Muslim lies consecrated in glossy new 1150-page Princeton encyclopedia

Screen-Shot-2014-04-16-at-8.36.46-PMBy Pamela Geller:

“The Encyclopaedia of Jewish-Muslim relations from their origins to the present day” and the more modest English version, published by Princeton, promises to be the official academic encyclopedic bible (quran?) of Islamic revisionism and historical inaccuracy according to the sharia.

The great Islamic lies are being given serious treatment by serious quisling academics. Lies and distortions with gravitas, my friends. The bloody and brutal history of Islamic Jew-hatred is scrubbed with an iron brush. Brainwashing 4.0.

Won’t Sir Martin Gilbert be surprised by this vicious rewrite of history? Academics like him will be jailed at some point, if this adherence to the savage sharia continues.

One has to wonder how much the sniveling  12-member scientific committee that approved the outrageous lies pimped themselves out for.

A perplexing rewriting of history, Lynn Julius, Times of Israel, April 16, 2014

Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish thinker and physician, is famous for his Guide for the Perplexed. But readers of a glossy new 1150-page encyclopedia in English and French will be equally perplexed by accounts of Maimonides’ life that can’t even agree on the correct year of his birth.

The joint editors are a Tunisian professor at the university of Nanterre (Paris), Abdelwahab Meddeb, and Benjamin Stora, a Jewish professor of North African history and author of a history of the Jews of Algeria. The two men have been touring France, North Africa, Israel and Belgium promoting the encyclopedia.

“The Encyclopaedia of Jewish-Muslim relations from their origins to the present day” was launched in November 2013. There is a more modest English version, published by Princeton.

Read more

Also see this bit of Islamist propaganda:

“American Muslims” - a 100 page pdf published by the United States Department of State  (h/t Creeping Sharia)

So who has been coming to America via refugee “recruitment” this fiscal year

Originally posted on Refugee Resettlement Watch:

We are half way through fiscal year 2014 (it began on October 1, 2013).

By the way, “recruitment” is the word being used by opponents of Gov. Matt Meads idea to resettle refugees in Wyoming, and I like it.  The word “resettlement” is getting stale and I’ve noticed the refugee industry using it less and less as well.  They seem to be favoring the word “placement”instead.

President Barack Obama set a cap of 70,000 refugees to be placed in your cities and towns for this fiscal year in his annual determination letter of Oct. 2, 2013.

In accordance with section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “Act”) (8 U.S.C. 1157), as amended, and after appropriate consultations with the Congress, I hereby make the following determinations and authorize the following actions:

The admission…

View original 503 more words

One Year Anniversary of Boston Bombing: A Lesson in FBI Failure

la-afp-getty-us-attacks-russia-chechnya-jpg-20130427-450x337by :

With the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings approaching, the New York Times made yet another attempt to exonerate the Obama Administration of responsibility for one of its manifest failures, claiming that an inspector general’s report on the bombings was an “exoneration of the F.B.I.,” as it showed that “the Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack.”

See? The bombing was all the fault of that scoundrel Putin. It had nothing to do with the FBI, because of fecklessness and political correctness, failing to act properly on information the Russians gave them.

Full disclosure: I used to give FBI agents and other law enforcement and military personnel training on the teachings of Islam about jihad warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, so that they would understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the United States as a free society, and be better equipped to counter them. I provided this training free of charge, out of a sense of patriotic duty, and it was well received: I received certificates of appreciation from the United States Central Command and the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group.

But as I explain in detail in my book Arab Winter Comes to America, all that ended on October 19, 2011, when Islamic supremacist advocacy groups, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that FBI counter-terror trainers (including me) and training materials that referred to Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism be discarded, and agents educated by them be retrained. John Brennan, then the U.S. Homeland Security Advisor and now the director of the CIA, readily agreed in a response that was written on White House stationery – thereby emphasizing how seriously the Obama Administration took this demand.

Subsequently, as I detail in the book, politically correct willful ignorance then took hold in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – to the extent that after the Boston Marathon bombing, then-FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that the bureau had not investigated the Islamic Society of Boston, where the Tsarnaev brothers attended mosque, and had not even visited it except as part of an “outreach” program – despite the fact that it was founded by Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who is currently in prison for financing al Qaeda, and was attended by convicted jihad terrorists such as Tarek Mehanna and Aafia Siddiqui.

Read more at Front Page

Thousands of NGOs get foreign money but don’t report it

Originally posted on Money Jihad:

MHA warns of terror fundings in NGOs

India’s home ministry has found that the number of non-governmental organizations receiving funds from outside India is on the rise, and that most of the groups receiving the foreign funds aren’t reporting it as they are required to do under the law, highlighting the vulnerability that such funding goes toward terrorist purposes.

Some of the external funding involved comes from Western nonprofits that send money to Islamic front charities or alleged Kashmiri relief groups that are actually turning over the cash to jihadi militants.

India isn’t alone in the struggle to get nonprofit organizations to disclose foreign sources of funding. Compliance in the U.S. with the Foreign Agents Registration Act is a joke. Penalties for noncompliance with 501(c)(3) filing requirements are miniscule. The tendency for regulators globally is to be tougher on existing groups that have gone through the registration process rather than on discovery of groups that have failed…

View original 276 more words

The Roots of CAIR’s Intimidation Campaign

pic_giant_041214_SM_The-Roots-of-CAIRs-Intimidation-Campaignby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

Author’s Note: This week, capitulating to Islamic-supremacist agitation led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Brandeis University reneged on its announced plan to present an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the heroic human-rights activist. In my 2010 book, The Grand Jihad, I devoted a chapter to the origins and purposes of CAIR, its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and its aim to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. In light of the continuing success of this campaign – despite a federal terrorism-financing prosecution that exposed CAIR’s unsavory background – it is worth revisiting that history. What follows is an adapted excerpt from that chapter.

In January 1993, a new, left-leaning U.S. administration, inclined to be more sympathetic to the Islamist clause, came to power. But before he could bat an eye, President Bill Clinton was confronted by the murder and depraved mutilation of American soldiers in Somalia. A few weeks later, on February 26, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. The public was angry and appeasing Islamists would have to wait.

Yasser Arafat, however, sensed opportunity. The terrorist intifada launched at the end of 1987 had been a successful gambit for the Palestine Liberation Organization chief. Within a year, even as the body count mounted, the weak-kneed “international community” was granting the PLO the right to participate (though not to vote) in U.N. General Assembly sessions. And when Arafat made the usual show of “renouncing” terrorism – even as he was orchestrating terrorist attacks in conjunction with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist factions – the United States recognized him as the Palestinians’ legitimate leader, just as the Europeans had done. Arafat blundered in 1991, throwing in his lot with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and that seemed to bury him with the Bush 41 administration. But Clinton’s election was a new lease on life.

Anxious to chase the holy grail of Middle East peace and suddenly in need of demonstrating toughness against jihadist terror, the new “progressive” president was made to order for the wily Marxist terror master. If Arafat could resell his “I renounce terrorism” carpet yet again, chances were he could cash in. And so he did, purporting to commit the Palestinians to the 1993 Oslo Accords – an empty promise of peaceful coexistence exchanged for hundreds of millions in aid (much of which he pocketed), an open invitation to the Clinton White House (where he became a regular visitor), international recognition (as a statesman, no less!), and a ludicrous Nobel Peace Prize (forever degrading a once prestigious honor into a punch line).

The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, was not amused. Islamists had murdered Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 for striking a peace pact with Israel. Sure, they knew Arafat and understood what chicanery he was up to. But acceptance of the Zionist entity’s right to exist was utterly unacceptable, even if done as a ploy.

Israel, the Brotherhood also realized, would not be the only thing squeezed by Clinton at Arafat’s urging. After a shaky start, the new president was winning global plaudits for his Orwellian “peace process.” Clinton must have known that Arafat was stringing him along, but with the theater of negotiation and ostensible progress drawing rave reviews, that was a problem for another day. The immediate concern was that Hamas jihadists could spoil the show with their implacable jihad, their blunt insistence that nothing less than Israel’s obliteration would satisfy them. That gave the fledgling administration a powerful incentive to crack down on them. Arafat would be the beneficiary as the Americans squeezed his rivals for power.

A ‘Media Twinkle’ in Philadelphia
Though the United States had been a cash cow for Hamas, it was thus a perilous time for the organization when 25 of its members and supporters gathered at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on October 27, 1993. They were unaware that the FBI was monitoring their deliberations. The confab was a brainstorming exercise: How best to back Hamas and derail Oslo while concealing these activities from the American government?

A little more background to the Philadelphia meeting: For nearly two decades until his extradition in 1997, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook was the most consequential Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States. Now living in Egypt, he remains to this day deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau. In the early Nineties, he actually ran the terrorist organization from his home in Virginia.

During his time in the U.S., Marzook formed several organizations to promote the Palestinian jihad against Israel. In 1981, for public-relations purposes, he established the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in conjunction with two other jihadists: future Hamas chief Khalid al-Mishal and Sami al-Arian (the latter was eventually convicted of conspiring to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

In December 1987, the intifada was launched and Hamas was born. Marzook immediately formed the “Palestine Committee” to serve as an umbrella organization, directing the various pro-Hamas initiatives that were developing. He brought under its wing both the IAP (which concentrated on “the political and media fronts”) and a fundraising entity he had established. That entity would eventually be called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) – though it was then known as the “Occupied Land Committee.” The reorganization would better enable the Palestine Committee to comply with the Muslim Brotherhood’s instructions to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas,” to “fight surrendering solutions” (like Oslo), and to publicize “the savagery of the Jews.”

It was under the auspices of the Palestine Committee that the 1993 Philadelphia meeting was convened. It was clear even then that Marzook’s Hamas network was anticipating the birth of yet another organization. The Palestine Committee’s amended by-laws declared that an as-yet-unnamed entity was already in the larval stage, “operat[ing] through” the IAP, and soon to “become an official organization for political work, and its headquarters will be in Washington, insha Allah.”

In the United States, the “political work” was crucial. The overarching mission, of course, was quite clear. As the IAP had explained in a December 1988 edition of its Arabic magazine, Ila Filastin, “The call for jihad in the name of Allah is the only path for liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim lands. We promise Allah, continuing the jihad way and the martyrdom’s way.” But while blatant summonses to jihad might stir the faithful in Islamic countries openly hostile to Jews, they were not going to fly in America – and even less so in an America whose financial heart had just been shaken by the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center. The Brotherhood’s approach in the U.S. would have to be more subtle.

That was where the new organization would come in, as those gathered in Philadelphia – including Marzook’s brother-in-law and HLF co-founder Ghassan Elashi – explained. Although the Brotherhood had ideological depth and impressive fundraising mechanisms, Marzook had long been concerned that his network lacked the media and political savvy needed to advance an agenda in modern America. Now more than ever, they needed what HLF’s Shukri Abu Baker called “a media twinkle.”

In the U.S., Hamas was now perceived as the principal enemy of the popular “peace process.” After all, its charter explicitly called (and continues to call) for Israel’s annihilation by violent jihad. Therefore, its known supporters – the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, the IAP, and the others – were tainted in the American mind as terror-abettors, hostile to U.S. interests. As one attendee urged in Philadelphia, “We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner. . . . It is known who we are. We are marked.” The new entity, by contrast, would have a clean slate. Maybe it could steal a page out of Arafat’s “hear what I say, don’t watch what I do” playbook. The new entity’s Islamism and Hamas promotion would have to be less “conspicuous.” It would need to couch its rhetoric in sweet nothings like “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” If it did those things, though, it might be more attractive . . . and effective. A Muslim organization posing as a civil-rights activist while soft-pedaling its jihadist sympathies might be able to snow the American political class, the courts, the media, and the academy. It might make real inroads with the transnational progressives who dominated the Clinton administration.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Britain’s Jihadists Within

70976852_019514832-2-450x325by :

Some of the “freedom fighters” who are at war against the evil tyrant Assad in Syria, the “rebels” whom both U.S. President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron wanted to help, have now been re-classified as “the biggest threat to Britain’s security” and a “greater threat than al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.” The British Home Office identifies Syria as “the most significant development in global terrorism.”

More than half of anti-terror investigations by the UK security service MI5 involve “Britons” who went to fight in Syria. Charles Farr, the Home Office’s counter-terrorism chief, and others warned that the Syrian war is stoking the biggest terror threat to the West since September 11, and this problem is predicted to persist for as long as the hostilities will continue.

Syria is much closer to Europe than Afghanistan and Pakistan, making it a particularly easy and dangerous destination for UK Muslims who come back well trained, armed and ready for business: terrorism. And because the security services monitor about half of them, the risk is very high.

Robert Spencer asks some pertinent questions:

Why aren’t they monitoring the rest? And why were these men let back into the country in the first place? Simply because they’re citizens? (Are they even all citizens?)

In the past three years, from the beginning of the conflict, no fewer than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to fight, many more than the corresponding number for Iraq. According to French President Francois Hollande, they are actually up to 700.

Between 250 and 400 of them are believed to be back with us, although the number may be higher. Apparently, they found life there “too hard,” so they say. But they may have been encouraged to return “home” in order to carry out attacks in the UK.

Hundreds more are still in Syria, and one of them has posted an Internet video urging his coreligionists in Britain to join them and help their Syrian brothers and sisters, saying: “The doors of jihad are still open.” He is a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a group which wants Syria to become an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law and which is considered too extreme even by Al-Qaeda, that officially disowned it. The first jihadists returning provincial capital to be occupied by ISIS was the city of Raqqa, on whose Christian community it has imposed payment of the jizya and other rules associated with dhimmi status.

These are people who know their Islam, no doubt. They’ve forced even the BBC reporters to become familiar with the triple choice: convert, submit, die.

Read more at Front Page

The goal of Muslim immigration according to Muhammad

Originally posted on Refugee Resettlement Watch:

For more than a year, we’ve harped on the need for you to read this book‘Modern Day Trojan Horse:  Al-Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration.’   If you haven’t done it yet, here is a summary of the basic concept.

The push for Shariah law is further advanced in the UK, here is a photo from an anti-alcohol demonstration in London in December. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523658/Muslim-campaigners-protest-sale-alcohol-popular-East-London-area.html

From Israel Islam & End Times (emphasis is mine):

THE ISLAMIC concept of Hijrah (Immigration) as a means of supplanting the native population and reaching the position of power is a very well-developed doctrine in Islam.

[Then a little history lesson]

Muslims learned and remembered this lesson, and since then the concept of Hijrah- Immigration- as a means of supplanting the native population and reaching the position of power became a well-developed doctrine in Islam.Immigration in Islam is not a Western liberal romance about…

View original 469 more words

Hollywood: Sharia-Compliant

20130813_HOLLYWOOD_movies_TV_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more: Family Security Matters

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society: US should bring 75,000 Syrians to US over next 5 years!

Originally posted on Refugee Resettlement Watch:

We want at least 75,000 Syrians here in the US within 5 years now that security screening has been relaxed. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/USRefu

We just mentioned earlier today that the public relations push was on to bring a large number of Syrians to the US so that federal contractors like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) could be paid to locate them in your city or town.  Never mind that there are few jobs for them, and even if the Syrian civil war ends, they will never go back to Syria.

Now here comes Melanie Nezer, VP for policy and advocacy at HIAS writing at the New York Daily News—America open your arms!

The United States should commit to resettling at least half of the refugees identified by the UN Refugee Agency as needing resettlement – or at least 15,000 each year over the next five years. This should be

View original 138 more words

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.