“Call it Jihad: ‘Terrorism’ Just Doesn’t Define This Threat”

2423016604CSP, By Clare Lopez, Oct. 28, 2014:

2014’s spate of Islamic terror attacks against Western targets leaves observers grasping for words to describe what’s happening. President Obama doesn’t want to deal with it at all, so after a Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Oklahoma, he thought it appropriate to send the beheader’s mosque (the Islamic Center of Greater Oklahoma City) warm greetings about “shared peace” and “a sense of justice.” (The occasion was the Muslim feast of Eid Ul-Adh, but the timing was awful.) U.S. national security agencies are no help either—under the tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were purged long ago of any vocabulary useful for dealing with jihad. “Lone wolf” gets a lot of play with the media, but as Michael Ledeen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Poole (here, here, and here) have all pointed out, there’s nothing ‘lone’ about Muslim warriors, self-selected or otherwise, engaging in fard ‘ayn (individual jihad) in obedience to the doctrine of their shared faith.

Nor are these attacks simply “terrorism” in any way that is uniquely descriptive. As Ledeen noted, the Unabomber was a domestic terrorist. The FBI calls the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) terrorist. The Black Liberation Army was accused of murdering more than a dozen police officers in its day. But none of these operates today in obedience to a 1400-year-old ideology that claims a divine commandment to conquer the earth. Nor is any of these other ‘domestic terrorists’ the 21st century embodiment of a force that already has overrun many powerful civilizations, including the Buddhist, Byzantine, Middle East Christian, Hindu, and Persian ones.

It’s time to call this what it is: Jihad.

Jihad is a unique descriptor: it is motivated solely by one ideology—an Islamic one. It encompasses any and all tactics of war, be they the kinetic violence of terrorism, the stealthy influence operations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian intelligence agencies, or funding, speaking, teaching, and writing. Importantly, the term ‘jihad’ is the one used by its own practitioners—the clerics, scholars, and warriors of Islam. Arguably the most valid qualification of all is that Islamic Law (shariah) defines jihad as “warfare to spread the religion [Islam].” Warfare encompasses many things, though, and not all of them are violent.

Katharine Gorka, President of The Council on Global Security, has an astute new essay entitled “The Flawed Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy” in which she skewers the Obama administration’s misguided policy it calls “Countering Violent Extremism.” She explains how America’s counter-terrorism ‘experts’ have tried haplessly to apply Social Movement Theory to what actually is a totalitarian ideology cloaked loosely in a handful of religious practices. A decade or more of attempting to apply the language of grievance, poverty, and unemployment laid at the door of Western colonialism or secular modernity has achieved little but the neutering of America’s national security defenses. Yet, even this dead-on analysis doesn’t quite get us where we need to be.

Just as Obama’s bland “violent extremism,” deliberately devoid of meaning identifies neither the enemy nor the ideology that animates him, so in its way, ‘terrorism” likewise falls short. For if “terrorist” can and does mean anyone from a nut job like Ted Kaczynsky to assorted tree huggers, neo-Nazi skinheads, as well as Islamic warriors committing atrocities in the name of Allah, then its scope is just too broad to define precisely the paramount threat to global stability in the 21stcentury: jihad.

The magnitude of the jihad threat demands its own category. Neither Kaczynsky nor animal and environmental activists nor neo-Nazis could threaten the very existence of our Republic. Certain 20th century totalitarian ideologies arguably did, though, and that’s why the U.S. marshaled every resource at its disposal to fight them to defeat. Islamic totalitarianism is such an ideology, albeit one that has survived cyclical periods of defeat and resurgence for many centuries. We constrain ourselves both conceptually and legally, however, when the only way to label an act of violence ‘terrorism’ is when it is carried out against civilians for a political purpose and the perpetrator(s) can be tied to a designated terrorist organization, with no consideration for the ideology that so many of them—and others not on such lists—share.

Islamic terror attacks of recent decades typically involved identifiable Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah, HAMAS, Hizballah, and the PLO, but were often funded and supported by jihadist nation states such as Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. As Katharine Gorka described in her white paper, though, the Obama administration’s willfully amorphous term, “violent extremism,” ensured that no enemy threat doctrine called ‘jihad’ that unifies these diverse yet similarly-motivated actors and that actually may threaten the Republic, was ever permitted to be articulated—or confronted.

Now, after the overwhelming post-9/11 Western retaliatory offensives, both al-Qa’eda and more recently, the Islamic State, increasingly have called for acts of ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn, according to Islamic doctrine). Such attacks by Islamic true believers against armed service members, civilians, and law enforcement officers as well as ordinary citizens duly are proliferating across the West, but the U.S. national security establishment grasps for any term—lone wolf, violent extremist, workplace violence—to avoid saying either ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihadist.’ Granted, as Daniel Pipes noted in his 24 October 2014 essay, “Terrorism Defies Definition,” there are legal consequences under the U.S. Legal Code for “formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist.” But as we see, it’s more than that – and it’s why we need to use “jihad” more often and “terrorism” less.

To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current “lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.

The term “terrorism” will continue to provide useful applications in security categories and lists. But it is much too inclusive and yet restrictive to offer a precise definition of the Islamic threat. The forces of Islamic jihad and shariah are mounting a whole of civilization assault against liberal, modern, representative, secular civil society. Nation states, sub-national terror organizations, transnational alliances, academics and scholars, media conglomerates, networks of mosques and Islamic Centers, so-called ‘charitable foundations’ and their donors, battlefield fighters, and too many individual Muslims are united in a jihad that is not only violent but insidious, inexorable, and sophisticated. Unless we learn to resist in the same way—a whole of civilization way—that list of subjugated civilizations may yet include one more: ours.

Boko Haram and the Failure of Obama’s Counter-terrorism Strategy

hillary_obama_glare_reuters Breitbart, By Katie Gorka, May 10, 2014:

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department failed to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization, in spite of the fact that Boko Haram had become second only to the Taliban as the deadliest terrorist organization. Clinton will rightly have to bear blame for that, but the lack of a designation also reflects the much deeper problem of the Obama administration’s overall approach to Islamic extremism. It is an approach that has led to bad policies, not only with regard to Boko Haram, but also to Iran, the Syrian rebels, Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi.

The heart of the problem is that President Barack Obama and many of his top counter-terrorism advisers see Islamic extremism from the leftist perspective of social movement theory. Originating in the socialist labor movements of the 1800s and revived with the protest movements of the 1960s, social movement theory seeks to understand collective action. Academics concerned with what they saw as the relationship between “cultural imperialism” and “Islamic movements” began looking at Islamist extremism through the lens of social movement theory around 1984. It might have remained an obscure academic pursuit but for the fact that Obama elevated one of its principle proponents, Quintan Wiktorowicz, to the position of Senior Director for Global Engagement at the National Security Staff, where he became an architect of Obama’s counter-extremism strategy.

The singular impact of Wiktorowicz was to shift the focus away from the ideology driving Islamic extremism and to recast it as “Islamic activism.” He argued that Islamist violence is not a function of the call to jihad found in the Qu‘ran or in various contemporary fatwas, but is rather a calculated and rational response to state oppression:

In contrast to popular views of Islamic radicals as fanatics engaged in irrational, deviant, unpredictable violence, we argue that violent contention is the result of tactical considerations informed by the realities of repressive contexts. Islamists engage in a rational calculus about tactical efficacy and choose modes of contention they believe will facilitate objectives or protect their organizational and political gains. Violence is only one of myriad possibilities in repertoires of contention and becomes more likely where regimes attempt to crush Islamic activism through broad repressive measures that leave few alternatives. …From this perspective, violent Islamist contention is produced not by ideational factors or unstable psychological mentalities but rather by exogenous contingencies created through state policy concerning Islamists.

Thus, terrorism becomes “a mode of contention,” and terrorists are not to blame for their violence; “exogenous contingencies” are at fault. Sources in the Koran, Islamic jurisprudence, or even contemporary calls to jihad are not to blame; state policy is. Dr. Mohammed M. Hafez, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School who also influenced U.S. policy, echoes this perspective in his book Why Muslims Rebel:

Muslims rebel because of an ill-fated combination of institutional exclusion, on the one hand, and on the other, reactive and indiscriminate repression that threatens the organizational resources and personal lives of Islamists. Exclusionary and repressive political environments force Islamists to undergo a near universal process of radicalization.

Radical Islamists, therefore, bear no personal responsibility for their acts of terrorism or disruption. Rather, they are forced by a political environment that excludes or represses them to undergo an inevitable process of radicalization.

For the Obama administration, Islamist extremism (except for Al Qaeda) is not a categorical evil which stands opposed to America’s good; it is, rather, an extreme expression—among a range of expressions—of protest against legitimate grievances. Islamic radicals such as Boko Haram are not responsible for their actions; they are forced to radicalism by their circumstances. And it definitely has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, not even a distorted version of Islam.

On the very day that the U.S. announced the designation of Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that “Boko Haram’s activities call our attention not just to violence, but also to poverty and inequality in Nigeria.” The State Department’s 2012 report on human rights in Nigeria spends far more time on abuses by Nigeria’s security forces than it does on Boko Haram’s violence. The report states, “The population’s grievances regarding poverty, government and security force corruption, and police impunity and brutality created a fertile ground for recruiting Boko Haram members.” By all accounts, police brutality and incompetence in Nigeria were on an epic scale, but as Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) famously said at a hearing on Boko Haram, to blame terrorism on poverty is a disservice to the millions of poor people across the globe who never turn to violence.

Because of the Muslim-extremist-as-victim meme, the administration generally, and the State Department particularly, have repeatedly portrayed Muslims as the principle victims of groups such as Boko Haram, with Christians only a minor side note. The State Department has repeatedly said that Boko Haram is not religiously motivated and is more destructive to Muslims than to Christians. On the day Boko Haram was designated an FTO, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield said that Boko Haram “had killed numerous Christians and an even greater number of Muslims,” in spite of the fact that attacks on Christians represented 46% and on Muslims only 3%, according to Jubilee Campaign.

The argument currently being put forth by the mainstream media is that the United States has been poised and ready to help Nigeria, but that Nigeria has been slow to ask, and that is a message likely coming directly from the White House. Now that the world has woken up to the evil being perpetrated by Boko Haram, President Obama is trying to portray himself as caring deeply about this issue. He told ABC News that he hoped the event would help “to mobilize the entire international community to finally do something against this horrendous organization that’s perpetrated such a terrible crime.” And Michelle Obama tweeted a photo of herself holding a sign that read: “#BringBackOurGirls.”

But members of the Obama administration—from the President himself to his National Security Staff to his Secretary of State and to his undersecretaries and their staffs—have all, until this episode, downplayed Boko Haram’s truly evil nature and prevented steps from being taken much earlier that could have prevented this tragedy, and those 276 abducted girls, instead of being held hostage, could still be sitting at their desks doing their schoolwork.

While social movement theory might provide insights into the formation and operation of Islamic activists, it cannot provide a foundation for American counter-terrorism policy. To do so is both detrimental to U.S. national security and to the security of numerous nations who are in a life-or-death struggle with the threat. The United States must stop the misguided narrative that terrorism and extremism have nothing to do with Islam. As Dr. Sebastian Gorka said in testimony to members of Congress, “We need to bankrupt transnational jihadist terrorism as its most powerful point: its narrative of global religious war.” Until the U.S. begins to acknowledge and address the ideology, we will not be able to challenge its ability to recruit, motivate, and inspire those who would abduct innocent schoolgirls.

Katie Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security. She is the coeditor of Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism.

State Department adviser on “extremism” urges U.S. to “befriend” al Qaeda

By Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, Jan 30 :

DoranMcCantsWatts-300x104

Establishment “experts” on foreign policy and Islamic jihad terror generally suffer from willful ignorance about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and traffic in comforting politically correct fictions about Islam being a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists — a fiction that has led the U.S. into numerous disastrous, indeed catastrophic — foreign policy errors. This is one of the more egregious manifestations of the self-defeating, futile courses of action they advocate: three members of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations (Michael Doran, Will McCants, and Clint Watts, pictured above left to right in that order), including a former State Department Senior Adviser (McCants), advocate that we befriend an al Qaeda group that they think is “moderate” in order to wean it away from “extremism.”

This strategy has been followed again and again, and never accomplished anything but the loss of American lives and the waste of American money and materiel. For months now numerous people have claimed that if we didn’t aid the Syrian “moderates,” they would have nowhere to turn but to the “extremists.” We aided them, although not as much as some people would have liked (including Barack Obama and John Kerry), and they turned to the “extremists” anyway.

It is not surprising that the puerile and silly Will McCants is fronting this notion. He is one of the learned analysts who are essentially children in adult’s clothing, babbling on like fifth graders about “bad guys” and ideas that are “crazy pants.” McCants also harbors a Reza Aslan-like fondness for contemptuous Twitter abuse of those who dare to suggest that Islamic texts and teachings may sometimes incite believers to violence.

This is the kind of boy who sets State Department policy these days. No wonder we’re in the fix we’re in.

“State Department Adviser on Extremism Urges US to ‘Befriend’ Al Qaeda,” by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage, January 29:

Officially there are no more terrorist attacks, just man-caused disasters brought about by offensive YouTube videos. Also there are no more terrorists. Just Violent Extremists. And there’s no more counter-terrorism, just experts on Countering Violent Extremism.

William McCants was a U.S. State Department senior adviser for countering violent extremism and is a director of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at the Brookings liberal think tank.

At the CFR’s Foreign AffairsMcCants joined together with two others to argue that Ahrar al-Sham is, and I quote, “an al Qaeda–Linked Group Worth Befriending.”

With the collapse of the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front is now the only game in town for the people who insist that we should counter Al Qaeda by supporting Al Qaeda.

The article begins by defending Obama’s stupid jayvee crack, denounces the “political rights” and argues that, “The al Qaeda of yesterday is gone. What is left is a collection of many different splinter organizations, some of which have their own — and profoundly local — agendas.”

That line is a bit misleading. The Al Qaeda of yesterday is not  gone, it’s overshadowed by local organizations, meaning that Al Qaeda has accomplished its goal of serving as a vanguard for a global movement of terrorist groups committed to its worldview.

The “jayvees” have overshadowed the Lakers because they have more people, more weapons and more territory. While the Lakers are content to sit and watch the expansion of new franchises around the world.

“Today, two different al Qaeda affiliates, the al-Nusra front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), are battling each other in Syria’s Raqqa province. Perhaps Oliver North might argue that it is incumbent on the United States to take out both groups. But a more nuanced take would lead the president to ask key questions before taking precipitate action.”

The article conveniently avoids answering the question while taking the time to sneer at Oliver North. But as the experts know full well, the old Al Qaeda had its share of violent conflicts.

The outcome of such a conflict is responsible for Zawahiri’s current position.

Then the article argues that Ahrar al-Sham and the rest of the Islamic Front are the best hope for defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq. That may or may not be so, but the article fails to qualify why we should care which flavor of Al Qaeda emerges victorious in the battle to lose to Assad.

“Second, designating Ahrar al-Sham as a terrorist group would destroy what little chance the United States has of building relationships with the other militias in the Islamic Front. Those relationships will be important for ensuring that the Front treats Syrian civilians well during the war and after, should Assad ever be toppled. Making a direct enemy of Ahrar al-Sham would also make it extremely difficult for U.S. nongovernmental organizations to move aid through territory controlled by it and the Islamic Front, because U.S. law prohibits working with terrorist organizations.”

Which would be a good thing, because we could finally stop providing aid to terrorists.

Are we supposed to collaborate with Al Qaeda in the hopes that it will treat civilians and NGOs well when it takes over? Does that sound like the behavior of any Al Qaeda linked group?

“Finally, Ahrar al-Sham’s leader, Hassan Abboud, has never endorsed bin Laden’s vision of a global jihad. His struggle is limited to Syria. Designating his group as a terrorist organization might backfire by pushing it completely into al Qaeda’s camp.”

And this is where it gets truly stupid.

The vision of a global Jihad wasn’t something that Bin Laden came up with, it was something that Islam came up with. A group that believes in the primacy of Islamic law and rule in Syria also believes that this state of affairs should exist worldwide.

Furthermore Al’Suri was Al Qaeda’s representative in Syria all along and was a co-founder of Ahrar al-Sham. That means a direct Al Qaeda involvement in setting up this flavor of Al Qaeda.

The article clings to the idea that we shouldn’t push an Al Qaeda linked group all the way into Al Qaeda’s camp by designating it as a terrorist group.

How exactly is this appeasement supposed to turn back time?

Pro-Brotherhood DHS advisor creates lawfare blind spot

Mohamed Elibiary

Mohamed Elibiary

By Ryan Mauro:

Under revised Department of Homeland Security guidelines, crafted with the input of senior adviser Mohamed Elibiary, counter-terrorism personnel will be left uneducated about a favorite non-violent tactic of the Islamists: lawfare.

Mohamed Elibiary is the subject of a new 37-page report by the Center for Security Policy and Institute on Religion and Democracy. Consisting mostly of an interview I conducted with Elibiary, this senior Department of Homeland Security adviser’s pro-Islamist sentiment is laid out for all to see. The Clarion Project has a list of 15 unsettling facts from the report, which include: personal connections to and praise of the Muslim Brotherhood; associations with the Assembly of Muslim Jurists, a “hardline Islamist group” that calls for the establishment of sharia law in America, marital rape, and jihad against Israel; admission to actively helping U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups avoid prosecution; accusations that the West “routinely insults Muslim dignity.” Elibiary has also voiced support for Shukri Abu Baker, CEO of the now defunct Holy Land Foundation, who was convicted in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history.

As a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, Elibiary is in a position to impact policy with his beliefs. He was promoted last month to Senior Fellow. He was a member of the DHS Working Group on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), the subject of Elibiary’s focus.

Elibiary says he was instrumental in crafting the DHS policy on CVE.

“The area that has earned me the most amount of anti-Islamist media criticism has been my role assisting DHS and the broader administration craft a framework and later a strategy for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). I helped write parts of the initial [CVE] document President Barack Hussein Obama was briefed on in the Oval Office,” Elibiary said in our interview.

In 2011, the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties released a document titled, “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’ts.” Produced by the DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center, it contains a list of specific recommendations for federal, state and local government officials “organizing CVE, cultural awareness, counter-radicalization or counter-terrorism training.” In other words, the “Do’s and Don’ts” targets anyone involved in learning about militant Islam.

The guidelines aim to prevent instruction about non-violent Islamists and their tactics, right in line with the policies advocated by Elibiary in our interview.

One of the suggested regulations is to prohibit training about “lawfare,” the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends. Lawfare is particularly manifested in the United States in the form of frivolous lawsuits filed to intimidate members of the counter-terrorism community with the threat of bankruptcy and vilification for exercising their free speech rights to educate Americans on issues of national security and public concern, such as the imminent threat of Islamist terrorism.

The DHS guidelines instruct agencies to stay away from “training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. One theory the DHS wants discarded posits that “Muslim Americans are using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.”

Brooke Goldstein, director of The Lawfare Project, says, “There is a plethora of evidence indicating lawfare as the newest, most visible and increasingly emergent form of asymmetric warfare, which must be countered both tactically and strategically. It is undeniable that Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations have filed lawsuits aimed at silencing and punishing anyone who expose their connections to designated terrorist organizations or say things that are ‘offensive’ to Islam. DHS guidelines that not only delegitimize this very real threat but also deny its existence leave American counterterrorism personnel open to attack by, amongst other things, failing to brief them on legitimate ways to protect themselves and undermining those in the counterterrorism and legal communities who are working to protect this country.”

Read more at Daily Caller

Debating the Muslim Brotherhood in America Part V: US Policy

600x668xme-600x668.jpg.pagespeed.ic_.OLmPVV4k0TJuicy Ecumenism, by  (@RyanMauro)

The Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper Series

DEBATING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

An Interview with DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary

Ryan Mauro,  The Clarion Project

Made possible through the Institute for Religion & Democracy

 Part V: US Policy

The core disagreement presented here is about whether Islamists are adversaries of the West or suitable allies. If one believes that Islamists and their ideology is not a problem, then one will be dismissive of any facts about the influence of the US Muslim Brotherhood. For this camp, the threat is from irreconcilable violent Islamists like al-Qaeda and the solution is from reconciliation with supposedly non-violent Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. This camp feels that the root cause of terrorism and Islamic extremism is not the Islamist ideology, but legitimate gripes against Western policy.

In our opinion, it is better to look to the public words of Islamists, like those shown in our documentaries, and the declaration of the 1991 US Muslim Brotherhood memo that its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

Mauro: Why don’t you support the marginalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups?

Elibiary: President Obama has certainly expressed publicly the importance of strategic engagement for our national interest in multiple speeches, and to a lesser extent, so has Senator McCain, whom I endorsed on FOX News early in the 2008 election as a Texas Republican state convention delegate. So this is an area where I think our government’s policy is ahead of where the national political discourse is in the conservative media.

Having served for more than a decade in various Republican Party of Texas positions, as well as with Dallas-based roots in the conservative movement going back two decades, I clearly see that Christian social conservatives as well as Jewish conservatives concerned about Israel’s future are simply fearful to the point of psychological paranoia on how to deal with the rising Islamic movements across the globe.

It’s my hope that interviews like this will help address concerns and help elevate our national political discourse around these topics to catch up with national realities.

The most important part of this section is Mr. Elibiary’s influence as a Republican Party official and member of the Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Council. This is why we felt it was important to publish a comprehensive dialogue with him. Elibiary states that he was a Texas Republican state convention delegate in 2008 and has served the Republican Party of Texas for over a decade in various capacities. The Dept. of Homeland Security Council that he serves on has made over 100 recommendations and, by his estimate, about 90% have been implemented or are being implemented.

Mauro: As a member of the DHS Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Council, what recommendations have you made?

Elibiary (cont’d): The Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) has approved over 100 official recommendations during the past four years and about 90% have either been already implemented or are in the process of implementation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As a member of the HSAC, I voted along with my colleagues to pass on all those recommendations to Secretary Napolitano for consideration. The Secretary then signs off on what she agrees with and orders its implementation.

Those recommendations cover many areas that DHS works in from counter-terrorism to cyber-security, from immigration enforcement by ICE to disaster resiliency by FEMA, from border enforcement by CBP to Infrastructure Protection by NPPD. An example of a direct recommendation the HSAC offered and the Secretary approved was the cancellation of the post-9/11 color-coded terrorism alert system we used to see everywhere and its replacement with a more effective National Terrorism Advisory System.

Elibiary’s influence is apparent in the Countering Violent Extremism training guidelines issued by the Dept. of Homeland Security. The Clarion Project published an analysis of those guidelines in May, pointing out how the guidelines warn against training related to the US Muslim Brotherhood and non-violent Islamist tactics. The guidelines were apparently crafted under the guidance of Elibiary, the President of the Islamic Society of North America, and other supporters of the US Muslim Brotherhood network.

To summarize, the Dept. of Homeland Security basically relied upon Islamist-friendly advisors to draft training guidelines and these guidelines inevitably ended up Islamist-friendly. Remarkably, the President of ISNA had a hand in developing standards that would leave counter-terrorism personnel ignorant of his own organization’s Brotherhood origins.

Elibiary (cont’d): The area that has earned me the most amount of anti-Islamist media criticism has been my role assisting DHS and the broader administration craft a framework and later a strategy for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). I helped write parts of the initial HSAC-CVE document President Barack Hussein Obama was briefed on in the Oval Office, and some in the anti-Islamist media were upset with the approach we took.

Honestly speaking, these CVE recommendations have enjoyed mainstream professional support across the law enforcement and intelligence communities, not least because they enhance homeland security’s effectiveness in a constitutionally-compliant manner as I explained in my post-Boston marathon attack op-ed in the Washington Post. While there is still more work to do across the Homeland Security Enterprise to improve CVE coordination, like many practitioners in the field, I am happy with the progress achieved thus far.

Mauro: Do you have any concluding statements?

Elibiary (cont’d): Rising to become the youngest American to ever serve on a prestigious body like the Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Council is frankly a testament to the strength and resilience of our nation’s meritocracy. With too many luminaries and nationally prominent policymakers to list here, including Governor Mitt Romney himself, having served or continuing to serve on the Council; I’m naturally humbled at having been given the opportunity to serve and interact with some of our nation’s top national security officials the past few years.

Personally I hold no hatred towards any conservative, anti-Islamist or pro-Israel activists who’ve attacked me over the past few years as somehow a subversive threat to our country’s national security. I’ve generously given hundreds of media interviews, testified before Congress and met with many national security officials from both the Bush and Obama Administrations. So at this point I’m about as security and bi-partisan politically vetted as anyone can become.

I’ve often hoped that a day would come when an honest and frank conversation can begin between conservatives concerned about Islamism/Political Islam and Muslims concerned about anti-Muslim bigotry (i.e. Islamophobia). It is my sincere hope that this interview helps conservatives concerned about these issues reciprocate by opening the door for a civil dialog with mainstream American Muslims to move our country forward and close the door on the HLF related past.

Focusing on the behavioral indicators of ideologically-motivated violent extremism, as I have advocated, is an opportunity for the conservative movement to broaden its base, safeguard the US Constitution, advance effective national security policy and counter the scourge of bigotry. Now that it is clear to all those who have monitored the HLF-related investigations and trials, that the issue of the unindicted co-conspirators is now a CLOSED matter and there will NOT be an HLF 2.0 trial, perhaps now is the time for us, especially conservatives, to consider launching that long-delayed constructive public dialogue about where our nation goes from here in 2013.

The question readers must ask themselves is this: Is it appropriate for the DHS to have a pro-Muslim Brotherhood official who has close ties to identified US Muslim Brotherhood entities?

In this series, he stands by his opposition to the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, a US Muslim Brotherhood entity that was led by his long-time friend. Furthermore, he admits to having helped “safeguard” these US Muslim Brotherhood entities. During Elibiary’s tenture at DHS, the Department has issued training guidelines that protect these entities from scrutiny and eliminate education about the non-violent, legal tactics they use to promote their Islamist agenda. The counter-terrorism personnel instructed under these guidelines will often serve for decades.

On a broader level, this series isn’t just about Elibiary. It’s about the wisdom of embracing the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” partner overseas or the US Muslim Brotherhood at home as expert advisors.

I want to thank Mr. Elibiary for the great deal of time and effort he put into this dialogue. In today’s news environment, it is a rarity to find such a truly substantive discussion of a contentious topic. Now, with both sides presented, it is up to the reader to decide the validity of our opposing views.

Part I: The Holy Land Foundation

Part II: Elibiary & the Muslim Brotherhood

Part III: Elibiary’s Relationship with American Islamists

Part IV: “Islamophobia”

Obama’s War of Word Games

obama33By Daniel Greenfield:

One of the biggest questions about fighting terrorism is whether we intend to fight it on the military level or on the ideological level.

Wars have ideological components. Propaganda likely predated the written word. Undermining an enemy’s morale can be a very effective means of turning the tide of battle. But in warfare, the ideology is there to further military aims, while in an ideological war the military is a tool for achieving ideological victories over the enemy.

It’s a fundamental distinction that cuts deep into the question of what we are doing in places like Afghanistan.

The dichotomy between words and bullets could occasionally be ambiguous during the Bush Administration, but there was an understanding that we were out to kill terrorists and their allies. If by killing them, we could discredit their ideology and dissuade fellow terrorists from following in their footsteps, so much the better.

The Obama Administration has shifted the primacy of the conflict to the ideological sphere. Like the rest of the left, it would rather fight ideological wars, which are its strength, than military conflicts, which aren’t.

The left believes it understands ideas, but is much weaker when it comes to military affairs. The left doesn’t really understand ideas, but it does understand word games. To alter language is to alter the consensual reality of a subject population. The Oceanian reality of the media may not do anything to the reality in Afghanistan, but it certainly shifts the reality in America.

One of the first word games that Obama’s national security team pulled was to retire “terrorism” from the vocabulary to avoid any questions about why they were failing to deal with a problem… that suddenly no longer existed.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that, motivated by a touch of nuance, she was moving away from the word “terrorism” to ‘”man-caused disasters.”

Napolitano’s explanation for this clumsy word game was that she wanted “to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur”; as long as the risk was kept as undefined as possible.

The “man-caused disaster” was ridiculed off the scene even by the left, but that didn’t end the word games.

Islamic terrorism receded into the distance. The great challenge was CVE or Countering Violent Extremism.

Violent extremism was a little more specific than man-caused disasters, but not by that much. The shift however was a more significant one. We were no longer fighting a war, but working to counter attitudes and ideas. And that would be achieved in ways that included everything from sponsoring Muslim rappers to dispatching the NASA chief on a new mission to seek out Muslim self-esteem.

The Department of Homeland Security’s three broad CVE objectives were understanding violent extremism, partnering with local Muslim communities and with local law enforcement. The first objective, understanding violent extremism, did not mention Islam, demonstrating that this understanding was actually going to be a very deliberate misunderstanding.

Avoiding any mention of Islam had always been the first objective of the ideological component of the war and it was the area where the ideological component of fighting terrorism most blatantly clashed with the practical component.

Since September 11, the evolving tactic of the ideological war was to minimize the effectiveness of terrorism by mentioning it as little as possible and denying its Islamic cred by refusing to associate it with Islam. Meanwhile the practical side of the war required informing as many people as possible of the threat and taking swift and decisive action against a defined enemy.

During the Bush Administration, the ideological component blunted the military component, but did not overshadow it. Under Obama, the military component receded into the ideological war with new barometers of success that did not depend on winning battles, but winning hearts and minds.

There was no reason to believe that the ideological program of denial was in any way effective. The vast majority of Muslims did not get their news from America. Nor were they likely to be fooled by politically correct distortions of news events.

Whether a State Department spokesman chose to call Bin Laden an Islamic terrorist, a violent extremist or an extremely naughty boy would have no impact on the Muslim world. It would only have an impact on Americans.

And that was not accidental.

Where the military campaign was aimed at Muslim terrorists, the ideological campaign was aimed at altering the American understanding of Islam to be more harmonious with liberal foreign policy. And once the ideological campaign succeeded in changing American attitudes, it was assumed that the Muslim world would react differently to this new America.

Read more at Front Page

 

Seems Like a Natural To Me

 

!cid_part1_08030805_08060206@earthlinkNRO, By Andrew McCarthy:

Janet Napolitano is stepping down from her cabinet post as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to take over as president of the University of California. During Secretary Napolitano’s tenure, the DHS became a haven for Islamist advisers and cleared Egyptian terrorist organization members andsupporters for visits to the White House.

While he was a student at the University of California, Mohamed Morsi joined the Muslim Brotherhood. He later became the president of Egypt, establishing a close working relationship with President Obama. During his recently abbreviated term, President Morsi released some terrorist organization members from jail and, courtesy of Secretary Napolitano, sent others to Washington for visits to the White House. Mr. Morsi is now . . . er . . . between jobs.

President Obama’s policy holds that securing our homeland requires partnering with Islamist leaders and taking their “subject matter expert” guidance on what homeland security agents should learn about Islam.

So we have a clear mission, an open slot, and a guy who needs a new gig . . .

 

Janet Napolitano, Looking for “Violent Extremists”

630x300x-209284613.png.pagespeed.ic.Lly5pDRRfNCenter For Security Policy:

As Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano oversaw a hyper-partisan leveling of her department’s awareness of the domestic terrorist threats we face, scandalously equating Tea Party conservatives and returning veterans with Islamists intent on advancing shariah in this country.

Under her watch, DHS came in line with the Obama administration’s failed and highly ideological approach to counter-terrorism; its Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) strategy wiped clean any attempts to identify the enemy we face. The imperative of Napolitano’s CVE, in fact, was less to adequately prevent homegrown Islamist terror attacks but to prevent any association of terrorism with Islam, no matter the cost.

Replacing accurate analysis of Islamic jihad with the meaningless “violent extremism” was part of an administration-wide effort to understand and reflect the grievances of local Muslim communities. Community engagement became more important than counter-terror policing, as career subject matter experts who correctly identified the nexus between jihad and acts of terror were silenced and purged. With the makeup of Napolitano’s CVE Advisory Board—including a who’s-who of Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals—this strategy is unsurprising.

The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of 9/11 to unify efforts to combat terrorism against Americans. The Center for Security Policy urges President Obama to nominate a replacement for Napolitano that takes into account, especially, the failures of her counter-terror strategy.

Muslim advocates urge reduced FBI anti-jihad role

Islamic Center of Boston

Islamic Center of Boston

By Neil Munro:

Politically influential Muslim activists are pushing to reduce the FBI’s role in countering Islamic terrorism and are seeking greater federal reliance on hard-line orthodox Imams.

The White House’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program “did not produce the results a lot of us were hopeful … [and] kind of collapsed towards the end of last year,” complained Mohamed Elibiary, a Texas-based advocate who was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

“I don’t know where it is today … [but] it presents us with the opportunity to look at the question of [whether] it is right to house it within the FBI,” he said at an May 28 event in D.C. staged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The controversial CVE program was boosted in 2011, when President Barack Obama directed the FBI to work with Muslim political and community groups to suppress jihadi attacks, which are dubbed as non-Islamic “violent extremism.”

But, said Elibiary, “we spun our wheels for the last two years [and] we never got the national CVE policy across all 56 [FBI field] offices.”

Instead, said panelists, the FBI has continued its traditional policy of investigating  jihadis for subsequent trial and convictions.

In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security, Elibiary said, has done much good by trying to work with Islamic groups.

The CVE program has been slammed by critics for giving too large an intermediary role to small Islamic political groups such as MPAC, which portray themselves as representatives of American Muslims. The groups try to foster the growth of distinct Islamic communities.

The CVE training has also been criticized for obscuring the many orthodox Islamic strictures that spur Muslims’ violence against non-Muslims.

Elibiary’s new call for reduced policing of Islamic communities, such as Boston’s immigrant Muslims, was echoed by other speakers at the panel, which was hosted by the progressive New American Foundation in Washington D.C.

“Imams and counselors need to be given some leeway” by police,  said Suhaib Webb, Imam of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

Webb’s cultural center is affiliated with the mosque attended by Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the ethnic Chechen Muslim who along with his brother Dzhokhar  killed three Americans with two bombs at the Boston Marathon. Tsarnaev also killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer after Boston police broadcast his photo on TV. The police did not contact the main Boston mosque for help in identifying Tsarnaev’s image, which was captured  by videos of the explosion and its aftermath.

Webb, who was disinvited from the state’s April 18 memorial service by Governor Deval Patrick,  said he can persuade young men to stay away from violence. But “I need to be able to sit down with someone and not be subpoenaed or be called as a witness” in a later terrorism investigation, he said.

To succeed, government anti-terror agencies should keep their distance from such outreach to angry youth, he said. “We don’t need to be too close to each other, because that undermines our [Imams’] street credibility,” said Webb.

In fact, he added, his influence was recently reduced when he was labelled as a “moderate.” That “undermined my ability” to persuade youths, Webb said.

Read more at The Daily Caller

How to Defeat Terrorism In America Without Firing A Shot

20130528_OBAMA_MUSLIM_BROTHERHOODby ALAN KORNMAN:

The Muslim Brotherhoods top spiritual leader Youssef Qaradawi has been banned from entering the United States since 1999.  Qaradawi called for attacks on US troops and civilians,  death to all Jews, and for the collapse of the United States.  Hatred of America is the spiritual core of The Muslim Brotherhood as articulated by its spiritual leader.  When someone says they wish to cause you harm — believe them.

How To Cripple Terrorism In America Without Firing A Shot

If the American people want our elected officials and law enforcement to cripple Islamic terrorism without having to fire a shot, it can be done in three easy steps.

Step 1:  Declare The Muslim Brotherhood a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization)

Step 2:  Publicly name all The Muslim Brotherhood affiliates operating in the United States,  based on evidence submitted during The Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial.

Step 3:  The FTO designation will trigger a provision of law allowing theTreasury Department and FBI to shut down all Muslim Brotherhood sub groups operating in the United States, confiscate their records, assets, real estate, freeze bank accounts, then jail and/or deport all individuals associated with The Muslim Brotherhood.

Designation of  Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, are authorized to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with:

(A) the organization is a foreign organization;

(B)     the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 1182 (a)(3)(B) of this title or terrorism (as defined in section 2656f (d)(2) of title 22), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism)  [1] ; and

(C) the terrorist activity or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.

The Case For The Muslim Brotherhood’s FTO Status

Muslim Brotherhood Motto

“Allah is our objective, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our Constitution, jihad our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar.”

The United States became the victim of high profile Islamic terrorism on February 26, 1993 with the bombing of the World Trade Center.  The mastermind of this attack on America was Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman aka The Blind Sheikh.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi has proclaimed repeatedly he wishes to gain the release of Muslim Brotherhood operative Omar Abdel Rahman.  Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi’s support for the blind Sheikh ties the Brotherhood directly to Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (GIA) aka Armed Islamic Group, designated a FTO on 10/8/1997 yet mysteriously delisted on 10/15/2010.

On December 15, 2010 Secretary of State Clinton delisted the GIA under mysterious circumstances, as the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak by The Muslim Brotherhood was in play.

The GIA is the military wing of The Muslim Brotherhood and The Blind Sheikh is its leader. Second in charge of the MB military wing was Ayman al-Zawahiri who later became Al-Qaeda’s #2 behind Osama Bin Laden.  John Guandolo would call this a clue  The Muslim Brotherhood poses a national security risk to the United States of America.

Read more: Family Security Matters

 

Quintan Wiktorowicz: Architect Of US Counter Extremism Strategy

Quintan Wiktorowicz

Quintan Wiktorowicz

By gmbwatch:

In June 2011, a little known US government official and former college professor was the center of controversy in the UK when the Times of London reported that his efforts were behind an invitation to an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood, to meet young British Muslims in connection with a strategy to help them to reject terrorism. The newspaper reported that “British anti-extremism experts said they were shocked that the US Government was introducing teenagers to an organisation that promotes Islamic political activism.” The Times identified Dr. Quintan Wiktorowicz, an academic formerly posted to the US embassy in London and later promoted to the US National Security Council, as the architect of the strategy behind the invitation to Basim Elkarra who once had an award to him rescinded by California Senator Barbara Boxer after she learned he was a CAIR official. Although the visit was canceled following the controversy, Mr. Elkarra was known to have previously made two official visits to the U.K to meet other Muslim youth and community groups as a guest of the embassy. Mr. Elkarra was cited has saying “Quintan brought together American and British Muslims to share civic engagement best practices. My visit is strictly about civic engagement, not counter-terrorism.” The U.S. Embassy described Mr. Elkarra as “an experienced community activist who works in the US to uphold the values of tolerance, mutual respect and inter-religious dialogue.”

post from last week discussed the role of individuals tied to the US Muslim Brotherhood serving as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisers on US counter-extremism policy. Another earlier post revealed that DHS had relied upon Saudi-funded Georgetown University professor John Esposito for advice to  law enforcement on counter-extremism. It appears that Dr. Wiktorowicz is the key White House official who helped the Obama administration fashion its new counter-extremism policies. So who exactly is Dr. Quintan Wiktorowicz and why would be involved in bringing the US Muslim Brotherhood to the UK? A look at Dr. Wiktorowicz’s life and work provides useful insight into the Obama administration’s views on countering extremism.

Several years after graduating from Cornell University,  Dr. Wiktorowicz participated in a 1995 summer Islamic studies program in Cairo, Egypt under a USAID fellowship.  It may have been during this time that according to an online bio, he studied Islam with an unidentified Sheikh from Al-Azhar, the main center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world. In 1998, Dr. Wiktorowicz  was awarded a PhD in Political Science from American University with a dissertation concerning Islamist networks in Jordan. Following the awarding of his PHD, Dr. Wiktorowicz held several academic positions where he continued his work on Islamist networks including Al-Muhajiroun, the UK based Islamist group in which the two individuals accused of the recent brutal attack on a British solider were members. As a result of the 911 attacks, Dr. Wiktorowicz emerged from academic obscurity and began to be cited by national media as well as testifying before a Senate hearing on international terrorism. He also began speaking at various terrorism conferences.

Dr. Wiktorowicz joined the government in 2005 and until 2009, served as senior analyst at the National Counterterrorism Center having been recruited by  Juan Zarate, the Bush-era counterterrorism official. He also served as chair of the Interagency Intelligence Subcommittee on Radicalization and in May 2008 invited controversial U.S. Islamic cleric Yassir Qadi to a conference on U.S. Counter-Radicalization Strategy conference organized by the National Counterterrorism Center. From 2009-2011, Dr. Wiktorowicz was posted to the US London Embassy where he “piloted a field-based approach to partnering with Muslim communities at the grassroots level to counter violent extremism, a program that has since been expanded to multiple countries and regions.” It was during this time that CAIR official Bassim Elkarra was invited to the UK to meet with young British Muslims. In January 2011, Dr Wiktorowicz  was appointed Senior Director for Global Engagement at the National Security Council.

In August 2011, the White House revealed its strategy for countering radicalization titled “Empowering Local Partners To Prevent Violent Extremism In The United States” which the New York Times reported that Dr. Wiktorowicz helped devise. The Times cited him as saying that “the administration was aware of ‘inaccurate training’ on Islam for law enforcement officers that the Obama administration would compile ‘gold standard’ materials to be posted on the Web for officials to draw upon.” The new US strategy appeared to be modeled somewhat upon the UK Prevent Program but unlike that effort, avoided the issue of non-violent extremism and underestimated the importance of Islamist ideology as a factor in fostering violent extremism. (Knowledgable sources in the UK tell us that Dr. Wiktorowicz’s approach was based on an earlier version of the Prevent Program that was widely acknowledged to be a complete failure. Also see here andhere.) Dr. Wiktorowicz’s statements at the time suggest his strong support for including the US Muslim Brotherhood as part of the new strategy.

Best known for his unproven theory that increased religiosity actually deters terrorism and despite his critical role as the architect of US counterterrorism strategy, Dr. Wiktorowicz displays  an astonishing lack of understanding of the nature of the Global Muslim Brotherhood as well as its relationship with Al Qaeda.

Read more

US Gov’t: Radical Muslims Approved, Moderates Shunned

Muslim advisorsBy Ryan Mauro:

A 2011 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document released by The Daily Caller advises government agencies against training about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and to shun “Muslim reformers.”

Shockingly, the advisory committee that likely influenced these guidelines includes numerous individuals affiliated with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

The document says it is a list of “tips for federal, state and local government and law enforcement officials organizing CVE [Countering Violent Extremism], cultural awareness, counter-radicalization, or counterterrorism training.” It was produced by the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in cooperation with the National Counterterrorism Center.

The DHS suggestions in the document include:

Don’t use training premised on theories with little or no evidence to support them. Examples (from the report “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace”) of unsubstantiated theories include:

a. Many mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties.

b Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in America. Muslim Americans are using democratic processes, like litigation and free speech, to subvert democracy and install Sharia law.

The “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace” report cited depicts concerns about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood as the fabrications of anti-Muslim bigots. Moreover, it defends the Brotherhood, saying it is a moderate group that wouldn’t use front groups in America.

In reality, solid evidence exists to the contrary – evidence ironically from the federal government’s own determinations as well as documents from the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood itself including a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood explanatory memorandum that explicitly states: “[O]ur work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood memorandum lists “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”  The list includes “mainstream” Muslim-American groups—the very same groups which appear to have influenced these very same Department of Homeland Security guidelines (see below).

Specifically, the federal government designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas. Federal prosecutors labeled these three mainstream groups as U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entities in 2007. In 2009, the designations were upheld by District Court Judge Solis because of “ample” evidence linking them to Hamas.

The Clarion Project has broken numerous stories about other Islamist groups doing exactly what the DHS dismisses in the current training document as “unsubstantiated theories.”

For example, a Pennsylvania-based group, Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), tells Muslims to engage in “litigation jihad” to advance Sharia law in America.

A California-based group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which issues authoritative fatwas, or religious declarations, said in a 2007 Arabic paper presented at one of its conferences it recommends that Muslims become judges and use deception to implement sharia law to the best of their ability. To call their rulings unsettling would be a gross understatement.

These are important facts but the DHS guidelines would leave law enforcement personnel ignorant of them.

On the topic of “Muslim Reformers,” the DHS document had this to say:

Don’t use trainers who answer primarily to interest groups. For example, trainers who are self-professed “Muslim reformers” may further an interest group agenda instead of delivering generally accepted unbiased information.

This is a chilling reflection of how the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups have succeeded in marginalizing their competitors. (SeeThe Clarion Project.org’s CAIR Lashes Out at Non-Islamist Muslim Group where CAIR labels their competitors as being part of an “Islamophobia” network.)

In fact, the Brotherhood groups have become treasured partners of the Obama Administration, while their opponents have been shut out of the policy process. Radical Islamists with known connections to terrorism have had an open door to the White House, but moderate Muslims are not among the list of invitees.

Read more at The Clarion Project

The Obama Doctrine and Countering Violent Extremism Strategy – A Product of Islamist Influence Operations

terrorist-painted-on-wall-630x286

December 1, 2012, by Dr. Richard Swier

As Raess Alam Qazi and Sheheryar Alam Qazi, two Muslim men from Pakistan, are indicted in Florida for plotting to carry out a terrorist attack using a weapon of mass destruction it is time to analyse the Obama Doctrine on terrorism.

On August 3, 2011 President Obama released the National Strategy on Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism. The strategy, now known as the Obama Doctrine, was based upon the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) study group findings and recommendation developed in 2010 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CVE has become the blueprint for both domestic and foreign policy when dealing with terrorism. The Obama Doctrine redefined “terrorism” as “violent extremism”.

The DHS website states, “The threat posed by violent extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. Groups and individuals inspired by a range of religious, political, or other ideological beliefs have promoted and used violence against the homeland.”

Who developed the Obama Doctrine?

The Obama Doctrine is based in large part upon the 2010 findings and recommendations of a Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council. The twenty member advisory council is unique in its composition, with eight members who are Islamists, three representing large Islamic communities and one openly supportive of Islam.

Islamist members included: Nimco Ahmed, Policy Aide, Vice-President of the Minneapolis City Council, Omar Alomari Community Engagement Officer, Ohio Homeland Security, Asli Bali Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, Mohamed Elibiary President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation, Amin Kosseim Deputy Inspector, New York City Police Department, Imam Mohamed Magid Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS Center), Asim Rehman President, Muslim Bar Association of New York and Dalia Mogahed Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies

Members from predominantly Islamist communities included: Michael Downing Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department and Ronald Haddad Chief of Police, Dearborn Police Department. Richard Cohen President and CEO, Southern Poverty Law Center, was a pro-Islamist council member. Pro-Islamist subject matter experts advising the council included: Arif Alikhan Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, DHS and Laurie WoodAnalyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

According to Clare Lopez, former CIA Operations Officer and co-Author of the book Shariah: The Threat to America:

“Muhammad Magid is not only the head of the ADAMS center, he is the son of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Grand Mufti of Sudan and current president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an MB front group named by the Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation – HAMAS (HLF) terror funding trial. Magid is also one of the closest advisers of the National Security Council of the USA (in particular Denis McDonough). He’s an A-list invitee at the White House. Some believe he may be the head of the North American MB Shura Council.

Mohamed Elibiary is affiliated with numerous identified MB figures who are members of the Freedom and Justice Foundation Advisory Council: they come from the Muslim American Society (MAS), CAIR, ISNA, and the Islamic Association of North Texas. He publicly criticized the HLF trial convictions and has written admiringly of Sayyed Qutb.

IIIT likewise is listed in the MB’s “Explanatory Memorandum” of 1991 as one of its ‘friends and the organizations of our friends’.”

The Obama Doctrine states, “Government officials and the American public should not stigmatize or blame communities because of the actions of a handful of individuals.” The doctrine notes, “This type of violent extremism is a complicated challenge for the United States, not only because of the threat of attacks, but also because of its potential to divide us.” The Obama Doctrine states, “Violent extremists prey on the disenchantment and alienation that discrimination creates, and they have a vested interest in anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Read more at WatchDogWire

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 9: Team Obama & the Islamist Agenda: (You can fast forward to 1:32 for the section on DHS and the Countering Violent Extremism policies but I recommend viewing the entire video)

Related:

U.S. Facilitating Muslim Brotherhood’s Extremist Agenda

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listens to Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu at the Global Counterterrorism Forum in Istanbul. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listens to Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu at the Global Counterterrorism Forum in Istanbul. (Photo: Reuters)

By Clare Lopez:

The U.S. government has become an agent of influence for the Brotherhood, as it helps to establish the “International Centre of Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism.”

First the U.S. allowed itself to be gulled into co-sponsoring an international “Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)” together with Turkey that deliberately excluded Israel. Now, at the most recent GCTF conference, held December 14, 2012 in Abu Dhabi, the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded in getting the U.S. to lend its name – and its taxpayers’ money – to the so-called “International Centre of Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism.”

In this context, the only officially permitted “violent extremists” are al-Qa’eda and only al-Qa’eda. “Violent Extremism” does not include, for instance, HAMAS, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood or the Taliban, all of which espouse the exact same ideology and goals as al-Qa’eda.

The GCTF, which comprises 30 members (including the U.S. and the European Union, but not Israel), bills itself as “an informal, multilateral counterterrorism (CT) platform that focuses on identifying critical civilian CT needs, mobilizing the necessary expertise and resources to address such needs and enhance global cooperation.”

One third of its members are Muslim countries, including some of those most often identified as sources of funding for jihadist organizations such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood. Its Plan of Action on Victims of Terrorism, developed at a July 2012 conference in Madrid, is suitably bland and, naturally, makes no mention of either Islamic terrorism (which is responsible for the vast majority of victims of terrorism), or of Jews and Israelis, who often are the target of such terrorism.

The GCTF’s ominously named “Cairo Declaration on Counterterrorism and the Rule of Law” was adopted September 22, 2011 and spawned the GCTF Criminal Justice and Rule of Law Working Group, which is co-chaired by Egypt and the U.S. At the time of the group’s inaugural meeting (held November 3-4, 2011 in Washington, D.C.), it will be recalled that Egypt had recently installed a Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who is pledged to the global imposition and enforcement of Islamic law (sharia).

Further, Egypt, as well as the other nine GCTF Islamic member countries, is also a signatory to the 1990 Cairo Declaration, which rejected the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and declared that the only human rights Islamic members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) recognize are those allowed by the sharia. Egypt is also the co-sponsor, together with the U.S., of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which calls on Western governments to criminalize “any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” which is, in fact, a thinly disguised assault on the U.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Hard on the heels of the Muslim Brotherhood’s blitzkrieg takeover of Egypt, the sharia-adherent Egyptian judiciary has wasted no time in moving to suppress criticism of Islam, both at home and abroad. Even before the new sharia-elevating constitution’s late December 2012 referendum, an Egyptian blogger was convicted for blasphemy and “contempt of religion” and the conviction of a Coptic Christian was upheld for “insulting the prophet” by pointing out that Muhammad had more than four wives (which is amply documented in both the Sira and ahadith). Not content to crush free speech only at home, in November 2012, an Egyptian court sentenced seven people, including an American citizen, to death on blasphemy charges for their involvement in the online video, “Innocence of Muslims.”

To date, there has been no official statement from the U.S. State Department on exactly how it intends to work on ‘Criminal Justice and Rule of Law” with a sharia champion GCTF co-chair like Egypt and reconcile that with its Constitutional obligations to the American people.

 Read more at Radical Islam

Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

CIA Hosts Training by Muslim Brotherhood Leader and Hamas Supporter

by  John Guandolo:

Over the last several years, the presence of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives working inside the federal government advising our senior leaders has been definitively documented (see articles here , here and here).  This penetration of our system is shocking and constitutes an immediate danger for American citizens.  The success of the MB’s influence operation from within our government is now manifesting itself with national and global implications for the security of America and its citizens.

In July of this year, the CIA hosted a 2-day training program at its headquarters in Langley, Virginia entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Workshop for the National Capitol Region.”

Present at this conference were local, state, and federal officials from nearly every law enforcement, military, and intelligence organization around the Washington Metropolitan area.  In addition to the senior CIA, FBI, and DHS officials conducting the training, members of the Muslim community moderated and led the training throughout the 2-day program.  Notable among these was Imam Mohammed Magid who participated in speaking about “Building Communities of Trust:  A Local Example of a Partnership between the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) and Law Enforcement.”

How was Imam Magid vetted to speak at CIA Headquarters?  And who vetted him?

The ADAMS Center is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization.  It was founded by some of the most senior Muslim Brothers in the United States, to include Ahmed Totanji, who still resides in Herndon, Virginia.  Its website proclaims “[ADAMS] is a membership organization registered in the State of Virginia as a non-profit, tax exempt corporation and is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).”

Imam Magid is the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center.  He is also the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S. which was found to be a financial support entity for Hamas in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008).  Having Magid advise and teach U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials can only be aptly described as insane.  According to officials at Langley who were willing to speak on the condition of anonymity, this is an outrage – but none of the leaders on the inside seem to understand the gravity of this threat.  To say the fox is in the hen house would be an understatement.

Read more at Breitbart