with this meeting, saying, ‘We asked for this meeting to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars.’ She thanked the Shaykh for his efforts to bring more understanding amongst humanity.”

The Bin Bayyah website also announced that Sheikh Bin Bayyah had been expected to visit the US from May 25 until June 10 for medical tests and was also scheduled to meet with unidentified “representatives of some Islamic bodies.” The report also identifies other signers of the letter including Riad al-Shaqfa, a leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in exile, and Hammam Saeed, a leader in the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. The report also claims that former Obama National Security Advisor Tom Donilon was also present during the White House meeting.

Another Arabic language report of unknown reliability is reporting that Sheikh Bin Bayyah was carrying a personal letter from Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi to President Obama which contained an urgent request to supply the Syrian “Mujahideen” with the necessary weapons to enable them to defeat the Syrian Army. The letter from Qaradawi also was said to thank the US for its support of the Libyan rebels and the Tunisian Revolution as well as denying that Muslims are either anti-Semitic or wish to destroy the State of Israel (it should be noted that Qaradawi himself is a virulent anti-Semite who has called for the death of all Jews).

Abdallah Bin Bayyah

Abdallah Bin Bayyah

Abdallah Bin Bayyah, last known to be living in Saudi Arabia, is a well known global Muslim Brotherhood figure originally from Mauritania. According to an on-line biography, he was born in Eastern Mauritania and was the son of “one of the greatest scholars of his time.” According to this source, Sheikh Bin Bayyah was taught Islamic subjects by his father and in his early 20’s, was sent by the Mauritanian government to Tunis to study Islamic jurisprudence. Upon his return to Mauritania, he became a judge in the Ministry of Justice. He was also chosen to be the head of the Shariah section of the court of appeals and later to “High Authority for Religious Affairs.” Sheikh Bin Bayyah held numerous government posts including Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Permanent Secretary of the People’s Party of Mauritania.

Sheikh Bin Bayyah also holds leadership positions in several organizations associated with support for terrorism and anti-Semitism. As noted above, he is President of the Global Center for Renewal and Guidance (GCRG) a a UK-based organization created to “improve” the Islamic education curriculum and headed by Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held many important positions in Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and most importantly as Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. Dr. Naseef also heads the Cairo-based International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, (IICDR), an umbrella group for 86 Islamic organizations, many of which are associated with the Global Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fundraising, or support for Al Qaeda.

Read more at The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch

 

National Defense vs. the Ideology of Jihad

MBUSASealsby Clare M. Lopez:

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the deliberate blinding of our homeland security defense capabilities, perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in close cooperation with the witting, willing assistance of our own national security agency leadership , is propelling the U.S. towards catastrophe.

Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole has compiled a meticulously-documented record of disastrous U.S. policy behavior that is as chilling as it is comprehensive. In “Blind Terror: The U.S. Government’s Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy,” published 4 June 2013 in the MERIA Journal, Poole describes the aggressive efforts of successive U.S. administrations dating back at least to the Clinton years to forge conciliatory relationships with American Muslim individuals and groups that are legally, openly on record as known supporters of jihadi terrorism and Islamic shariah law.

While Poole’s superb analysis focuses on the catastrophic results of such policies for U.S. national security and that of our regional friends and allies – policies still unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region — an equally catastrophic potential attends to these policies domestically, in the homeland. The methodical blinding of the intelligence community, its seventeen aggregated agencies, and security and law enforcement units across the country is the unavoidable result of this kind of “outreach” to jihadists, who are determined to outlaw consideration of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor for terror attacks. At some point, if allowed to continue, such blinding must necessarily result in the effective neutralization of these front line defenses such that they are incapable of responding in a timely manner to prevent high-casualty terrorist attacks.

U.S. capitulation to the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah was set, perhaps irrevocably, by President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Speaking at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2001, where he was flanked by some of the top Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the country, Bush declared: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace”.

But as Poole’s careful research chronicles, during the Obama administration, the Muslim Brotherhood’s decades-long infiltration campaign of targeting senior policy-making levels of the U.S. government not only accelerated, but arguably reached critical mass. In a stunning sequence of events beginning in late 2011, and at the urging of identifiable affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, all U.S. government training curriculum that explained the irrefragable connection between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism was literally purged of such content. Additionally, subject matter experts identified as “enemies” by the administration’s Muslim advisors henceforth were summarily banned from providing truthful training about Islam to U.S. government employees or for U.S. government-funded classes. At the same time, a critical Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) policy based on the so-called “Touchstone” document went into effect that says mere membership in a violent (that is, terrorist) organization that also demonstrates “legitimate (advocacy)…objectives” should not result in a conclusion that members endorse the “illicit objective(s)” of that organization. The Touchstone policy clearly was meant to place the administration’s Muslim Brotherhood advisors beyond the reach of criticism, even when such criticism is based on public court records such as the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial documents and unindicted co-conspirators list. Touchstone effectively immunizes these advisors, these agents of influence for a power openly hostile to this country, Constitution, and society, from the legal and security scrutiny and suspicion to which they otherwise rightly would be subject.

The inescapable effect of this policy is to permit a growing vulnerability to terrorist attack in the American homeland. And not just permit: the Touchstone policy literally ensures circumstances that make such attacks inevitable. National, regional, and local security forces that are not permitted to know the enemy, or understand what motivates that enemy to move from hostile belief to terrorist action, have a diminished chance to pre-empt Islamic terror attacks and are relegated to reliance on hit-or-miss sting and surveillance operations — or post-attack law enforcement investigations in the aftermath of another Boston Marathon bombing. To the extent that the insinuation of the Touchstone policy into U.S. national security strategy was the calculated effort of this country’s jihadist enemies — undetected by those responsible for U.S. counterintelligence — the safety and security of American citizens slip inescapably under the threat of more attacks.

Read more at Gatestone Institute