Obama Administration Legitimizing Philadelphia Islamists

Islamist Watch:

by Hillel Zaremba  •  Jan 8, 2013

State Dept. Promotes Philly Supremacist Groups as Model For Muslim World

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports on a State Department-sponsored visit to America by a Bulgarian Muslim delegation, to “learn about the environment of religious tolerance in the U.S. and how religious groups function in a democratic society with a separation of church and state.”

A laudable goal, perhaps. But maddeningly, American taxpayers paid for the Bulgarians to meet representatives from Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups like the terror-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and terror apologist Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), while groups upholding American values like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy or American Islamic Leadership Coalition were ignored.

Perhaps equally disturbing are some of the lesser known groups with whom the delegation met on the Philadelphia leg of the tour.

Al Aqsa Islamic Society (AAIS).

The AAIS’ self-described mission is to “maintain the Islamic Identity and to protect Muslim people, children and students from the adversities of the surrounding non-Islamic environments.” Apparently, no one at the aptly named Foggy Bottom sees a problem with arranging a meeting with a group possessing such a hostile view of the surrounding American culture.

The Obama Administration brought a delegation of Bulgarian Muslims to the Al Aqsa Islamic Society in Philadelphia (left), holding AAIS’ supremacist, intolerant version of Islam as a model for Muslims worldwide. At right, a taxpayer funded women-only class inside the AAIS.

 

The name of this mosque should have been State’s first clue as to the “Islamic Identity” which the AAIS fosters. In a typical Islamic supremacist gesture, the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was built by conquering Muslims on top of the site of the Jewish Temple. Many American Muslims use the name for their houses of worship to indicate Muslim supremacy, as well as Palestinian solidarity.

AAIS has been linked to anti-Israel protests, featuring slogans such as “No justice! No peace! No freedom! No peace!” — presumably not the face of “tolerance” State wanted to show its Bulgarian visitors. And it was at the AAIS that Mohamad Shnewer and the Duka brothers, sentenced to life in prison for planning an attack on Fort Dix, would come to pray, begging the question of what brand of Islam is being preached at this site.

The Foundation for Islamic Education (FIE).

FIE describes itself as a satellite campus of Al-Azhar University of Cairo, whose leaders and faculty have sanctioned suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, called Jews “descendants of apes and pigs,” defended the execution of Muslims who leave their faith and threatened Egyptian Christians (Copts) for questioning the Quran.

The Bulgarians met representatives from FIE to discuss the latter’s “Islamic … after-school and summer programs.” Did FIE officials tell the Bulgarians how before 9/11 they held summer “jihad camp” gatherings at their campus? Or mention that one invited speaker, Siraj Wahhaj, advocated replacing the Constitution with Shari’a? Did FIE bring up its hosting of imam Jamal Badawi, who issued a fatwa listing the conditions under which it is permitted to beat one’s wife; or of banned-from-Canada Riyadh ul Haq, who declared: “The only Muslims who are considered moderates, are those who….forgive me for polluting the masjid’s atmosphere by saying this, … openly advocate lesbianism, those who are publicly declared homosexuals”?

The Obama Administration should not be holding up American Islamist groups who espouse religious intolerance and supremacism as a model for Muslims worldwide.

A World Without America

flag distressCenter for Security Policy

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that “a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable.”  While that sentiment won’t be embraced in President Obama’s inaugural address next week, all other things being equal, it seems likely to be the practical effect of his second term.

Of course, Iran’s regime seeks a world literally without America.  More to the point, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Tehran are working tirelessly to secure the means by which to accomplish that goal.  Specifically, they have or are developing the ability to engage in devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, biological warfare and other asymmetric terrorist strikes.

For his part, Barack Obama seems to have in mind bringing about a world without America in a geo-strategic sense.  As Mark Steyn notes in a characteristically brilliant essay in National Review Online, that would be “Obamacare’s other shoe.” It would amount to a “fundamental transformation” of America’s place in the world, evidently intended to be the President’s second-act counterpart to the socialist transformation of this country that dominated his first term.

That agenda is strongly evident in Mr. Obama’s choices for key national security cabinet positions: John Kerry at the State Department, Chuck Hagel at Defense and John Brennan at the CIA.  The three are, like the President, imbued with a post-American, post-sovereignty, post-constitutional, transnationalist outlook.  In his administration, it would appear that their mission would be, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka puts it, to manage the United States’ decline.

Having addressed previously in this space the serious problems with the judgment, records and policy proclivities of Messrs. Hagel  and Kerry let’s consider those of John Brennan to further illustrate the syndrome.

Brennan is a textbook example of a U.S. official who has “gone native.”  He speaks Arabic and was formerly the top CIA officer in Saudi Arabia.  He has shown himself to be deeply sympathetic to Islamists — for example, excusing and dissembling about their commitment to jihad and the necessity of not offending them.

After President Obama himself, John Brennan is, arguably, the single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists’ agenda in government today. In his role as Homeland Security Advisor to the President — a position that does not require Senate confirmation and that he was given as a consolation prize when it became clear that he might not be confirmable as CIA director back in 2009 — Brennan has helped legitimate, empower, fund, arm and embolden them abroad, and embraced and appeased them here at home.

Of particular concern is the fact that John Brennan has presided over: the policy of engaging the Muslim Brotherhood, which has consequently been portrayed by a politicized intelligence community as “largely secular” and “eschewing violence”; the shredding of training briefings and the proscribing of trainers that might upset Muslims by telling the truth about shariah and the jihad it commands; the penetration of U.S. agencies by Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals as employees and/or senior advisors; and misrepresentations to Congress about the true, jihadist character of the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi last September 11th.

Of particular concern is the prospect that Team Obama’s second-term team will, if confirmed, be even more insistent than their predecessors on engaging Iran.  Make no mistake about it:  The practical effect will be to buy the regime in Tehran the last few months it evidently needs to achieve what it has sought for decades: the means to have the world not only bereft of America’s leadership and stabilizing force, but to neutralize and perhaps eliminate the United States as a 21st Century society.

Ordinarily, a president should be given wide latitude by the Senate to appoint those he wants to staff his administration.  This is no ordinary time, though, and this is no ordinary president or administration.  The circumstances are such that a Team Obama that is pursuing so dangerous a policy course must be challenged and impeded, not encouraged and abetted.

The Senate’s constitutional responsibility to confirm senior executive branch appointees is one of the few it hasn’t compromised, or allowed the president to expropriate.  It must exercise its authority to assure “quality control” with respect to his picks for top national security cabinet posts.

Indeed, the fact that President Obama seeks not one or two, but three individuals who share his determination to achieve the radical and dangerous national security transformation he seeks in his second term demands that Senators defy him.  After all, should the Senate fail to object to this trajectory by rigorously debating and defeating any — and preferably all — of these problematic choices, its members risk not only allowing, but becoming party to, the realization of a world without America.

Mali Islamists Hit in Lightning Strikes by French

Map showing Mali's location in Africa (Source: CIA)

Map showing Mali’s location in Africa (Source: CIA)

Determined to win and win in a short time, French fighter planes began lightning strikes on Islamist strongholds in northern Mali Friday. Since then, the strikes have intensified, as have the amount of ground troops – now at 550 – that France has brought in for support.The French specifically stepped in as radical Islamists, who had taken over northern Mali last April, began a successful expansion campaign into the central region of the country, threatening to reach Bamako, the capital.

Seven other countries have joined the effort, including the U.S., who is providing communications support, and Britain, who is sending aircrafts to help transport troops from neighboring countries.

Since taking over the northern part of the country (an area greater than the size of France), the Al Qaeda-linked groups have imposed the most extreme form of Sharia (Islamic) law on the territory, amputating arms for those accused of thievery, public whippings of women for wearing perfume or makeup, flogging men for smoking cigarettes, and stoning to death individuals accused of adultery. Alcohol, music and watching sports on television have also been forbidden. The Islamists began their campaign in the region by smashing historic tombs and shrines located in Timbuktu.

See RadicalIslam.org’s related report Mali Islamists Amputate Thief’s Hand. Threaten 60 More

Tens of thousands of Malians have fled the region, with those left behind having to deal with the horrors of everyday life under the Islamists.

“France’s goal is to lead a relentless struggle against terrorist groups,” the ministry said, “preventing any new offensive of these groups to the south of Mali,” said France’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Mali map (Source: CIA)

Mali map (Source: CIA)

The Islamists rapid expansion into central Mali prompted the French to take action to prevent Al Qaeda terrorists from establishing large terrorist bases from which to launch attacks in Europe and link to other Islamist groups in Somalia, Yemen and northern Africa.

France’s goal is also to provide support to Malian government forces, who are hoping to soon be joined by troops from other African nations to take back their country.

Read more a Radical Islam

The Weird Phenomenon of Ottoman Empire Nostalgia

The ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia was accomplished in a variety of ways including deportations and outright massacres. Here, Armenian deportees struggle to survive in makeshift tents erected in the Syrian desert to which they were deported in 1915.

The ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia was accomplished in a variety of ways including deportations and outright massacres. Here, Armenian deportees struggle to survive in makeshift tents erected in the Syrian desert to which they were deported in 1915.

By John Hinderaker at Powerline:

If you hate America and the West generally, but aren’t crazy enough to long for Nazism or Communism, what’s left? Remarkably, many leftists have recently been expressing affection for the Ottoman Empire. Seriously. If you think about it, the Ottomans fulfilled a liberal fantasy: authoritarian so you get to boss everyone around and always get your way, but usually without actually having to murder your enemies. Plus, with no shortage of sex. I ridiculed Tom Friedman’s yearning for the days of the Ottomans here, and included this throwaway line:

It turns out that “Iron Empires” means the Ottomans, who, as Friedman writes, “had a live-and-let-live mentality toward their subjects.” Unless, of course, they were Armenians.

At the Middle East Quarterly, Efraim Karsh undertakes a more systematic demolition of Ottoman nostalgia:

It is commonplace among Middle East scholars across the political spectrum to idealize the Ottoman colonial legacy as a shining example of tolerance. “The multi-ethnic Ottoman Turkish Empire,” wrote American journalist Robert Kaplan, “was more hospitable to minorities than the uni-ethnic democratic states that immediately succeeded it. … Violent discussions over what group got to control which territory emerged only when the empire came to an end, after World War I.”

Karsh also cites the Armenian genocide in response to the idealization of the Ottomans:

While there is no denying the argument’s widespread appeal, there is also no way around the fact that, in almost every particular, it is demonstratively wrong. The imperial notion, by its very definition, posits the domination of one ethnic, religious, or national group over another, and the Ottoman Empire was no exception. It tolerated the existence of vast non-Muslim subject populations in its midst, as did earlier Muslim (and non-Muslim) empires—provided they acknowledged their legal and institutional inferiority in the Islamic order of things. When these groups dared to question their subordinate status—let alone attempt to break the Ottoman yoke—they were brutally suppressed, and none more so than the Armenians during World War I. …

A far cry from the tolerant and tranquil domain it is often taken for, Turkey-in-Europe was the most violent part of the continent during the century or so between the Napoleonic upheavals and World War I as the Ottomans embarked on an orgy of bloodletting in response to the nationalist aspirations of their European subjects. The Greek war of independence of the 1820s, the Danubian nationalist uprisings of 1848, the Balkan explosion of the 1870s, and the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897—all were painful reminders of the cost of breaking free from an imperial master. And all pale in comparison with the treatment meted out to the foremost nationalist awakening in Turkey-in-Asia: the Armenian.

He recites the brute facts of the Turks’ suppression of the Armenians; read it all if you aren’t already familiar with the depressing story. In the meantime, here are some excerpts. See whether some aspects of the story seem especially topical:

The first step in this direction was taken in early 1915 when Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army were relegated to “labor battalions” and stripped of their weapons. Most of these fighters-turned-laborers would be marched out in droves to secluded places and shot in cold blood, often after being forced to dig their own graves. Those fortunate enough to escape summary execution were employed as laborers in the most inhumane conditions.

At the same time, the authorities initiated a ruthless campaign to disarm the entire Armenian population of personal weapons before embarking on a genocidal spree of mass deportations and massacres. By the autumn of 1915, Cilicia had been ethnically cleansed and the authorities turned their sights on the foremost Armenian settlement area in eastern Anatolia. First to be cleansed was the zone bordering Van, extending from the Black Sea to the Iranian frontier and immediately threatened by Russian advance; only there did outright massacres often substitute for otherwise slow deaths along the deportation routes or in the concentration camps of the Syrian desert. In other districts of Ottoman Armenia, depopulated between July and September, the Turks attempted to preserve a semblance of a deportation policy though most deportees were summarily executed after hitting the road. In the coastal towns of Trebizond, for example, Armenians were sent out to sea, ostensibly for deportation, only to be thrown overboard shortly afterward. Of the deportees from Erzerum, Erzindjan, and Baibourt, only a handful survived the initial stages of the journey. …

Whenever the deportees arrived at a village or town, they were exhibited like slaves in a public place, often before the government building itself. Female slave markets were established in the Muslim areas through which the Armenians were driven, and thousands of young Armenian women and girls were sold in this way. Even the clerics were quick to avail themselves of the bargains of the white slave market. …

Nor for that matter is there any symmetry between the military (and other) resources at the empire’s disposal and those available to its subjects, not least since states by definition control the means of collective violence. In the Armenian case, this inherent inequality was aggravated by the comprehensive disarming of the community; and while some “gangs” may have retained their weapons, the vast majority of Armenians surrendered them to the authorities despite their stark realization that the 1895-96 massacres had been preceded by very similar measures.

We can only speculate as to why so many liberals have grown fond of the Ottomans.

See also:

The Armenian Genocide PBS Documentary posted at Kitman TV

Israel’s jihad is mine

Qanta Ahmed

Qanta Ahmed

IPT:

by Qanta Ahmed Times of Israel January 10, 2013

As Israel considers building a new fence to contain the Syrian conflict to the north, which fences can keep out Hamas’s even more lethal ideologies? While Gaza and the Muslim Arab world continue to claim victory in the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, for the sane observers among us, there is only ever defeat – the defeat of morality in the desecration of a great religion. While most Muslims laud Hamas and scorn Israel, for me, an observing Muslim, Israel’s war against Hamas remains my struggle – my jihad.

Israel’s eight-day operation “Pillar of Defense” sought to dismantle the Hamas apparatus from within Gaza. The predictably seamless alignment of the Muslim world against Israel was even more breathtaking than usual in the face of Syria’s 22 months of systematic genocide, one which has consistently failed to trigger unanimous Muslim protest. What does this say about us as Muslims?

We are hypocrites.

While Muslims define Israel as the enemy, we ignore Assad, and diabolically laud Hamas. Hamas is never sated – each year it devours ever more Palestinians, regardless of age or gender. If Israelis lose fewer citizens than the Palestinians in these conflicts it is for the same reason Israel exchanges more prisoners for each captive soldier: quite simply Israel values human life more than does Hamas, which relishes ground operations taking place among densely populate civilian areas.

Explaining this to Muslims in the Twitterverse, I get sharply reminded that Hamas does not have the “luxury of launch sites” that Israel enjoys. Have we lost our minds, Muslims? How can we speak of ‘launch sites’ as ‘luxuries’ while disregarding the culling taking place in Syria? Perhaps we have not lost our minds, but we have most certainly lost our religion.

As I am not one to speak for others, allow me to let Hamas speak for themselves. They are bald-faced about their mission, seeking glory through death, annunciation through annihilation:

We are ready to offer 1,000, 2,000 or even 10,000 martyrs every year. We are ready to keep offering martyrs for twenty years because we are sure we are moving in the right direction and that we will prevail in the end” (Hamas leader Khalid Al Mish’al in Gaza”

To Hamas, a Palestinian life is worth more when “martyred,” a dead child more of a blessing than one living. “The children of the kindergarten are the shaheeds [martyrs] of tomorrow,” reads a sign displayed at a Hamas-run kindergarten. The martyrdom mantra is their anthem.

While observers speculate Hamas will shortly usurp the crumbling Fatah leadership and ideologically annex the West Bank, we must remember Hamas’ raison d’etre: Islamist nihilism, a totalitarian ideology, jet-fueled on the language and images stolen from mighty Islam. Israeli negotiators who must engage with this opponent are walking on the sharp-edged sword of Damocles and unlike Muslims, the Israelis certainly know it.

Coloring their fascism with Islam, Hamas claims religious legitimacy to openly seek destruction of the Jewish state and eradication of the Jewish people. By grafting themselves onto Into Islamic ideals – the vertebral column of that which is most sacred to Muslims – they render Islam itself heinous, representing their true ruthlessness: theirs is a willingness to sacrifice anything –including Islam – to portray Israel as evil.

This ethos was captured in a single unprecedented obscenity: Hamas’ morbid motorcade. Cocksure thugs, defiantly cruising on motorcycles trailed exposed cadavers of Palestinians – Muslim men – trousers pooled at dead ankles. To chants of ‘Allah-hu-Akbar’ as dozens of Palestinian onlookers silently watched, Hamas took its ghoulish victory lap explicitly to show Gazans how they execute ‘suspected informers to Israel’. This is the Islam of Hamas.

This is why Hamas does not represent me, or other believing Muslims. This is why Israel’s battle is mine. This is why Israel’s struggle – Israel’s jihad – is mine. These are the ‘Muslims’ that Israelis must confront and these are the “Muslims” who intimidate innocent Palestinians into subjugation to their monstrous political Islamism.

But we Muslims in particular, more than conflict-hardened Israelis, should hardly be surprised, for it was Muslims who were once forewarned of scourges such as Hamas.

The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) was once asked what he most feared for his followers. Centuries later, his response, recorded in the hadith, haunts, stating he feared those who:

…Interpret verses of the Qur’an out of context…A people that recite Qur’an….but it will not go past their throats, a people with excellent words and vile deeds. They will pass through the religion (of Islam) like the arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its course. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation. They summon to the book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever kills them is closer to Allah than they.

This is the true nature of Hamas, which recites the Quran yet doesn’t hold it in their hearts, that “summon to the book of Allah but have nothing to do with it.” By the above, it would seem the IDF (that eliminates Hamas) is surely closer to Allah than Hamas.

Yet instead of condemning Hamas, and recognizing them as imposters among us, the Muslim world celebrates them, even as Hamas violates the most profound Islamic principle: the sanctity of life, a right man must protect even in preference to any rights God claims from man.

When Muslims support Hamas, we support no less than the signatories to Islam’s collective extinction. Muslim support renders Hamas legitimate, their methods acceptable, their ideals valid. Our support as Muslims is their lifeblood. In supporting them, we hemorrhage our only currency, our only asset – our great monotheism.

Two years into the Arab Awakening, the freshly turned soil is ripe for the seeding. Hamas operatives everywhere are already celebrated as ‘liberators’ of Gazans, when they have actually long been their jailers, ‘victors’ over Israel, when Hamas is the personal death knell of all pluralism in the region. Gazans so recently celebrating in the street are no more than hostages afflicted with the worst Stockholm Syndrome imaginable, heading to their own death through their misplaced hope in their virulently Islamist leadership.

During Operation Pillar of Defense, Jewish friends said “this must be such a difficult time for you, but I am glad of our friendship” implying that because I am Muslim, my loyalty must surely be to Gaza, my enmity automatically aligned with Israel.

Not so. As a Muslim, I am clear: my loyalty is with Islam, and therefore explicitly with justice, justice for all humanity, a humanity that must include Jews. Hamas is obscenely unjust, so how can my loyalty be with them? To be loyal to Hamas is no less than to abandon Islam. To be loyal to Hamas is the ultimate blasphemy.

While I understand the need for Israeli negotiators to engage with Hamas first to secure the current ceasefire and then for some sort of functional peace, the reality is their militant ideology must be suffocated out of existence or else the détente is little more than an illusion. For this, unlike for suicide bombers or Syrian rockets, there are no Israeli fences or walls, no Iron Domes, only Muslim barriers – robust barriers of counter-ideology.

It is Muslims who must take the first steps to excoriate Hamas, to expose them as the ruthless nihilists they explicitly announce themselves to be. We must scorn Hamas for masquerading among the poor as their savior when they are instead their executioner. Muslims must hold all media accountable for telling the truth: Palestinians are the Muslims orphaned not by Israel but by the entire Muslim world itself. Land-grabs and permanent refugee camps are testament to such.

We must ask ourselves the difficult questions. Does Hamas, who prostitute their progeny in the service of terror, represent Islam? Is Hamas emulating our Prophet as they rain rockets on unarmed, civilian, non-combatants? Do their Fajr missiles, named after Muslim prayers no less, encompass the spirit of Islam as was revealed to its followers? Do Hamas’ stated goals – including elimination of Israel – represent coexistence with the People of the Book, who are cherished in the Quran as dear to God and their Messenger, Moses, particularly admired by our Maker for his courage in the face of fear?

Don’t be fooled by Hamas’ words Muslims; we have a duty to judge them on their vile deeds.

If Islam is to truly thrive, it will only do so when more and more anti-Islamist Muslims confront and extinguish radical Islamist ideologues. Otherwise, we stand to lose both Israel and Islam in one fell swoop of the Islamist axe. Whether rescuing Palestinians and Israelis captive to the whim of Hamas, or rescuing Islam from Islamist Hamas, this is truly our jihad and no one else’s, which is why Israel’s jihad is also mine.

Qanta Ahmed is a physician and author of In the Land of Invisible Women; Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellow in Science and Religion; @MissDiagnosis; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qanta-ahmed/

See also:

CAIR’s Thought Police: At It Again

img_01831-450x300

 Ibrahim Hooper

By Deborah Weiss

The thought police over at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are urging journalists to delete the word “Islamist” from their lexicon.  Though CAIR claims that the word stems out of bigotry, CAIR’s real agenda is to protect Islam — and Islamists — from so-called “defamation.”

The Associated Press Style Book is a guide for journalists which lays out rules for spelling, punctuation, and other guidelines.  In its most recent edition, it added the word “Islamist,” which it defines as: “Islamist: supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”  Generally, the word “Islamist” is used to distinguish those who want to practice Islam as a spiritual faith, as opposed to those who interpret it and apply it as a political ideology.  Those in the latter category desire the merging of mosque and state.

On January 3, 2012, Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesperson for CAIR, published a column suggesting that in the New Year journalists should refrain from using the word “Islamist.”

He complains that news reports unfairly focus on Islamists and notes that there are no news reports of “Christianist,” “Hinduist,” or “Judaist” political leaders.  He further insists that the word “Islamist” is used almost always “pejoratively” by “Islamophobic groups and individuals” who link the word to terrorism, persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.  Hooper whines that such “bigoted attacks” unfairly target Islam because they are not equally hurled at other faiths.

Hooper goes on to claim that often the word “Islamist” is used by “Islam-bashers” who “disingenuously” claim to hate political Islam, though deep in their hearts they hate all Islam.  As proof of his assertion, he accuses the alleged Islamophobes of failing to explain how a practicing Muslim can be politically active without attracting the label “Islamist.”  After all, he writes, Muslims who wish to serve the “public good” and are merely “influenced” by their faith are slapped with the label “Islamist.”  He professes that they just want to work for the “welfare of humanity and to be honest and just,” and if that same inspiration had eminated from the Bible instead of the Quran, they’d be deemed “good Samaritans.”

However, Hooper allows one exception for when use of the word “Islamist” is acceptable, and that is when it is used by Islamists themselves.

And therein lies the rub.  It’s not really the word to which Hooper is objecting.  It is the negative connotation which serves to “defame Islam.”  In the eyes of CAIR and other Islamist organizations, anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims constitutes “defamation,” even if it’s true. This is a definition at odds with that in the American legal system which requires defamation to consist of a false statement of fact.

So the real agenda of CAIR and its ilk is not to stop “bigotry” against Islam or Muslims, but to whitewash and obfuscate the truth and propagate a disinformation campaign about, yes, Islamist terrorism, Islamist persecution of religious minorities and Islamist human rights violations, all of which are done in furtherance of the ultimate goal of Islamist Supremacy.

Read more at Front Page

 

 

Egypt’s Troubling Iranian Turn

Commander of Iran's Quds Force Qasim Soleimani

Commander of Iran’s Quds Force Qasim Soleimani

IPT: By John Rossomando

The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force met with officials close to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi during a secret two-day visit to Egypt just after Christmas. The Times of London calls it “another blow to Cairo’s fragile relationship with the West.”

Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s “meeting was intended to send a message to America, which is putting pressure on the Egyptian government, that we be allowed to have other alliances we please,” a source told the Times.

The U.S. State Department designated Soleimeini as a terrorist, and the Quds Force serves as Iran’s primary unit for training and equipping foreign Islamic revolutionary movements. The Quds Force was responsible for setting up Hizballah in the 1980s and has been involved in training Hamas, the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

The Iranian paramilitary leader met with Essam al-Haddad, one of Morsi’s foreign affairs advisers, and Muslim Brotherhood officials, to advise them on building a security and intelligence apparatus independent from the national intelligence services that are controlled by the Egyptian military.

A report in The Australian suggests that the Egyptians invited Soleimani to meet.

“When the Iranian revolutionaries took control they didn’t trust the military, so they setup a parallel system independent of Iran’s army that has been quite successful,” Heritage Foundation Middle East expert James Phillips told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Consequently, the Brotherhood likely sees the IRGC/Quds Force as a successful model to copy, Phillips said.

Interior Minister Ahmed Gamal al-Din was forced out of the government after he objected to the meeting, Al-Arabiyah reported Thursday.

In addition, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi arrived in Cairo Wednesday for talks that Iran hopes could lead to expanded ties with Egypt. The two countries have not had diplomatic ties since Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1970 and granted asylum to the shah after he was overthrown.

Relations between Iran and Egypt have steadily improved since Morsi, a longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure, was inaugurated in July. Morsi also met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his late August visit to Tehran for the Non-Aligned Movement summit.

Syria will be high on the agenda during Salehi’s visit, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

Iran and Egypt have competing interests in Syria, with the Iranians backing the Assad regime and the Egyptians supporting their Muslim Brotherhood brethren in their rebellion.

The meetings between the Brotherhood and Iran send the message that Egypt will move closer to Iran if the United States and other Western nations cut off aid, an unnamed Egyptian official told the Times.

“It is another sign that the Muslim Brotherhood is distancing itself from the U.S.,” he said. “It is wishful thinking the State Department, the CIA and other agencies that they can count on the Muslim Brotherhood as an ally against the more extremist Islamists.”

Mercy to the Guilty Is Cruelty to the Innocent

imagesCA63IVAZBy Bill Warner:

Someone wrote in reply to the “Un-Merry Christmas to the Christians from Islam” newsletter:

Oh My God. How wrong can you be? Please have more knowledge before you say anything.

Most of what you wrote about Islam is wrong. Islam has several verses which contribute to peace on earth and tolerance to all. Some people do not adhere to this and happen to be Muslim so you regard that as consensus. It’s interesting to justify your sense of Islam you bring in Boko Haram and the kidnapping of the Christian girl for blasphemy. (Your average Muslims??). I hold a degree in Islamic studies and am now studying a post grad; so I know what I am talking about. As a Christian myself I know we too have our faults in society but on no account does that represent the mass.

So you hold yourself to be an expert? Well, there are only two experts–Allah and Mohammed. Islam is found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Everything else is comment, including your post grad courses.

The “several verses which contribute to peace on earth and tolerance for all” in the Koran are all abrogated by later jihadic verses. The man who does not understand the use of abrogation should not comment about the Koran.

Seek critical study of source texts, not university propaganda. After you have read the Koran in the correct time order (to see the abrogation) and read the Sira by Ishaq or al Tabari and Bukhari, come back and comment. (21% of Bukhari’s hadiths are about murderous jihad.) Master the Sunna of Mohammed and then talk to us.

Look at Mohammed’s life. He preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and got 150 Meccans to become Muslims. He moved to Medina and attacked every single neighbor he had, without exception. In his rise to absolute power he was responsible for an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Peace on earth, what a joke!

Boko Haram jihadists follow pure Medinan Islam. You confuse Muslim-ology with the study of Islam. Start with Islam to understand Muslims. Do not start with Muslims to understand Islamic doctrine.

Another thing about those peaceful believers who make up the mass of Muslims, do you notice that they don’t condemn the murder of Christians? They are silent. Do they teach you in your post grad Islam classes that “silence is consent”?

Have you ever condemned the jihadic murder of Christians? Buddhists? Hindus? Jews? Over 270 million non-Muslims were murdered by jihad over the last 1400 years. And you speak of peace.

Christians who are silent in the face of Islamic jihad against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu and atheists are giving consent to this brutality. There have been over 20,000 jihad attacks since 9/11. What noise are you making about that? Silence is consent.

Your apologist education has made you a deluded dhimmi. What is truly tragic is that you represent the pious pacifism of today’s Christians. You are so nice, but you are ruled by fear. It is odd how many Christians live in fear, yet Jesus told his followers, again and again, not to fear. Put down the gospel of nice and take up the Gospel of Christ and take on spiritual warfare.

Oh, and you Jews, take up the mantle of Aaron, Gideon, Deborah and David. Let the Hindus remember the Bhagavad Gita. Let the Buddhists take a lesson from Rinzai Zen.

We either stand together in this civilizational war or we will all be annihilated. See Turkey, Egypt, North Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the other graveyards of Kafir civilization.

The Enemies of Reason

imagesCA3UV6ASby Justin O Smith

Islam’s historic past does indeed include a few intelligent, exceptional men, as well as brief periods of great growth and ascendancy due to militarism and conquest rather than enlightenment and innovations. Islam has always persecuted and silenced its intelligent men and especially its women, as well as the few reformers that have appeared throughout history such as Qassim Amin, who published ‘Tahrir al-Mara’ (The Liberation of Women) in 1899; Amin argued that the degraded position of women and, in particular, the practice of veiling was responsible for Egypt’s backwardness, and to this day, Islam worldwide has revealed its incompatibility with Western civilization and its scorn for secularism, democracy, human rights and all the values upon which Our American Heritage is based; Islam is America’s enemy and the enemy of Reason.

In 19th century Iran, Mirza Aqa Khan Kirmani wrote that true religion meant “tall buildings, industrial inventions, factories, expansion of the means of communication, promotion of knowledge, general welfare, implementing just laws”, rational enlightenment and equal rights. One of the tasks of conservative premodern Islam had been to help Muslims accept the inherent limitations of their society and its fatalism so exemplified by a simple word that translates “as God wills it”… “Inshallah”. Kirmani stated that this was no longer acceptable and Islam would have to change.

Islam never made those changes, as we fast foreward to the 21st century. Islam currently is a peaceful and tolerant “religion” and ideology that shows great concern for human rights according to the Leftists and appeasers, which explains the stacks of corpses the Khomeinists of Iran built their theocratic Islamic state upon, just as the Muslim Brother Morsi is currently poised to imitate in Egypt; the Taliban shooting a teenage girl, Malala Yousafzai, on October 9, 2012 because she advocated education for Pakistani girls; Al Qaeda’s rampage and political gains across the Middle East in this Arab Winter, and the fact that 3000 Christians have been killed by Boko Haram islamofascist terrorists since 2009 with 690 of those murders occuring in 2012…not to mention Obama’s Islamic Maghreb friends murdering the U.S. Ambassador and three others in Benghazi!

A great deal of the last 100 years of upheaval in the Islamic world can be traced to Islam’s struggle to determine if its communities could still retain their Islamic identities, while modernizing in a Western fashion, or if they could modernize in a totally Islamic fashion. Rifah al- Tahtawi insisted in 1826 that Egypt must learn from the West, the gates of “ijtihad”/independent reasoning must be opened and Sharia law must adapt to the modern world; in 1871, Jamal al-Din (al-Afghani) illustrated that essentially the imams, scholars and intellectuals (ulema) had closed those gates to the Islamic masses and stagnated  in the rulings of past sages. Din suggested that this was contrary to the essential characteristics of authentic Islam, which were “dominance and superiority”.

However, it is the very notion of Islamic superiority that causes so much strife between Islam and all other ideologies and religions wherever Islam is found, from Thailand to western China and from Russia to the U.S. The imams and modern day ulema seem to be reactonaries intent on keeping Islam and its followers suspended in a 7th century backward and evil ideology. Looking at Islam holistically, it appears that the Islamic fundamentalists have won time and again over the centuries, and they are winning now from Afghanistan to Iran and Mali to Iraq, largely due to Obama’s failed approach to Middle East policy.

Reason might prescribe that the Palestinians suggest to the Jews and Christians in Bethlehem, “Stay here, live and work with us to build a better community.” A little over three decades ago, Bethlehem was 80% Christian, but soon after Palestinian refugees from Jordan and Lebanon were allowed to settle there, the Palestinians immediately set forth to dominate the region; Bethlehem is now 80% Muslim.

The U.S. legal system is already a complete, competent and virtually all encompassing system. What rationale can anyone give for the U.S. to further encumber its excellent legal system with archaic and often unConstitutional Sharia law concepts other than the fact that CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim fundamentalists and Islam itself demands them? Any attempts at dialogue concerning advances by Islamists and Sharia law encroachments in America usually end in diatribes advancing one point of view by the Obama administration, liberals and Islamic appeasers such as Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, and now the despicable, anti-American  Al Gore lines his pockets with Al Qaeda terror dollars by selling Current TV on January 3, 2013… a primed and readied  Islamic propaganda pipeline… to Al Jazeera!

Most Muslims would prefer to advance the cause of Islam and see a subjugated America, if PEW studies are any indication, rather than integrate into American culture. It is highly unsettling to witness CAIR and the American Muslim Advisory Council try to insert Sharia principles into Rutherford, Williamson, Davidson and many other school systems in Tennessee and throughout the U.S., as they also demand that journalists stop using the term “Islamist”. These Islamofascists ask for the withdrawal of textbooks that make no mention of the presumed contributions made by Islam to the U.S. culture; however, they certainly are not touting the immense contributions Christianity and western values have brought to the world. Islam’s own intolerance is apparent as their minority attempts to force 310 million Americans to bend to their will and validate their worldview of a “superior” Islam!

Many of these same U.S. Muslim citizens are plotting and engaging in terrorism against the united States. The following is a microcosm of a significantly larger problem: In November 2012, four Southern California men were arrested and accused of trying to join Al Qaeda in order to wage “violent jihad” against Americans serving in Afghanistan, and one of the men was a U.S. Air Force veteran, while the rest included two legal reasidents and one more U.S. citizen; in 2008, three Queens, NY men met with Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and returned with a plot to bomb New York subways. Much of this is fomented by zealous, despotic imams delivering violent messages throughout mosques in the U.S. and Europe too.

Unless Europe develops a cadre of real intellectuals who can actually think, America can kiss Europe good-bye. It’s going to be war, much like the Lebanon “civil war” where some sections will be Christian controlled and others occupied by Muslims/Islamists. There will be permanent strife, and it will be more gruesome than we can imagine. When the horror comes, the dhimmis, appeasers and journalists who helped bring it about will wag their heads and flee… and leave it to those who can’t flee to fight it out!

Refusing to admit that America is under both military and cultural assaults on all fronts by Islam, CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda and that they are being aided by the dhimmis, collaborators and traitors at all levels of the U.S. government is against Reason, just as accepting the lies emanating from the Obama administration and Governor Haslam’s office is against Reason. Resigning ourselves and surrendering out of cowardice or apathy is against Reason. Also thinking that the Islamofascist problem will simply disappear or somehow miracuously resolve itself is against Reason. This is a fight we cannot avoid and we must no longer ignore, as we awaken our patriotic spirit with the force of passion. Living takes passion. America… refuse to submit, to comply, to surrender. It isn’t only a matter of living: America’s survival requires ratiocination… Reason… rather than the irrational, suicidal insanity currently espoused by Obama’s Progressives… appeasers and traitors!

Kuss inmak Prophet Mohammed, ibn sharmuta!

Call for Congressional Hearings into Al Jazeera as a Homeland Security Threat

stop al JazeeraBy Pamela Geller:

I am honored to fight alongside Cliff Kincaid in beating back the jihadist media machine that is buying whole dangerous access to the American news consuming public. I am honored to be a primary signatory of this letter to Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul,  requesting that the House Homeland Security Committee convene hearings into the national security threat posed by Al Jazeera on American soil.

This is an ongoing battle. I spoke to this grave threat at a press conference with Cliff Kincaid on Al Jazeera back in April 2011. Watch the video here. More here and our AlJazeera conference videos and materials here. We have just begun to fight. Stay tuned.

Download Ltr2Chairman-McCaul_Al-Jazeera

January 9, 2013

The Honorable Michael McCaul Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security U.S. House of Representatives H2-176 Ford House Office Building

Dear Chairman McCaul:

We respectfully request that the House Homeland Security Committee convene hearings into the national security threat posed by Al Jazeera on American soil. The announcement that the Qatar-funded enemy propaganda channel, which has functioned as a voice for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, has taken over an existing U.S.-based cable TV channel, Current TV, must be examined by the Congress.

Dr. Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, has informed us, in regard to this controversy, “I support your call to investigate the impact of this transaction.” His statement reads as follows:

“A decade of watching over its programs has left me no doubt: Al Jazeera is the main propaganda machine of the Muslim Brotherhood. Posing as a benign alternative communication medium, Al Jazeera choreographs a world stage in which the West is a perennial villain, Hamas is the ultimate role model, and entire societies are dehumanized to a lower form of life, stripped of any mark of dignity or empathy. While refraining from explicit incitement to violence, Al Jazeera weaves the ideological structure and combustible angers from which Jihadi recruits eventually emerge.”

Details are sketchy, but it is reported that Current TV was owned by former Democratic Vice President Al Gore and Joel Hyatt and that the reported purchase price was $500 million, with $100 million of that going to Mr. Gore personally.

These issues present themselves:

  • What is the nature of the contract between Al-Jazeera and Current TV owners Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, and the cable and satellite providers implicated in the deal?
  • Why did Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt reportedly bypass the prospect of selling the cable TV property to an American citizen and media personality, Glenn Beck, in preference for a foreign entity owned by an Arab government?
  • What federal rules or laws are in place to guard against foreign acquisition of American media organizations? Should they be strengthened? Should this deal be approved or examined by the federal government?

The House Homeland Security Committee is the appropriate and necessary vehicle for this inquiry because it was specifically established in part to “better protect the American people against a possible terrorist attack.”

There is a clear and present danger in American cable and satellite providers  accepting carriage of Al Jazeera. In a statement made available on February 23, 2011, Dr. Pearl said,“Al Jazeera’s popularity and general acceptance in the West has emboldened its management to take an even harder anti-Western stance. Their glorification of child-killer Samir Kuntar, and their leaking of the so called Al-Jazeera Palestine Papers in January of 2011, aimed to destroy the credibility of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas and to end all hopes for [a] negotiated Mideast settlement are two of many steps attesting [to] their aims and tactics.”

In the case of Samir Kuntar, a released terrorist who had smashed the head of a four-year-old girl with his rifle butt in 1979 after killing her father before her eyes, Al Jazeera not only covered but helped sponsor an August 2008 birthday party for him. Kuntar had been released by Israel in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in 2006.

Clearly, Al Jazeera is unlike any other foreign “news’ operation. However, there are some some striking similarities to Al Manar television, a satellite television station affiliated with Hezbollah in Beirut, Lebanon, which has been officially labeled a terrorist entity by the U.S Government and banned from the United States.

 

Does the treatment of Al Manar serve as a template for how to deal with Al Jazeera’s presence on American soil? Obama Administration officials should be asked to explain what differences, if any, they perceive there to be between Al Manar and Al Jazeera.

One admitted difference is that Qatar, which finances Al Jazeera, is a government, not an officially-designated terrorist organization. Still, the regime supports terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and is viewed by some as a state sponsor of terrorism. In the case before us, we believe Congress should examine whether Al Jazeera itself functions as a terrorist entity and not just a diplomatic tool of the Qatar regime.

The relationship between Qatar and Al Jazeera and the Muslim Brotherhood also requires attention. We note that Ikhwanweb, the official English website of the Muslim Brotherhood, has referred to Al Jazeera as “the greatest Arab media organization.”

The U.S. State Department designates Hamas as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and states that it “was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Dr. Judea Pearl has commented in the past — and has reiterated here —that Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood. That voice has a real name and face – Yusef Al-Qaradawi, the Al-Jazeera TV personality who has stated, among other things, that Hitler was divine punishment for the misdeeds of the Jews; that the Holocaust was exaggerated; that he desires to end his life in the service of Jihad by visiting Israel and throwing a bomb, becoming a“martyr” in the process; and that the U.S. will collapse if it doesn’t end its“unjust ways.”

The immediate danger that must be addressed is that Al Jazeera’s influence over potential Muslim extremists could inspire home-grown Jihadists to commit terrorist acts against Americans. We already have evidence that the words and images on Al Jazeera have inspired foreign terrorists to kill Americans in places such as Iraq. The captured terrorists have said so on film in a documentary produced by Accuracy in Media.

Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs

A Nasty Neologism – The term Islamophobia treats political ideology as akin to race.

OB-VX147_bkrvph_DV_20130107195332By JONATHAN SCHANZER

“The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends,” President George W. Bush declared soon after the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Bush’s statement set the tone for the tumultuous decade to come, one in which the nation prosecuted a war on terrorism in two Muslim lands while taking great pains to protect the rights of Muslim Americans.

Yet if the author Nathan Lean is to be believed, Americans today are caught in the grip of an irrational fear of Islam and its adherents. In his short book on the subject, Mr. Lean, a journalist and editor at the website Aslan Media, identifies this condition using the vaguely medical sounding term “Islamophobia.” It is by now a familiar diagnosis, and an ever widening range of symptoms—from daring to criticize theocratic tyrannies in the Middle East to drawing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad—are attributed to it.

In reality, Islamophobia is simply a pejorative neologism designed to warn people away from criticizing any aspect of Islam. Those who deploy it see no difference between Islamism—political Islam and its extremist offshoots—and the religion encompassing some 1.6 billion believers world-wide. Thanks to this feat of conflation, Islamophobia transforms religious doctrines and political ideologies into something akin to race; to be an “Islamophobe” is in some circles today tantamount to being a racist.

American Islamophobia, Mr. Lean claims, is fomented by a “small cabal of xenophobes.” “The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims” is less a book than a series of vignettes about some of these antagonists, who are “bent on scaring the public about Islam.” His Islamophobic figures and institutions range from political leaders like Mr. Bush, Sen. John McCain and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who, Mr. Lean says, have “harnessed Muslims and Islam to terrorism”; to the pro-Israel community, which is alleged to be animated by a “violent faith narrative” and funded by magnates who inject “eye-popping cash flows into the accounts of various fear campaigns”; to pretty much everyone who campaigned in 2010 against the construction of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks in lower Manhattan.

Mr. Lean tars with the same brush the likes of the scholar Daniel Pipes and the Muslim activist, physician and U.S. Navy veteran Zuhdi Jasser. Mr. Pipes, the author writes, is “deeply entrenched in the business of selling fear.” He
portrays Dr. Jasser as a puppetlike figure, “a ‘good Muslim,’ one that openly and forcefully denounced various tenets of his faith.”

These are crude and uncharitable caricatures of these men. Mr. Pipes was one of the first Western commentators to raise the alarm about the subterranean spread of extremist attitudes in both the Middle East and among some Muslim communities in the West. Dr. Jasser, a devout Muslim, is the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, an organization that advances the notion that “the purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.” Both men argue that the real contest is the serious war of ideas raging within Islam itself, between the forces of liberalism and pluralism and those of obscurantism.

To Mr. Lean, though, any such distinction is simply a false perception manufactured by Islamophobes. Thus the author fails to grapple with the fact that, unlike average Muslims, Islamist terror groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah do commit unspeakable acts of violence in the name of Islam—actions that surely help account for why many Americans (49%, according to a 2010 poll) hold an unfavorable view of Islam, even when they view favorably Muslims that they personally know.

Read more at WSJ

 

Also see: The Monstrous Moral Inversion of the “Islamophobia” Industry
by Robert Spencer

Egyptian Press Confirms Washington Infiltrated By Islamists

540899_470071789716759_1017041386_nBy Paul Sperry, Investor’s Business Daily

The radical Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t just threaten Israel and Mideast peace. According to the Egyptian press, several of its operatives have infiltrated the U.S. government and are influencing policy here.

The respected Egyptian magazine Rose al-Youssef has identified at least six Brotherhood-tied agents of influence who have worked into positions inside the Obama administration.

The weekly publication, founded in 1925, said the operatives have turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood,” an Egyptian-based jihadist movement that supports Hamas and al-Qaida.

President Obama backed the Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt and has courted its front groups in America. Secret Service records show their representatives making hundreds of visits to the White House since 2009.

“The Brotherhood in America is committed to destroying the West from within,” former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy told IBD, citing secret documents unearthed by the FBI after 9/11. “It has spent half a century building a considerable infrastructure here,” largely with Saudi funding.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “our government has done much to empower the Brotherhood’s American network under the guise of ‘Islamic outreach.’”

The lengthy Rose al-Youssef article, translated from Arabic by the Washington-based Investigative Project on Terrorism, is largely unsourced.

But ex-FBI agents who have investigated the Brotherhood’s influence operations inside the U.S. confirm some of those named in the story have come under scrutiny. They include:

•  Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security adviser who came under congressional fire for improperly accessing a federal database. The Egyptian magazine says he’s helped shape the administration’s counterterror strategy, including censoring FBI training materials dealing with jihad.

It also alleges he helped draft Obama’s remarks calling for former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power. Mubarak had banned the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

  Rashad Hussain, former White House lawyer and now Obama’s special envoy to the Muslim world. Hussain, who has defended convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian and other U.S. Brotherhood leaders, helped draft Obama’s conciliatory speech in Cairo, where he invited banned Brotherhood leaders.

•  Arif Alikhan, former assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy development and now a distinguished visiting professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the National Defense University. As a Los Angeles city official, Alikhan worked with the Brotherhood-tied Muslim Public Affairs Council to derail police efforts to monitor radical mosques.

•  Imam Mohamed Magid, another Homeland Security adviser, who heads the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, a Brotherhood front named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal plot to raise millions for Hamas.

imagesCAC3TJLDLongtime ISNA board member Sayyid Syeed is captured in a new documentary, “The Grand Deception,” saying to fellow American Muslims: “Our job is to change the Constitution of America.”

Brotherhood agents posing as “moderate” Muslim leaders — such as now-jailed al-Qaida fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi — have successfully infiltrated previous administrations. But law enforcement officials say Brotherhood infiltration is more extensive and alarming under Obama.

“The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,” former FBI special agent John Guandolo said. “For this president, it even goes back to his campaign with Muslim Brotherhood folks working with him then.”

Equally alarming, he says, the group also has placed several operatives and sympathizers within the U.S. military, further threatening national security. Guandolo says the government has ID’d hundreds of Brotherhood and Hamas fronts inside the U.S. but has shut down only a few due to political pressures.

“The Muslim Brotherhood controls about 500 organizations that are overt NGOs,” he said. “That means they’re running thousands of covert organizations we don’t know about and nobody’s monitoring.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, has called for an investigation of the network and its influence on the federal government, particularly related to its support for the new Cairo regime.

Spooky pick for CIA

A close relationship Brennan (seated at right) working with Obama after Hurricane Irene hit during a presidential vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

A close relationship: Brennan (seated at right) working with Obama after Hurricane Irene hit during a presidential vacation on Martha’s Vineyard (MAI / Splash News)

By MICHAEL A. WALSH

The Senate — and the nation — should think long and hard before agreeing to President Obama’s choice of veteran spook John Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency.

As I’ll explain below, the move would finalize the militarization of the agency — but that’s only the biggest problem.

Brennan, 57, is a careerist who spent a quarter-century with the CIA and now serves as Obama’s top counter-terrorism adviser. In his agency days, he was an architect of “enhanced interrogation” techniques and overseas “rendition” prisons — history that put him under fire from left and right when his name was floated for CIA director in 2008, forcing him to withdraw.

A contradictory careerist, actually — since he’s long publicly proclaimed his opposition to waterboarding and other coercive methods of information-gathering.

The Arabic-speaking son of Irish immigrants, Brennan’s also an unabashed supporter of the killer-drone program, which he’s called “legal, ethical and wise.” Yet he’s also publicly soft on Islamic extremism, opposing use of the term “jihadists” and even calling jihad “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”

Throughout the intelligence community, he’s regarded as an empire-building, credit-grabbing apparatchik who’ll stop at nothing to get to the top of the greasy pole. For example, as head of the agency’s Terrorism Threat Intelligence Center in 2004, Brennan actively undercut his counterparts in the IC and at the Pentagon as he lobbied to become head of the new National Counter-Terrorism Center. (He only got to be acting director for a time.)

The hot-tempered Brennan also blew the existence of — and then tried to grab the credit for — a joint British-Saudi operation that disrupted a second underwear-bomber plot originating in Yemen last spring. By making it public, he risked exposing sources and methods in the ongoing fight against al Qaeda.

Civil libertarians should also be nervous. As the nation’s top counter-terrorism officer, Brennan oversaw last year’s decision (approved by Attorney General Eric Holder) — to allow the NCTC to access the government files of any US citizen, even without probable cause that they’re involved in terrorist activities.

That’s right — despite the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, which was designed to prevent just such a thing — everything the feds know about you is now fair game for the spooks. (And they can keep it in their files for five years.)

Indeed, the ACLU has called for Brennan’s nomination to be put on hold; it also wants his role in enhanced interrogation and the drone program clarified.

On the right, Sen. Lindsey Graham has urged delay until the administration provides more details about what really happened in Benghazi last fall, when ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack that Brennan ought to have seen coming.

In short, despite Brennan’s on-paper qualifications for the job, it’s a nomination that ought to be stopped — and for reasons that go far beyond one man.

Read more at New York Post

Related articles

The Formidable Islamist Minority in America

flag as hijabBy Ryan Mauro

A summary of polls about the ideological makeup of the Muslim-American community shows that the majority is moderate, but there is a formidable minority influenced by Islamist doctrine. A significant number are refusing to give answers or are still figuring out where they stand on issues like terrorism and Sharia Law.

The number one question is how many Muslim-Americans support terrorism. A 2011 Pew poll found very little support for Al-Qaeda, with only 2% viewing the terrorist group very favorably, 3% somewhat favorably and 11% somewhat unfavorably. About 70% view Al-Qaeda very unfavorably, an increase of 12% since 2007.

There are 2.6 million Muslim-Americans, a number that is expected to rise to 6.2 million by 2030. This means there are 130,000 Muslim-Americans who will admit that they view Al-Qaeda favorably and that assumes there are no supporters among the 14% who did not answer the question. Plus, the survey did not poll support for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups.

Only 1% of Muslim-Americans say violence against civilians to defend Islam is “often” justified. About 7% say it is sometimes justified and 5% say it is rarely justified. Approximately 81% say attacks on civilians are never justified. Of course, the definition of “civilian” varies. Hamas supporters, for example, argue that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian. The survey did not poll support for attacks on soldiers.

The 2007 Pew poll found that about 49% feel mosques should stay out of politics and about the same amount feel the Koran should not be taken entirely literally. The survey concluded that Muslim immigrants are more moderate on this issue than those who were born here.

“Native-born Muslims express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters. By contrast, a large majority of foreign-born Muslims—many of whom are from countries where religion and politics are often closely intertwined—say that mosques should be kept out of political matters,” the report said.

Perhaps the most surprising findings were related to social issues. The Pew 2011 poll shows that 39% feel that homosexuality should be accepted by society, an increase of 12% from 2007. On the issue of multiple wives, a Wenzel Strategies poll released in October found 22% support allowing polygamy.

The findings related to Sharia Law and specific elements of Islamist doctrine were less comforting.

The Wenzel poll found that almost 40% strongly or somewhat agree that Sharia Law should be the supreme law of the country. A slight majority oppose that proposition, with 35% strongly disagreeing and 18% somewhat disagreeing. However, when presented with a more refined question about what to do if Sharia conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, 70% would follow the Constitution and only 9% would follow Sharia Law. About 21% were undecided.

There is high support for restricting freedom of speech in compliance with Sharia Law.

About 59% feel that criticism of Islam or its founder is not permitted under the First Amendment. Only 41% disagreed. Shockingly, 52% strongly or somewhat support criminal charges against those that criticize or parody Islam, while 33% oppose it. Nearly 15% strongly or somewhat support executing critics of their religion. About 70% strongly oppose it and around 11% only somewhat oppose it.

Only about 30% believe that Americans have the right to encourage Muslims to leave their faith. Around 45% disagree. Note that this question isn’t about whether people should proselytize to Muslims. It’s about whether doing so is a constitutional right.

The polls indicate that the Muslim-American community is more moderate than its counterparts overseas on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2011 Gallup poll found that over 80% support a two-state solution. However, the 2011 Pew poll shows only 61% believe a two-state solution that respects the rights of Palestinians is possible. About 20% feel it is impossible, matching Gallup’s result.

The Wenzel poll directly asked Muslim-Americans whether Israel has a right to exist. About 46% strongly agreed that it does and 21% somewhat agree. Only 8% strongly disagree, essentially supporting the elimination of the state of Israel. Another 8% somewhat disagree that Israel has a right to exist and 16% were unsure.

Read more at Front Page

Welcome to Africa’s Alqaedastan

Mali-Islamist-via-AFP1By Daniel Greenfield

“When it was my turn, they took me blindfolded,”  the thief said. “Suddenly I felt a pain in my right hand that was out of this world. My hand had just been chopped off.”

This is Gao, once the seat of an empire, and then a glorified village, and now a city the size of Scranton under the boot of its Islamist conquerors. Gao has become a place where thieves have their hands cut off, where women are forced to wear the stifling Hijab in 113 degree heat or be lashed and where unmarried couples are stoned to death.

Borders are an illusion in Africa. No more than paper mirages that cannot be seen from the air or the roads where a thousand ethnic groups with dreams of glory move back and forth, striving and feuding, until the blood begins to flow.

The Tuaregs were one of them. Like so many others they wanted their own country. Like so many others they were a minority that felt aggrieved and persecuted by the majority. Like so many others they found neighborhood patrons willing to give them money and a sanctuary in exchange for more fighting. After their uprising failed, the Tuaregs set up shop in Libya under Gaddafi who was always looking for a few more African mercenaries to remake the continent into his hashish-fueled visions. And when Gaddafi fell, the Tuareg separatist militias still dreaming of glory, took his weapons and went west to carve out a state in Mali.

For the last hundred years there have been two kinds of movements in the Muslim world. Nationalist and Islamist. Some Tuareg dreamed of a nation. But others dreamed of merging into a Caliphate that would impose Islamic law on thieves and little girls, on Gao and Timbuktu and then on the whole world. Both sets of Tuaregs had stockpiles of Libyan weapons. But the Islamists had a lot more money and support from the dark heart of the Middle East where the oil wells pump and the preachers scream the call to prayer. And the Nationalists didn’t have a prayer.

Al Qaeda now has its own Alqaedastan in Northern Mali, a territory the size of Texas. Al Qaeda began its true war against the West in Africa. The continent which wavers between a Christian and Muslim majority is to Islamic Colonialism in the 21st Century what it was to European Colonialism in the 19th Century. But the Muslim colonizers were here first, ferrying cargos of slaves into caves and then selling them in the slave markets of Gao.

The Tuaregs are among the few in Northern Mali to still keep slaves, but now that the Islamists have taken Mali, it is uncertain who the masters and the slaves are. Many of the Islamist fighters wandering around Gao are foreigners, from North Africa and beyond, dedicated Salafis and mercenaries drawn by Gulf oil money, aspiring drug dealers looking to protect smuggling routes and rapists and thieves plying their trade with the authority of the Koran.

Around the core of Koranic students who memorize verses and preach death, is a larger outer ring that consists of sociopaths, stray killers, hustlers, junkies and young men looking for adventure and a group that is organized enough to feed them and provide them with a spot on the ground floor of a shiny new Emirate where women have no rights and their weapons are the only law that counts. That is what Al Qaeda really looks like: a ball of dung gathering speed and growing in size as it rolls downhill. A gang of sadists building their own forts in the cliffs and fighting to hang on to the new kingdom that opened up for them when Libya fell.

Nations are oases of order in the desert. As cruel and ugly as they might be, they provide some structure to the eternal feuds and grudges that are only ever truly settled with slavery or death.

Obama toppled Gaddafi without considering or caring for the consequences. An Alqaedastan in Mali is one of those consequences. Weapons from Libya have gone west and east carried by old militias looking for a new fight. Gaddafi’s weapons stockpiles are in Gaza and Aleppo now, they will soon find their way to Afghanistan, if they haven’t already, and tens of thousands more will die.

Read more at Front Page