Va. Legislator: Dar al-Hijrah Critics Spread Fear and Hate

Chris Christie Dodges Criticism on His Support of Islamists

Chris Christie speakingBy Ryan Mauro:

Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie said that criticism of his record on sharia is “Internet blog B.S” when asked about it on March 29 at a Republican Jewish Coalition event in Las Vegas. His office then uploaded the video to its YouTube page, presumably proud of his answer and the applause that followed.

Christie’s comment was part of a passionate five-minute answer to a question about his alleged support for sharia. He disingenuously claimed that the criticism is all about Sohail Mohammed, an Indian Muslim and naturalized citizen who he appointed as a Superior Court Judge in 2011.

“This is really perplexing to me, I have to tell you. This all came from me appointing a Muslim man to the state court bench in N.J.,” he began.

He then defended Mohammed for a few minutes, before condemning how Mohammed was asked about jihad before the N.J. State Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Sohail Mohammed knows about just as much about jihad as I do…Sohail Mohammed knows just about as much about sharia Law as I do,” Christie said, inferring his own ignorance on the issue.

Christie did not mention that Mohammed was an attorney for Imam Mohammed Qatanani, a radical cleric linked to Hamas that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport from the country. Mohammed was also the General Counsel for the American Muslim Union, a group closely tied to Qatanani’s mosque, the Islamic Center of Passaic County. The mosque continues to be an outreach partner of the Christie Administration.

Christie is definitely aware of the negative attention he’s receiving because of his own defense of Qatanani because he furiously blasted critics of Qatanani as anti-Muslim “bigots” that are part of a “gaze of intolerance that’s going around our country that’s disturbing.” Of course, he decided not to mention that part of the issue.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Christie’s Dishonest Response on Appointing Terror Lawyer as Superior Court Judge

20110726Mohammed118-e13708301535251-450x336Front Page, By Daniel Greenfield:

The real question that should have been asked of Christie at the RJC is about his association with Hamas Imam Mohammed Qatanani, instead Christie diverted to a defense of why he appointed Sohail Mohammed, the Imam’s lawyer, to a Superior Court Judgeship.

Christie was asked about Sharia law. He replies that this all comes from appointing a “Muslim man who immigrated to this country as a child.” But Sohail wasn’t just any Muslim man.

Sohail Mohammed is a board member of the American Muslim Union, an organization that has interlocking leadership with groups that have fundraised for Hamas and hosted a Hamas speaker. The American Muslim Union is closely interlinked with Qatanani’s Islamic Center of Passaic County.

Sohail Mohammed was Qatanani’s original lawyer when the government began its case against him.

Despite the fact that Mohammed Qatanani was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that is behind both Al Qaeda and Hamas, despite his own guilty plea to being a member of Hamas, and despite the fact that even in the United States, he had defended a charity that provided funds to children of suicide bombers (this is done as an incentive to reassure terrorists that if they die their families will be taken care of), Qatanani was not deported.

Christie called Qatanani, “a man of great goodwill” and “a constructive force”. Christie attended a Ramadan dinner, in the same place where terrorists had fundraised, and kissed Qatanani on the cheek.

Christie goes into a memorized bio full of cheesy praise of Sohail, without ever mentioning Qatanani, then in a fit of phony outrage, he puffs up at Sohail being asked about “Jihad” at his hearing.

“Sohail Mohammed knows as much about jihad as I do,” Christie says. Except considering Christie’s past work as a Federal prosecutor, he should know quite a bit about it.

And considering Sohail’s work in terror related issues and his ties to a Hamas terrorist, it’s no surprise that he would be asked about Jihad.

Then Christie insists that Sohail knows as much about Sharia as he does. That would make Sohail a very bad Muslim or it makes Christie a buffoon who doesn’t know what Sharia law even means.

Christie isn’t even trying to be honest here. He has left out the most basic pieces of the puzzle. And the quality of his memorized speech strongly suggests to me that this was a planted question which reeks of extreme ugliness because that would mean that he chose to use a Jewish forum as a platform for going into his “Just because he’s a Muslim ” rant.

It smacks of another planted viral video, except this time pandering to the liberals who have turned on him.

Also see:

 

Virginia House Honors Extremist Mosque Connected to Terror

anwar a.

The Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center has a lengthy record of Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood affiliations.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a radical mosque with a lengthy record of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, has been honored by the Virginia House in a jaw-dropping testament to the ignorance of lawmakers regarding Islamism.

The leadership of Dar al-Hijrah (DAH) has been consistently Islamist with preachers that spread anti-Americanism and support for terrorism. The most famous former DAH imam is Anwar al-Awlaki, who acted like a “moderate” to the press and U.S. government officials until he left the country to lead a branch of Al-Qaeda. He was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.

A Customers and Border Protection file on DAH in 2002 explicitly said it is “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in the U.S.” A December 2007 document said it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”

The Virginia House’s Joint Resolution 484 compliments the mosque for the following actions:

  • “Uplifting members of the Northern Virginia Muslim community and conducting outreach…”
  • “Strengthen[ing] the Muslim faith in the region through seminars, sermons, lectures, social activities…”
  • “Encouraging the members of the Muslim community to become productive members of the society, the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center promotes cooperation, tolerance, and mutual understanding among other faiths…”
  • “[C]onducts outreach in the community, offering educational classes and making charitable donations to those in need…”
  • “[A]ffiliated with the Muslim American Society, a national religious, educational, cultural, and charitable organization…”

Dar al-Hijrah (DAH) is officially affiliated with Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust, two groups that the Justice Department says are U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities. They were also labeled as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history.

Last January, Imam Sheikh Shaker of DAH was videotaped preaching in favor of violent jihad at a Virginia high school. He told Muslims to understand the “power of armament” and condemned Muslim leaders who “bow down to Western pressure.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Jerome Vitenberg: France Aims to Destroy African Militias

victims of Boko Haram2By Ryan Mauro:

Jerome Vitenberg is an analyst of international politics and taught International Relations and Political Science for the London School of Economics through the University of London’s International Programsat DEI College Greece.

In a column last month, Vitenberg wrote that France’s involvement in the war-torn Central African Republic is part of a strategy to assemble a bloc of liberal democracies in Africa. He explains that France wants to create what he himself has termed the “Doula-Djibouti Corridor” across Africa, although France has never used this term.

CAR’s population is 80% Christian, but an Islamist campaign of violence is causing mayhem and the deaths of over 1,000 civilians and displacement of over 500,000 people. Unfortunately, some Christians have responded with their own militias that have engaged in retaliatory violence.

The following is Vitenberg’s interview with Ryan Mauro, Clarion Project National Security Analyst:

You should read the entire interview at but I want to focus on this part because it speaks to the most often asked question I see: Why do government officials tolerate and appease Islamists even when they are fully aware of their agenda?

Clarion: What is the official stance of France and other European countries towards the Muslim Brotherhood and, specifically, its role in Egypt?

Vitenberg: The French and other European intelligence agencies are fully informed about the jihadist goals and malicious strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated organizations.

On the other hand, the political echelons have shown a policy of appeasement towards those organizations within their countries. Each European country has a different theoretical understanding and practical methodology towards its dealings with Muslim organizations, especially the Muslim Brotherhood.

These differences result from how the various states relate to minority groups, the relationship with the minorities’ representative groups and, more generally, the concept of the relationship between the state and the individual.

There is a blatant contrast between the well-known intolerance of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology towards non-Muslim states and societies and the laissez-faire policy of the European governments towards the Brotherhood. There are several hypotheses about the political elites in Europe.

In some cases, the political echelons are naïve and believe in appeasement of jihadist organizations. Their normative and idealist approach prevents them from listening to their security and intelligence agencies.

CJR: See The Cognitive Dissonance of the Progressive World View on Islam

Political elites may be victims of political blackmail that leads to a quiet understanding with the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in their countries. The understanding is that the European government lets the Islamists operate and the Islamists will keep quiet and not cause too much trouble.

The political elites may also be bribed, possibly via financial donations (e.g. from Qatar) for specific national projects or due to corruption with funding deposited into secret bank accounts.

CJR: See John Guandolo: The Muslim Brotherhood in America – We are at war and we are losing, specificallyPart III – The settlement process

There might be more explanations, but I believe that stupidity, fear and greed summarize why politicians are letting the Brotherhood manipulate individuals and families as a first step and societies and governments later.

CJR: see Western Arrogance and Decline  by Bruce Thornton at Front Page

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.

VIRGINIA STATE LEGISLATURE COMMENDS MOSQUE WITH TERROR LINKS

Anwar-al-Awlakis-mosque-AP

Breitbart, March 17 2014, by :

The Virginia State Legislature this month passed a joint resolution Commending the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center on the 30th anniversary of its founding. This is the mosque that the Treasury Department’s Enforcement Communications System (TECS) says is “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” and “is associated with Islamic extremists.”

It adds that Dar Al-Hijrah has been investigated numerous times for “financing and proving aid and comfort” to jihad organizations and has been “linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing.” Has the Virginia State Legislature gone mad?

The resolution praises Dar Al-Hijrah for “30 years of serving and uplifting members of the Northern Virginia Muslim community and conducting outreach to the region in 2013.” It says that the mosque “works to strengthen the Muslim faith in the region through seminars, sermons, lectures, social activities, and clear operational hours for the observance of daily prayer.” The reoslution also states that it is “encouraging the members of the Muslim community to become productive members of society.”

As if all that weren’t enough, the resolution says that “the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center promotes cooperation, tolerance, and mutual understanding among different faiths,” and “conducts outreach in the community, offering educational classes and making charitable donations to those in need.” It expresses the legislators’ “admiration for the center’s commitment to serving the Northern Virginia Muslim community and peoples of all faiths.”

Amid all this boilerplate bloviating, the resolution also notes that “the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center is affiliated with the Muslim American Society,” which it describes as “a national religious, educational, cultural, and charitable organization.”

These legislators no doubt have no idea of what the Chicago Tribune reported in 2004: that the Muslim American Society is the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.

In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.

Confirming this is Ikhwanweb, the Muslim Brotherhood’s English website, which now carries that article. Shaker Elsayed, the mosque’s imam from 2005 to the present, was Secretary General of the Muslim American Society.

Why does it matter that the MAS is the Brotherhood? Because according to a captured internal Brotherhood document, the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. is engaged in a “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 Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

There is much more that should make the Virginia state legislators ashamed of their commendation. The late jihad leader Anwar al-Awlaki was the imam at Dar al-Hijrah. He is said to have been a “spiritual adviser” to three of the hijackers who attacked America on September 11, 2001. Al-Awlaki was also in regular contact with Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Christmas underwear bomber who tried to blow up a passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

The former Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans in a jihad massacre at Fort Hood in Texas, worshiped at Dar al-Hijrah when he lived in the area and was in touch with al-Awlaki shortly before he carried out his attack.

The Saudi-backed North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, bought the mosque’s grounds in 1983. Mohammed al-Hanooti, the mosque’s imam from 1995 to 1999, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali taught Islamic studies and was a camp counselor at the mosque; he is now in prison for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush. Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, a member of the mosque’s Executive Committee, was convicted in November 2007 of contempt and obstruction of justice for refusing to testify regarding Hamas and received an eleven-year prison sentence.

Yet despite all this, this is not the first time the Virginia legislature has behaved as if this mosque were just another house of worship. In 2010, the Virginia General Assembly had Dar al-Hijrah’s Johari Abdul-Malik open the legislative session with a devout Islamic prayer. Abdul-Malik once defended Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is in prison for financing al-Qaeda.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center Imam promotes armed Jihad during a lecture at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Va.

Also see Clarion Projects profile on the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center and send it to the delegates:

HJ 484 Commending the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Un-American, Corrupt, and Compromised Politicians Running Rampant in Illinois

by Shoebat Foundation:

There are plenty of un-American activities going on inside the state of Illinois, at the local, state, and federal levels. Those activities involve politically active Muslim Brotherhood front groups and compromised politicians. Unfortunately, though there is an answer for dealing with both, it’s nowhere in sight.

Gov. Pat Quinn (R) praying with Jamal Said (L) in black

Gov. Pat Quinn (R) praying with Jamal Said (L) in black

Less than one month before the Benghazi attacks, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn celebrated the end of Ramadan with 15,000 Muslims at Toyota Park in Bridgeview, IL. The imam who presided over the ceremony was none other than Jamal Said, Walid’s mentor and trainer, prior to Walid’s conversion to Christianity. Walid can provide a firsthand account as to Said’s support for terrorism. The Benghazi attackers and Said both support the Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

At the ceremony, Quinn signed a religious tolerance bill.

On the last day of 2013, in line with the passage of that bill, Quinn’s office released the Muslim“Cultural Sensitivity Guide”, which is to be used by employers in Illinois. Check out some of these guidelines such employers must follow (h/t BNI):

Dress Code

Islam requires women and men to behave and dress modestly. There are a number of ways in which Muslims express such teachings. Here is the most notable attire:

  • Muslim women often times wear a headscarf called a hijab.
  • Muslim men sometimes wear a small head covering called a kufi.

These articles of clothing should not be prohibited in any dress code policies.

Dietary Restrictions

The Quran prohibits the consumption of alcohol, pork and pork byproducts. Many Muslims follow standards of slaughter and preparation of meat and poultry called halal. (Halal is to Muslims what kosher is to Jews.) [Tip: Choose a vegetarian or fish option when catering to Muslims.]

That one is particularly interesting because there is an old American saying that goes something like this: “If you don’t like it, don’t eat it.”

The guidelines also go into significant detail about how Muslim prayer requirements must be adhered to by employers. Have a look at the daily prayer requirements:

Muslims are required to pray five times a day – before sunrise, around noon, mid-afternoon, at sunset and at night. Before prayer, Muslims are required to wash their faces, hands and feet with clean water. Each prayer takes about 5-10 minutes to perform. Prayer may be performed in any quiet and clean place. During prayer, Muslims stand, bow and prostrate to God, facing Mecca (generally, in the northeast direction). During prayer, Muslims are fully engaged and cannot respond to telephone rings or conversations (with the exception of emergencies). Others should not walk in front of or interrupt Muslims during prayer. Muslim employees may pray during lunch and/or other breaks.

Click here to read the entire sensitivity guide.

Gov. Quinn praying directly behind Said.

Gov. Quinn praying directly behind Said.

Said has an intimate history with Hamas and was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Both he and Osama bin Laden had a shared mentor in Abdullah Azzam.

Feel free to speculate about why Quinn – and many other politicians – cater to Islamic extremists but two of the top reasons are intimidation and money. Intimidation is where the term “dhimmi” comes from and the more money accepted by said politicians from such groups, the more “dhimmi” those politicians become.

Jamal Said (far left) and U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (far right).

Jamal Said (far left) and U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (far right).

In Illinois, political dhimmis exist at the city, state, and federal levels. As Governor, Quinn is sandwiched between the compromised U.S. Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, who has shown coziness with Said in the past, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who appointed CAIR Executive Director for Chicago Ahmed Rehab to one of his advisory committees.

In this one example – and there are plenty of others – local, state, and federal government representatives have been compromised by the Muslim Brotherhood. These problems are not isolated solely in the state of Illinois. That state is merely a microcosm of a much larger problem.

Jamal Said (Far left) and Ahmed Rehab (Far right)

Jamal Said (Far left) and Ahmed Rehab (Far right)

The Muslim Students Association (MSA) began grooming and teaching Muslim college students how to wield influence at all levels of government in the U.S., the military, and countless institutions. When elected officials have been compromised to the extent that Emanuel, Quinn, and Durbin have, a primary way to deal with it involves the resurrection of the House Un-American Affairs Committee, which was abolished in the 1970′s and its remnants were absorbed by the House Judiciary Committee.

The number 2 man on the Judiciary Committee is none other than Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), who has a some Muslim Brotherhood front group problems of his own.

The Un-American Affairs Committee is long gone and a long way off if it’s ever going to come back. One such reason has to do with how many U.S. politicians would be caught in its dragnet.

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

Also see:

John Guandolo explains that the Muslim Brotherhood first settled in Indiana, Michigan and Illinois, which explains why the MB’s largest organization, the Islamic Society of North America, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. It explains why Detroit and Dearborn are points for significant jihadi activity, and why Chicago is the hub for Hamas in the U.S.

Muslim Brotherhood-Tied Activist to Host Fundraiser for Democrat Gerry Connolly

Rep. Gerry Connolly/AP

Rep. Gerry Connolly/AP

By :

A Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated activist whose organization recently came under fire for holding an anti-Semitic rally in support of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi will head a fundraiser for Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.).

U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood allies Akram Elzend and Sameh Elhennawy will co-host a fundraiser for Connolly later this month at the Fairfax residence of Mohamed Mohamed, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Attendees of the March 22 fundraiser are asked to donate between $150 and $400 in order to attend the event, where supporters will have a chance to “express appreciation and have direct conversation with” Connolly, according to the invitation.

A form attached to the invitation asks donors to include their personal information and contains a message that the materials were “paid for and authorized by Connolly for Congress.”

The event has attracted the attention of some U.S.-based analysts who track the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly due to a pro-Morsi rally several weeks ago in New York City that featured anti-Semitic displays and was organized by a group Elzend cofounded.

Both Elzend and Elhennawy have been tied to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and were listed as U.S.-based cells of the group, according to a report in Egypt’s Elwata newspaper.

They also were identified on a list of Morsi supporters in America who issued an Arabic statement demanding that the former president “cleanse the media and police.” The statement additionally hailed Morsi’s power grab in Egypt as “one of his revolutionary decisions.”

Elzend is a co-founder and chair of the pro-Morsi group Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights (EADHR), which held a rally last month outside of the Saudi Arabian consulate in New York.

Demonstrators at the rally were caught accusing the Saudis of trying to “sell Egypt to the Jews” and of being “dirtier than Jews,” according to video of the event published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).

Read more at Free Beacon

Center for Security Policy petitioning to remove Norquist, Khan from the ACU

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Examiner, by Christopher Collins:

The Center for Security Policy on Tuesday sent notice through email communications that they are pursuing and petitioning the removal of American Conservative Union (ACU) members, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, due to their influence from the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.

On February 11, 2014, ten influential national security practitioners sent a letter to American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell, urging her and her colleagues to take action against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, two ACU members who have influenced operations against conservatives, for several years, on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.

Frank Gaffney, Jr. President of the Center for Security policy stated that as of March 4, 2014, ACU board member Cleta Mitchell has ignored their request.

“Both Norquist and Khan have had relationships with a bevy of individuals with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood– including jailed al-Qaeda and Brotherhood member Abdurahman Alamoudi and onetime head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Sami al-Arian– that make their participation in the American Conservative Union anathema to the organization’s supposed vision,” Gaffney said in his email.

“It behooves true conservatives, Republicans… and, indeed, the American people as a whole to resist such subversive operations and to expose and counter those who enable them.”

In statements released on February 18, 2014, ten influential national security practitioners that included:

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, former Congressman Allen West, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin and former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph Schmitz signed a letter to remove Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

The signed letter addressed statements of facts sent to American Conservative Union board member Cleta Mitchell said in part:

“Grover Norquist served on the founding Board of Directors of the Islamic Free Market Institute and reportedly as its chairman. Norquist was identified as the registered agent for the Islamic Free Market Institute Foundation when its registration papers were filed in the District of Columbia on July 23, 1998.”

“Suhail Khan is the son of Mahboob and Malika Khan, Muslim immigrants from Pakistan and founders of numerous Muslim organizations in the United States. Suhail Khan has publicly acknowledged his parents’ leadership role in organizations that have been identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”

In July 1999, Khan told a conference sponsored by the largest of such groups, the very first mentioned in the attachment to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Islamic Society of North America in which he said, “It is a special honor for me to be here before you today because I am always reminded of the legacy of my father, Dr. Mahboob Khan, an early founder of the Muslim Students Association in the mid-60s and an active member of the organization through its growth and development in the Islamic Society of North America.”

Gaffney said, “The time has come for the American Conservative Union to disassociate itself from Norquist and Khan. Nothing less than the Board of Directors’ repudiation of these individuals will suffice. The coming together of thousands of conservative activists at this year’s CPAC offers an opportunity for mainstream conservatives to demand the ACU distance itself from Norquist and Khan.”

“Furthermore, by signing this petition and sending ACU Chairman Al Cardenas and Executive Director Dan Schneider emails, it will let them know that Norquist and Khan need to be removed out of the American Conservative Union.”

Gaffney also pointed out that a newly released monograph, “Agent of Influence: Grover Norquist and the Assault on the Right” reproduces the letter to Mitchell and the accompanying Statements of Facts she ignored and that it is also available at Amazon.com.

safe_image

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

Grover Norquist & Co. Build Islamist Influence in GOP

Grover at CPACClarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Tue, March 4, 2014

How the GOP Came to Embrace the Muslim Brotherhood Lobby

Islamism is not a partisan issue. Special interests, major companies and foreign powers have long tried to affect both political parties—and the Muslim Brotherhood lobby is no different. Ten former senior officials, including a former CIA director, have issued a  joint statement with meticulous documentation about how the Republican Party was and is influenced by this lobby.

The Beginning

When the Muslim Brotherhood arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s, it recognized that violent action is counterproductive. Instead, it began political organizing so it could lead the growing Muslim-American community and use it to affect U.S. policy.

In the 1980s, the FBI recruited a confidential source deep inside the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood lobby. He warned that the Brotherhood established a network of front groups including the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Muslim Students Association,Islamic Society of North America and North American Islamic Trust. One of the chief objectives was to penetrate the U.S. government with sympathizers and IIIT already claimed success.

The network was so impressive that Pakistani intelligence bred itsown influence operation from it in 1990 with the Brotherhood’s support. It donated to campaigns on both sides of the political aisle and met with officials involved in foreign policy.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood drafted a secret plan in 1991 that defined its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad…in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” It was not a doctrine of violence, but of activism based on aligning with non-Muslim political forces. It listed about 30 of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends” to accomplish it. This document was recognized as authentic by the U.S. Department of Justice as was introduced as evidence in the Holy Land terror financing trial.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret meeting of top Brotherhood operatives in Philadelphia. A key theme was deception and secrecy in support of their non-violent activism. In the words of one participant, the objective was “forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence…the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance.”

The Brotherhood decided that a new front with an apparently clean track record was necessary. Two of the participants in that meeting founded the Council on American-Islamic Relations the following year. By 1994, the infrastructure of the Brotherhood lobby was in place, though it would continue to expand with new organizations and name changes.

The Influence Peddlers

The most senior elements of the Brotherhood lobby handled outreach to the Clinton Administration and both political parties, especially the presidential campaign of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush.

SamiSami al-Arian was a central figure. He admits having been a Muslim Brotherhood member from 1978 to 1982, but his involvement in the American lobby continued after that. In a 1992 letter, al-Arianacknowledged that his organization and IIIT, the aforementioned Brotherhood front, were essentially one and the same. He was convicted in 2006 of the charge of conspiring to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization.

Another central figure was Abdurrahman Alamoudi and his American Muslim Council. He developed intimidate ties to both political parties, despite his support of terrorist groups. In 2004, he was indicted on terrorism-related charges. He later wrote from his prison cell, “I am, I hope, still a member of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S.A,” as reported by the Grand Deception documentary.

In 2000, Alamoudi was asked by an Islamic website how Muslims should “decrease the influence of the Zionist lobby on presidential candidates.” He said they must elect sympathetic candidates like Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA).

Rep. Campbell spoke at the Brotherhood lobby’s events and touted their causes. He became the example and was rewarded with political support and donations to his Senate campaign in 2000, including a fundraiser that brought in $35,000. The man guiding Campbell was Suhail Khan, his campaign coordinator in 1995 and press secretary and legislative assistant from 1996 to 1999.

Read more

Ryan Mauro is the ClarionProject.org’s National Security Analyst, a fellow with the Clarion Project and is frequently interviewed on top-tier TV stations as an expert on counterterrorism and Islamic extremism.

safe_image

click the image to sign the petition

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

‘Conservative’ Attorney called out for Denial of Muslim Brotherhood Infiltration

By Walid Shoebat:

It never ceases to amaze how blind people can be when it comes to the tactics of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and sympathizers in the U.S. The latest example comes courtesy of Attorney Cleta Mitchell, an otherwise incredibly intelligent woman, who represents American patriot and True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht in the latter’s battle with the IRS.Nonetheless, she has apparently constructed a firewall in her mind that fends off uncomfortable facts regarding Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

The inability or unwillingness of Mitchell to see these realities may extend to the tax-exempt status received by Malik Obama’s foundation. We have provided Mitchell’s office with our work on this matter and walked them through many of the details. Contrasting the treatment received by the President’s brother with that received by Engelbrecht provides an excellent opportunity for Mitchell to go on offense for her client. Then again, if she cannot acknowledge the uncomfortable yet simple truths about Norquist and Khan, it’s quite possible she’ll stand down. Unfortunately, it’s her client who would suffer in that case.

Like Norquist and Khan, Mitchell has served on the Board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which is the umbrella organization for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). She used to be the ACU Chairman but no longer holds that position. Khan is still listed as a Board member; Norquist is not.

In 2011, the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney sent a letter to then ACU Chairman Mitchell, requesting an investigation of Norquist and Khan. The evidence against these men is overwhelming.

Both Norquist and Khan are closely linked to convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

The 2011 letter sent to ACU’s Board of Directors by Mitchell in response to the Center for Security Policy’s claims smacked of someone in denial. When someone is presented with truths they don’t want to face, said person often lashes out at the messenger, which is what Mitchell did. Here are some excerpts from her 2 1/2 page letter:

Mr. Gaffney has… persistently attacked Grover over a period of many years… there was absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such organizations or their activities… With respect to Mr. Gaffney’s allegations against Grover, those are purely and simply character assassination… Mr. Gaffney simply has some personal animosity toward Grover and, because he cannot wage any winning battle with Grover, Mr. Gaffney has turned his attention to Suhail and has mercilessly attacked Suhail with no basis in fact to do so – while continuing to wage a rumor battle against Grover… I have tried to talk Mr.Gaffney into ceasing these attacks – but to no avail… Mr. Gaffney’s baseless attacks… Grover Norquist and Suhail Kahn, against Mr.Gaffney’s ceaseless war against them. It is reprehensible and simply has no place in the conservative movement.

There are two paragraphs in Mitchell’s 2011 letter that go a long way in explaining her denial of very painful truths. They are based on faulty premise, that individuals granted security clearances could not possibly have nefarious motives:

I have specifically pointed out to Mr. Gaffney (repeatedly) thatafter 9/11, Suhail was on the staff of the White House, in the Executive Office of the President, with a security clearance. I asked Mr. Gaffney (repeatedly), “How do you account for the fact that Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?” I have never received any reasoned response to this crucial question.

Perhaps one of the most consequential results of Khan getting a security clearance was his becoming a White House ‘gatekeeper’ for Muslim Brotherhood leaders. In one of the most revealing articles on the subject, New Republic’s Franklin Foer explained – just two months after the 9/11 attacks – how Khan brought in Muslim Brotherhood leaders to meet with the President. This must have shaped a very flawed policy relative to Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S.

Instead of considering that the security clearance process may have been compromised or corrupted, Mitchell assumed it is airtight and impenetrable. Big mistake. How does one explainHuma Abedin’s case or, for that matter, Malik Obama’s?

Mitchell makes a similar mistake when talking about Norquist’s wife. That mistake is assuming that the security clearance process has not been corrupted:

And I’m certain that Mr. Gaffney’s hatred is further fueled by the fact that Grover is married to a Muslim-American woman (who also has worked for the United States government in very responsible positions, I might add!)

In much the same way that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) smacked down Rep. Keith Ellison’s two-page letter in defense of Abedin in 2012 with a 16-page letter, Gaffney’s group has now responded to Mitchell’s three-page letter with 51 pages, signed by some prominent figures to include a former CIA Director, a former Attorney General, a former 3-Star General, a 4-Star Admiral, and several others.

We encourage you to visit the hyperlinks embedded above to view the evidence against both Khan and Norquist but here are two videos of Khan at CPAC, 2011 and 2012 respectively.The first is Khan being asked about the Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. Keep in mind that his father helped to found the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA), both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. His mother sat on the Board of a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter. Watch as Khan issues a bald-faced lie, saying there are ‘no Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States’. He denied his parents’ work:

 

At CPAC one year later (2012), Khan was approached by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. This video says it all. In response to claims that he’s tied to Alamoudi, Khan accuses Geller of being tied to… Barack Obama’s hero, Saul Alinksy?

 

Also see:

 

 

 

Influence Operation

Frank Gaffney / AP

Frank Gaffney / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by :

Islamists linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are seeking to influence the U.S. conservative movement as part of non-violent jihad against the United States, according to a group of retired national security leaders.

The 10 former officials—including a retired attorney general, former CIA director, a retired general and an admiral, and a former counterterrorism prosecutor—challenged an assessment made several years ago of the political outreach activities by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, a former George W. Bush administration official, and their purported links to Islamist subversive groups.

The 2011 assessment in question was conducted for the American Conservative Union (ACU) by Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer and ACU board member who concluded there was no factual basis for charges linking the two activists to Islamists.

In a cover letter accompanying a 45-page dossier made public Tuesday, the former officials supported charges made by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration defense official, who has said both activists are tied to and have engaged in activities “in support of Islamists inside the United States, including the Muslim Brotherhood, its operatives, front groups, and agendas.”

The letter and “statement of facts” were produced in response to Mitchell’s review for the ACU that stated she found “no factual basis” to Gaffney’s charges. The rebuttal letter and dossier also was sent to ACU Chairman Alberto R. Cardenas.

The dossier, titled “The Islamists’—and their Enablers’—Assault on the Right: The case against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan,” presents a detailed rebuttal of the Mitchell memorandum.

“The statement of facts demonstrates that Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist have extensive ties to ‘various Muslim extremist organizations,’ individuals associated with them and their activities,” the report said.

“These include: organizations established in federal court as prominent Muslim Brotherhood front organizations with ties to the designated terrorist organization, Hamas; two convicted terrorists, Abdurahman Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian; and efforts to deny prosecutors an important counterterrorism tool vilified by such groups and individuals as ‘secret evidence,’” the report said.

The former officials stated in the cover letter that Mitchell should address the compiled statement of facts that they asserted support Gaffney’s charges and contradict her 2011 assessment.

Additionally, the former officials said the Mitchell memorandum prompted the ACU board to endorse the conduct of two of its members that “is at odds with the stated mission of the American Conservative Union—namely, ‘harnessing the collective strength of conservative organizations fighting for Americans who are concerned with liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense.’”

Mitchell said in an email she had no plan to read the report and thus would have no comment.

A spokeswoman for Norquist had no immediate comment, and a spokesman did not return an email seeking comment. Khan could not be reached for comment and did not return emails seeking comment.

The dossier concludes that Muslim Brotherhood front groups are engaged in “civilization jihad” aimed at destroying Western civilization from within. It also says “Muslim Brotherhood front groups and operatives have targeted, among others, the Republican Party and conservative movement.”

The cover letter was signed by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey; former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; former Rep. Allen B. West; retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a former undersecretary of defense for intelligence; former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy; Former FBI Agent John Guandolo; retired Adm. James A. Lyons, former commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz; Amb. Henry F. Cooper, former director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Defense Initiative Organization; and former CIA officer Clare Lopez.

Cannon Shot

Islam and David Cameron

cameronBy Paul Austin Murphy:

In a sense, David Cameron’s position on Islam is to be expected. As British Prime Minister, he is of course too busy to study Islam in detail. And even before becoming PM (in 2010), my guess is that he would have spent almost zero time studying Islam. Sure, he would have read about Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamism in the news. Nonetheless, I doubt that he gave such things much thought when out of power. He would have been far too busy planning his rise to power and, in a auxiliary manner, thinking about tax issues, the NHS, the structure of the Tory Party, competing with the Labour Party and whatnot.

It is of course true that Cameron should have studied Islam independently from the Conservative Muslim Forum, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (the unelected Minister for Faith and Communities) and his advisers (i.e., the higher civil servants). After all, he was 35 years old when 9/11 occurred and 39 when 7/7 occurred in the city of London. He will now also know about the massive Muslim grooming of young non-Muslim girls in the UK. He knows about the 85 or more sharia courts in his country, the weekly political activism of Islamists on the streets of the UK, the 15 foiled Islamic terrorist attacks between only 2005 and 2008, etc. He also knows about the the Taliban, the Islamic civil wars in Iraq and Syria. He may even know about the Islamist slaughter of over one and a half million Sudanese Christians and black animists in the 1990s and 2000s.

In fact David Cameron is even on record as having criticized what he then called “Islamists”. That was in 2005. The “neoconservative” writer, Douglas Murray, at around about the same time, also suggested that things should be done to slow down the Islamization of Europe. What happened to him? The Conservative Party ostracized him. In addition, a Conservative Party MP by the name of Michael Gove wrote a book, in 2006, called Celsius 7/7. This book is about Islamism and the threat of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Michael Gove has been almost silent on these issues ever since. You may have heard of him: he’s now the Sectary of State for Education; working under David Cameron.

More relevantly, Cameron might have even read the Koran. However, what’s likely to have happened is that he has been fed various nice and innocuous extracts from that book by advisers and Tory Muslims (as well as by non-Tory Muslim individuals and Islamic groups). However, I doubt that he voluntarily picked it and read it before 2010. In mention this because Tony Blair, infamously, once claimed that he reads the Koran every night.

Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, he might have spent a few hours maximum independently studying Islam. But he most certainly won’t have chosen his own works to study. What will have happened, again, is that his civil servants, or perhaps certain Muslims within the party, will have supplied him with some Islam-friendly literature. He would have read all that and taken most of it at face value quite simply because he literally hasn’t got the time to study Islam in detail — let alone be critical. Besides which, Cameron will acquire the information he needs in order to be a successful politician. And being a critic of Islam, he may well think, will never pay him political dividends.

If the “Islam issue” were as pressing for him as debates about tax, the NHS, competition with the Labour Party, sustaining his own rule within the Tory Party, etc.; then he would indeed have studied it in detail. However, although the Islam issue is pressing for the UK and indeed for the world as a whole, it’s not pressing issue for David Cameron himself. Not in the least. In fact, from what he’s said recently, and indeed from what he’s recently done (e.g., making London the “Islamic finance capital of the world”), I would say that ingratiating himself with Islam and the Muslim community-of-votes (large parts of which tend to vote in blocks) has been (fairly) pressing for him.

Also see: