Tag Archives: DHS

Part 2: The Muslim Brotherhood At The US Department Of Homeland Security

Posted on by
Reply

via The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch:

A post from yesterday reported that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had relied upon Saudi-funded Georgetown University professor John Esposito for advice on law enforcement counterterrorism training. While that post also discussed some of the background of US Muslim Brotherhood influence on DHS, the extent of that influence has yet to be reported. In addition to the findings of yesterday’s post, a look at the makeup of the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Working Group reveals that of the six likely Muslim members of the 16-person Working Group, four were either close to or part of the US Muslim Brotherhood. The document reporting on the findings of the Working Group explains their mission as follows:

Recognizing that there have been many successful cases of local law enforcement working with communities to fight violent crime, at the February 2010 HSAC Meeting Secretary Napolitano tasked the HSAC to “…work with state and local law enforcement as well as relevant community groups to develop and provide to me recommendations regarding how the Department can better support community-based efforts to combat violent extremism domestically – focusing in particular on the issues of training, information sharing, and the adoption of community-oriented law enforcement approaches to this issue.”

The four members of the group in questions were identified as:

  • Dalia Mogahed (Senior Analyst and Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies)
  • Mohamed Elibiary (President and CEO, The Freedom and Justice Foundation)
  • Mohamed Magid (Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society- ADAMS Center)
  • Nadia Roumani (Director, American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute)

Dahlia Mogahed

Dahlia Mogahed

Dahlia Mogahed is currently the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies that also includes Georgetown University academic Dr. John Esposito and she also co-authored a book with Dr. Esposito. As noted above, a post from yesterday reported that DHS had relied upon Dr. Esposito for advice on law enforcement counterterrorism training and that post details Esposito’s close ties to the Global Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia. Ms. Mogahed was born in Egypt and lived in the U.S. since the age of 5. She is the daughter of Elsayed Mogahed, an Egyptian immigrant who is a former engineering scientist at the University of Wisconsin and director of the Islamic Center of Madison (ICM). The website of the ICM links mainly to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organizations and Souheil Ghannouchi, the President of the Muslim American Society (MAS), close to the Egyptian Brotherhood, was ICM Imam and President for several years. In 2003, Ms. Mogahed was identified in 2003 as the Outreach Coordinator for the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh (ICP) whose co-founder lost a DOE security clearance and whose Imam was expected to be deported on immigration violations. Ms. Mogahed was appointed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in April 2009. In June 2010, Ms. Mogahed was appointed head of a new center for social research and analysis in Abu Dhabi to be called the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center. The Investigative Project has published a report analyzing the support for US Muslim Brotherhood organizations and their positions provided by Ms. Mogahed.

Mohamed Elibiary

Mohamed Elibiary

Mohamed Elibiary is a co-founder of the Freedom and Justice Foundation (FJF), an organization whose Advisory Council is comprised of many members who are associated with the Islamic Association of North Texas which operates the Dallas Central Mosque (DCM). Both organizations are known to be associated with the US Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas infrastructure in the US including the now defunct Holy Land Foundation (HLF). The most prominent of these Advisory Council members is Dr. Yusuf Kavakci, recently a board member at large of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), who has served as Imam of the DCM that was described in a 1999 article in a Counterterrorism Journal as:

… considered to be one of the most active centers of Hamas activity in the United States and hosts the leadership and members of both the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). Both organizations are the primary conduits for Hamas activity and fundraising in the United States. (See Note 2)

A former FBI analyst has also written that the two of the Elashi brothers, later convicted of terrorism financing as leaders of the HLF, had personal ties to the DCM, one serving as a board member and the other active in an affiliated Islamic School. After the arrests of the Elashi’s, the DCM hosted fundraising events for their legal defense.  In 2008, Mr. Elibiary harshly criticized the Hamas terrorism financing convictions of the Holy Land Foundation defendants calling them “a policy of denying our civil liberties”:

The U.S. government won a resounding court victory last Monday, convicting all the Palestinian HLF defendants on all “material support” charges leveled against them. Yet in the grand scheme of things, our government’s policy of denying our civil liberties and privacy at home while pursuing a cold war “containment” policy that often turns into a hot war for “regime change” has left thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands maimed, trillions of taxpayer dollars squandered and our homeland more vulnerable than ever. A myopic view might wish to celebrate the HLF verdict, but the big picture clearly shows a continuing loss for America.

A 2005 report by the Center For Religious Freedom (CRF) found numerous examples of Saudi ideological material at the DCM (aka Richardson Mosque.)

M

Mohamed Magid

Mohamed Magid is the current President of the Islamic Society of North America(ISNA) and Executive Director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), both organizations part of the US Muslim Brotherhood. Imam Magid can be seen as the new more moderate face that ISNA has been cultivating of late and he has taken part in frequent interfaith events including visits to concentration camp sites in Europe.

Nadia Roumani is the co-founder and director of the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute (AMCLI) that describes itself as an organization that “develops and trains American Muslim leaders who are committed to civic engagement.” Of the 84 individuals that have participated in the AMCLI, there are a number who are associated with the US Muslim Brotherhood including Mohamed Elibiary.

Not surprisingly, the DHS Working Group’s recommendations attempt to redirect focus away from any connection between terrorism and Islamism, such as the variety promulgated by the Global Muslim Brotherhood recommending instead that the focus should be on “stopping violent behavior regardless of the motivation” and that:

… discussions regarding how to improve local law enforcement crime reduction efforts should be delinked from the current academic and policy discussions on “radicalization” and “countering violent extremism” until such time that the understanding of these phenomena matures.

In 2008, the our predecessor publication presented an analysis that identified four conceptual categories into which Brotherhood positions on terrorism can usually be parsed. The GMBDR noted that this Muslim Brotherhood strategy regarding terrorism should be seen for what it is, a remarkably consistent and internally coherent means of obscuring the true aims and goals of the group. The first category was explained as follows:

1. DENIAL- Since the Brotherhood is pursuing Islamization and eventually Shariah (Islamic Law), it is necessary at all costs to deny that Islam as a religion has any connection to violence or terrorism. Of course, the Brotherhood represents Islamism as opposed to Islam in this regard but since the general audience does not understand that distinction, it is Islam which is the Brotherhood reference. They cannot afford to fail in this denial and the denial strategy is usually pursued through sophistry. That is, the Brotherhood claims that Islam is unfairly associated with terrorism while Christianity, Judaism, and other religions are not (e.g. Abortion bombers are not called Christian Terrorists) and/or that other religious terrorism is just as dangerous as Islamic terrorism. The Brotherhood may be winning this battle (see here.)

At the current time, DHS maintains a Faith-based Security and Communications Advisory Committee whosemembers as of May 2012 included Mohamed Magid, identified above as the ISNA President, and Ingrid Mattson,the former ISNA President.

For part 1 of this story, go here.

US Gov’t: Radical Muslims Approved, Moderates Shunned

Posted on by
2

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

Posted on by
5

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:

Obama’s National Security ‘Not Top 10′ of 2012

Posted on by
2

By Patrick Poole:

In years past I have conducted an annual review of ongoing catastrophic failure that is Barack Hussein Obama in all things related to terrorism and national security (see my previous year-end reviews for 2011, 2010 and 2009). But with America just hours away from deciding its next president for the next four years, I thought it timely for a pre-election review of Obama’s national security ‘Not Top 10’ for 2012.

These are listed in chronological order, not order of importance.

1) Dept. of Homeland Security Lexicon Brands Libertarians and Conservatives as ‘Militia Extremists’ in violation of its own policies (Feb. 2012)

Straight out of the gate in 2012, the Obama administration continued its branding of conservative ideas as extreme and threats to the nation. In February I reported on a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lexicon that linked ‘militia extremists’ with “the belief that the government is deliberately stripping Americans of their freedom” and opposing “many federal and state authorities’ laws and regulations (particularly those related to firearms ownership)”. Added to that, Homeland Security observed that such extremists “often belong to armed paramilitary groups”, meaning that you don’t even have to belong to a militia to be a ‘militia extremist’. One wonders if they have the NRA in mind when mentioning “armed paramilitary groups”?

Two days after my report appeared the U.K. based Reuters rolled out an article that breathlessly reported, “Anti-government extremists opposed to taxes and regulations pose a growing threat to local law enforcement officers in the United States, the FBI warned”, basically reinforcing the narrative expounded in the DHS lexicon.

Curiously, the words “Islamic”, “Muslim” and “jihad” were all missing from the DHS lexicon. Not only that, but branding those with mainstream political ideas as ‘extremists’ ran afoul of rules promulgated by DHS in October 2011 that warned, “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values” and “Don’t use training that equates religious expression, protests, or other constitutionally protected activity with criminal activity.”

Then in June I reported that another DHS-funded study produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland was caught editing out well-documented acts of Islamic terrorism inside the U.S., such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, from its terrorism database.

The codebook underlying the START study, also funded by DHS, branded popular “tea party” views as ‘right-wing extremism”, claiming that such ‘extremism’ “may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

As I noted at the time, START was basically saying that if you’re fiercely nationalistic (pro-American), anti-global (anti-UN), suspicious of centralized federal authority (like the Framers), reverent of individual liberty (like Patrick Henry), and believe in “conspiracy” theories (like the federal government allowing the sale of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify limiting American’s rights under the Second Amendment, a la Fast and Furious), then you too are on the “extreme right-wing.” All on the taxpayer dime.

2) FBI Directive OKs U.S. Government Outreach to Members of Terrorist Groups, Supporters (March 2012)

As part of a widespread Obama administration ‘Islamophobia’ witch hunt in U.S. government agencies, Matt Vadum at Breitbart News reported that the FBI had produced a document it called “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training” to justify an ongoing purge of its trainers and training material. Among the provisions of this “Touchstone Document” is the statement that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”

The net effect of this new FBI policy is that membership in a terrorist organization, or support for “legitimate” goals of terrorist organizations, does not hinder your relationship with the FBI for ‘outreach’ purposes nor make you a suspect for any investigation.

The motive for this new policy was the problematic issue that virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court found otherwise in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (2010), where the court upheld provisions of the PATRIOT Act that makes even support for “legitimate” objectives of a terrorist organization a violation of federal law.

The FBI’s “Touchstone” policy of ignoring support for terrorist organizations in its ‘outreach’ to the Muslim community is part of a larger trend during the Obama administration of rolling out the red carpet for Islamic extremists. At the same time that the FBI was announcing its new policy, as Michelle Malkin recently reported, Hisham al-Talib, who has been identified by the U.S. government as being a senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader involved in organizations supporting terrorism, being invited to the White House in March to help assist the administration in its reception of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders several weeks later. A more recent report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found a whole string of Islamic extremists regularly visiting and consulting with the White House.

This explains the admission of a senior White House outreach official back in June to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller that the Obama administration has conducted “hundreds” of meetings with terrorist front group CAIR in violation of a longstanding ban by the FBI with the group for its terror support (a ban that would run afoul of the FBI’s new ‘Touchstone’ policy). And as reported on Friday, it also explains the DCCC fundraiser featuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C. attended by many U.S. Muslim Brotherhood figures, including CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad.

One corrosive effect of this outreach was noted by Kerry Picket at the Washington Times, who reported that these same organizations now deemed ‘moderate’ by the Obama administration has helped shape our national security policy. That might explain the complete meltdown in our Middle East foreign policy. Continue reading →

‘Islamic Democracy’ Does Not Make Statesmen out of Terrorists … or Politics out of Jihad

Posted on by
Reply

Hani Nour Eldin

by Andrew C. McCarthy

The Obama administration will not explain how it came to issue a visa to Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the Egyptian terrorist organization Ga’amat al-Islamia, the Islamic Group (IG). The explanation is not forthcoming because what it portends is even more sinister than this one infuriating incident.

To call the IG a “terrorist organization” is not just purple prose. The IG is a terrorist organization that has carried out actual mass-murder attacks. There is a formal legal process under which such groups are “designated” as terrorist organizations. The IG has long been formally designated under that process. Once that process has occurred, any American citizen who tries to provide material support to members of a designated terrorist organization — i.e., any American citizen who tried to do what the Obama administration has done for Eldin — would be in jeopardy of being convicted of a serious federal felony worth upwards of 15 years’ imprisonment.

And Hani Nour Eldin is, indisputably, a member of the IG — we are not speculating here. Eldin is quite proud of his membership. He has been unabashed about it. The Obama administration, moreover, does not even attempt either to deny that Eldin is an IG member or to suggest that the issuance of a visa to him — to say nothing of the subsequent meetings he was invited to have with top American national security officials — was the result of some misunderstanding or monumental screw-up. Eldin was very intentionally brought to Washington. Despite the fact that the leader of his organization — the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman — is responsible for massive terrorist attacks against American civilians, Eldin was hosted here as if he were a politician rather than a terrorist.

So what does the administration tell us about how this could have happened — how it could be that hordes of American citizens, as to whom there is not the slightest suspicion of terrorist sympathies, are forced by the Department of Homeland Security to undergo an appallingly intrusive physical search just to board an airplane, yet a known member of a designated terrorist organization is intentionally invited to board a plane so he can enter our country, be admitted into highly secure government buildings –like the White House — where top national security officials work, and be consulted as if he were a foreign dignitary rather than a jihadist?

The Obama cabinet, in the person of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, tells us that the administration was well aware that Eldin was a terrorist organization member; yet, she maintains that he was carefully vetted by three different government agencies. The administration then made a determination that his admission did not pose a threat to the United States — i.e., that he would not personally endanger anyone he encountered and that the signal conveyed to every other terrorist in the world by Obama’s rolling out the red carpet for a member of the Blind Sheikh’s cabal would not encourage terrorism globally.

Think for a second about how lunatic that is.

Read more at PJ Media

Napolitano: Terrorists Enter U.S. from Mexico ‘From Time to Time’

Posted on by
4

 

By Edwin Mora

(CNSNews.com) – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that terrorists intending to harm the American people enter the U.S. from Mexico “from time to time.”

At a July 25 hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) asked Napolitano: “As you know, Madam Secretary, there have been anecdotal reports about material evidence of the presence of terrorists along our southern border. My question is, is there any credible evidence that these reports are accurate and that terrorists are, in fact, crossing our southern border with the intent to do harm to the American people?”

Napolitano answered: “With respect, there have been–and the Ababziar matter would be one I would refer to that’s currently being adjudicated in the criminal courts–from time to time, and we are constantly working against different and evolving threats involving various terrorist groups and various ways they may seek to enter the country.”

More at CNS News with video

 

Head of Homeland Security: White House Will Continue to Host Members of Designated Terrorist Group

Posted on by
2

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano arrives to testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on July 25, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images

By  at The Blaze

During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress on that the United States should expect more visits from members of a designated terrorist organization.

The comments, coming from the head of a department tasked with keeping America safe from terrorist threats, are jaw-dropping.

“I think you are right in pointing out that as we move forward we are going to continue to have visitors to this country that the State Department and others feel are useful to bring to the country to have discussions moving forward, who say they are members of the political party that in the past have been so designated,” Napolitano told committee chairman Pete King (R-N.Y.) during the hearing this morning.

Napolitano was justifying the government’s decision to invite Hani Nour Eldin — an Egyptian parliamentary member elected as a member the Islamic Group (Gamaa Islamiya), which has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department — to the White House to meet with high-ranking Obama administration and State Department officials.

After King reminded her that Eldin is a member of a designated foreign terrorist group, Napolitano replied, ”I think we have to add more nuance to that.”

“We have to know what the group was. Is it now a political party that is running the government of a country that has strong ties to the United States?” she said. She also added that Eldin was properly “vetted” before he granted entry into the U.S. “Everyone who looked at this person felt confident that he was not a security risk to the White House or to the United States,” she said.

“But with all this vetting, the fact is, on his own Facebook page he said he was a member of the Islamic group, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization,” King replied.

King was clearly not appeased with Napolitano’s answers. He went on to accuse the Obama administration of breaking the law in opening the White House doors to a member of a terrorist organization.

“It appears as if the law was not complied with in that he did not apply for a waiver, Congress was not notified, which is also required,” he told the DHS head. “It does not appear that either the letter or the spirit of the law was complied with.”

“On the process, that’s a fair point to make,” Napolitano later conceded.

King pointed out that in the 1940s some State Department officials argued that Chairman Mao, a brutal Chinese revolutionary, was an “agrarian reformer” and Cuba’s Fidel Castro was labeled as a “Jeffersonian Democrat” by some in the 1950s. He said the agency is making the same mistake with some radical Islamic groups in trying to reason and work with them.

Gohmert Holds DHS Secretary Napolitano Accountable

Posted on by
5

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) questioned Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano about Mohamed Elibiary, who was reported to have accessed classified information after the DHS provided him a secret security clearance. He followed up on the investigation he called for last year.

Rep. Gohmert’s initial call for an investigation into this matter:

Obama’s shariah czar Mohamed Magid hands diversity award to Jew-hater Dawud Walid

Posted on by
2

By Patrick Poole

Mohamed Magid is the Obama administration’s go-to guy for Muslim outreach and advise on international affairs and counterterrorism. He is a regular visitor to the White House (even when the administration wants to conceal it), attends important administration speeches on the US Middle East policy at the State Department, he counsels the Department of Justice to criminalize defamation of Islam, he entertains the deputy national security adviser at his DC-area mosque, and he serves on the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. He also advises the FBI and many other federal agencies.

He has also been profiled by Time Magazine and the Huffington Post has even dubbed him “America’s Imam“. His ubiquitous presence across the Obama administration undoubtedly makes him the most influential and sought after Muslim authority in the country.

Imam Magid also serves as the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). In that capacity last weekend he presided over ISNA’s “Diversity Forum” held in Dearborn (where Muslim residents were recently video recorded stoning Christian protestors).

One of the speakers at the ISNA Diversity Forum was CAIR-Michigan executive director Dawud Walid. Imam Magid even gave a “diversity award” to Walid, as seen in the photo below:

(Picture by Khadija of America)

Walid, too, is popular with the Obama administration, taking two taxpayer financed trips overseas on behalf of the State Department.

But just a little over a month ago Dawud Walid gave a sermon at the Islamic Organization of America (IONA) mosque in Warren, Michigan.

As noted by an Investigative Project report issued just days after Walid’s appearance, during the sermon he asked, “Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah?” Answering his own question in Arabic, he replied, “They are the Jews, they are the Jews.”

Read more at PJ Tatler

 

Watch What You Say: A Guide for Dhimmis

Posted on by
Reply

by EDWARD  CLINE: Feeling a need to humor myself, and casting about for a way to cock a snook  at the Department of Homeland Security and The Transportation Security  Administration (in German, Die Abteilung der Heimatland-Sicherheit, and Die Transport-Sicherheitsverwaltung, one click of the heels and raised  right arm, palm down, required for pronunciation, if you can manage it) and  strike a blow for freedom of speech and the First and Fourth Amendments, the DHS  provided me with a salubrious vehicle.

Cowboy  Byte and other blog sites reported the grudging release by the DHS of  its 39-page Analyst’s  Desktop Binder (2011) containing words employed anywhere on the  Internet that should cause red flags and whistles and bells to awaken the  glaze-eyed human monitors and alert over-heating computers to open that Binder  and follow its instructions.

The list is pseudo-comprehensive,  including obvious terms that would slap a monitor on the back of his head when  they pop up, and numerous terms used millions of times every day by Internet  users, so that one wonders why they were included, unless the monitors and  computers are programmed to look for suspicious combinations of two or more of  them in sneaky repetitions or recurrences. The DHS may as well have programmed  the whole Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Complete  Works of Shakespeare. “

The keywords are included.in the Binder,”  notes Cowboy Byte, “which also instructs analysts to hunt down media reports  that reflect poorly on the department.” And they’re not even in  alphabetical order. Very, very sly. Makes it difficult to follow.

“It doesn’t include the keyword list used by Obama’s gang of plumbers who  troll the Net for negative stories, or the NSA, which represents a whole  different set of eyes that are watching you.” Well, let’s give that a try,  and reflect” poorly on our very own We Never Sleep Detective Agency, and imagine  the critical infrastructure of the average DHS monitor’s mind when he’s  on the job. Words in italics are push-their-button terms, except for  book titles and the like. But, then, you never know. The lexicon reputedly is  incomplete.

As a new hire, our man probably went through several weeks  of orientation with other recruits, and he might have innocently asked his  instructor why the Koran was not listed the Desktop Binder. The guide hemmed and  hawed in his best professorial manner, claiming that Islam was never considered  an enemy, all the evidence to the contrary, but the question was secretly logged  into the new hire’s personnel file under “Possible Islamophobic Tendencies and Symptoms.” Not an auspicious start of a career of snooping.

The guide’s answer was also secretly entered into his own personnel file. After  a brief review of his record by a permanent and anonymous committee of employee  evaluation, he was subsequently and regretfully furloughed, and his security  clearance rescinded. One of his new hire charges happened to have been working  for Internal Affairs, a department charged with the task of policing  trainers and training classes and just about everyone who worked for the DHS.  Except for Internal Affairs personnel.

In the subterranean  consciousness of rank-and-file snoops, Internal Affairs had a nickname, the Mutaween, or The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Crimethink, modeled, some said, after the Saudi Arabian  religious police, although no one dared investigate and confirm the parallel,  nor could they, for all references to Islam, Muslims, mosques, beards and burkas  had been excised from DHS literature. “Rhymes with Halloween,” whispered the  lowly amongst themselves.

Our new monitor learned later that any blunt  but incautious reference to Islam and Muslims within the confines of his job -  and even during chitchat at the water cooler or in the break room or at the  Starbucks down the street – was considered hazmat jibber-jabber and  evidence of a radioactive mindset that would be closely monitored by  his supervisor. He would come to realize that if he did not wish to be  considered toxic by his colleagues, he’d better put his mind in  permanent lockdown. The pay was too good and the benefits too fabulous  for him to risk losing them over a slip of the tongue or an impulsive fillip of  independent thought. How often had the orientation instructor emphasized that  certain words were verboten, because they could cause episodes of intellectual contamination, acting as bacteria that could metastasize into  a plague of epistemological Ebola, and render the DHS impotent  to detect and counter terrorists of anonymous and un-named allegiances?

Not to worry, however,” the instructor had droned on. “The Center for  Disease Control has had added to its purview a new task, per executive  order, that of managing mental mitigation among the populace. It works  closely with the Department of Education to reduce human-to-human ideational infections.”

One day, after a week on the job,  the new hire was taken to lunch at a very expensive restaurant on K Street, the  Tuscany Bar and Grille, by a veteran analyst, ostensibly to compliment him on  his alertness and the number of alarms the novice had sent his way with the  click of a button and the swish of a mouse.

After Trish, the comely  waitress had taken their orders and served them glasses of Chianti, the analyst  smiled and said, “That last referral of yours I had to share with my colleagues  upstairs. It was worth a chuckle. The dirty bombe was merely a dessert  recipe a lady in New Haven had sent to a friend in Cannes, consisting of  strawberry mousse and ice cream packed into a pound cake coated with dark  chocolate Godiva sprinkles.” The analyst laughed. “Hardly the ingredients for an explosion, except to one’s waistline, But she called it her ‘Bombe  Sale,’ or Dirty Bombe,’ and we had her investigated anyway. There was  nothing cryptic in her communication. Our computers also analyzed the text and  found nothing threatening in it, and gave the email a pass.”

“Sorry about that,” said the novice, humbled, and forgetting to smile at the  analyst’s funny.

“No, no,” assured the analyst. “Don’t be sorry. It  showed you know the drill.” He paused. “By the way, I heard that the  lobby scanners confiscated a few books you brought to work the other  day. What was that one? Atlas Shrugged?” The veteran clucked his tongue  and shook his head. “At your age, reading such subversive trash!”

The  novice looked perplexed. “Know your enemy,” he ventured. “That’s been my  motto.”

“Well, there’s a difference between knowing one’s enemy, and  denying he is one. Our job is to detect and foil terrorists of all stripes,  especially intellectual terrorists, such as the author of that badly penned  novel. Leave enemy designations to your superiors. Don’t go wandering off on  your own. There is a point where initiative becomes a vice.”

“Sorry,” answered the novice.

“Then there was that other book the  screeners took,” said the analyst, furling his brow.

“The Satiric  Verses?” “Satanic Verses, sir,” corrected the novice with  a tone of polite deference.

“Yes, yes,” acknowledged the analyst. “By  that odd fellow, what is his name? Salmonella?” “Salman  Rushdie,” said the novice.

Read more at Family Security Matters