Islamists Pressure FBI to Drop Training on Muslim Brotherhood

The Council on American Islamic Relations' National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (left) with founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right. (Photo: © Reuters)

The Council on American Islamic Relations’ National Communications Director and spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (left) with founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right. (Photo: © Reuters)

Teaching about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood is essential to counter-terrorism prosecutions, and the challenges facing the U.S. today.

By Ryan Mauro:

A political alliance of 75 organizations led by Islamist supporters has published a letter demanding the removal of anti-Muslim material from FBI training. This purported objective is incontestable, but the thinly concealed objective is to end instruction about the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

The letter refers to legitimately offensive instances of anti-Muslim content in FBI documents, specifically a 2005 memo that used the fake name of “Mohammed Raghead.” Derogatory language has no place in governmental instruction.

However, this legitimate example of inappropriate teaching is conflated with examples of appropriate teaching that makes Islamists uncomfortable. It is another application of the “Islamophobia” strategy that has been used by Islamists for decades.

The bloc tries to put the “Mohammed Raghead” transgression in the same category as the work of John Guandolo, former FBI Special Agent who served in the counterterrorism division of the Washington Field Office.

Guandolo is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and developed a training curriculum on the topic in 2006 that was endorsed as “groundbreaking” by the FBI’s executive assistant director. You can read the Clarion Project’s interview with Guandolo here.

The letter states, “Echoing the ‘red under every bed’ hysteria of the McCarthy era, Guandolo believes that ‘hundreds’ of covert members of the Muslim Brotherhood are active in the United States…”

Simply acknowledging the existence of Muslim Brotherhood activities in the U.S. is branded as anti-Muslim, even though internal documents belonging to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood are publicly available and show a large presence of the group in the U.S.

In the Holy Land Foundation trial, the Justice Department even identified several entities of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and labeled them unindicted co-conspirators. One of these, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), belongs to the coalition protesting FBI education about the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more at Clarion Project

Because We Are at War

john-guandolo_thumbUTT, By John Guandolo:

“The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing the Islamic State.”
By-Laws of the International Muslim Brotherhood
“Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah after they are humbled or overpowered.”
Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani
One of the leading Islamic Scholars alive today.
Deputy Chairman, Fiqh Council for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
Former Judge, Pakistani Supreme Court
“We do not disassociate Islam from war.  On the contrary, disassociating Islam from war is the reason for our defeat.  We are fighting in the name of Islam. Religion must lead to war.”
Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi
Preeminent Islamic Scholar in the world
Leading Legal Jurist of the International Muslim Brotherhood
Chairman – International Union of Muslim Scholars
“This means that you wage war so that the evil sovereignty of beings other than that of Allah is wiped out and only the law of God operates in the world.”
U.S. Training Guide for Muslims published by
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS)
 
“To be true Muslims we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way…The military education is glued to the faith and it’s meaning, and the duty to follow it.”
Islamic High School text book, Islamic Center of Oakland (and elsewhere)
“America will become a Muslim country.”
Former Islamic Advisor to President Clinton and convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi
The civilian and military leadership in America, and much of the West, is strikingly blind to and grossly ignorant of the swiftly growing threat we face from the Global Islamic Movement.
Yet those inside government agencies, members of the military, and American citizens who have taken the time to get educated on this threat are horrified at the grand canyon size schism between the reality of the threat and the posture the United States government continues to take – a position which can only be characterized as “Aiding and Abetting” the enemy, Material Support for Designated Terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda and others), and Treason.
Patriots are asking themselves, “How can this be happening?
It is happening because we are at war – and we are losing.

In 2005, the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri said “I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.  We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Ummah (global Muslim community).”

Al Qaeda understands the majority of this war is being fought in the Information Battlespace – propaganda, influence operations, and political subversion, are but a few of the tools.
When the Muslim Brotherhood states in their strategic memorandum they are waging Civilization Jihad to “destroy Western civilization from within” and they are going to do it by getting U.S. leadership to do their bidding for them – they mean it.
We are in a war against an enemy who states they are Muslims fighting Jihad in the Cause of Allah in order to impose Islamic Law and re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate).  Al Qaeda says it, the Muslim Brotherhood says it, nation-states say it, martyrs say it on their videos, and all of the jihadis we have captured before or after the act (if they lived) all say they did what they did because it is a command to wage jihad until Sharia is the law of the land.  Yet, in the FBI, DHS, and U.S. military, all training on Islamic Law, specifically the requirements of Jihad and the Law of Jihad cannot be taught.  Why?
Because we are in a war – primarily an information war – and we are losing.
100% of all published Islamic Law only defines “Jihad” as warfare against non-Muslims.  Yet, at the leadership level of our civilian government and military, they are still “pondering” what the “root meaning” of Jihad really is.  How can something so objectively clear be so difficult for our leadership to grasp?
How can it be that the most prominent Islamic organizations in America have been identified as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement, yet their leaders serve in advisory roles across the entire spectrum of our government – including the FBI, CIA, and DHS?
In 2012, five Republican Members of Congress layed out the evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network in America and asked the Inspector Generals of key government agencies to consider opening investigations.  These Members of Congress were not publicly blasted by Democrats or the media for this, but by John McCain, John Boehner, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, and others.  Why?
Because we are losing in the Information Battlespace.  As a matter of fact, we are not even engaging the enemy there.
The U.S. Department of State wrote the Constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan which created Islamic States under which Sharia is the law of the land.  Two check marks on Al Qaeda’s regional objectives list.  Civilization Jihad “by our hands.”  How could this happen considering our military crushed the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan?
How can Jewish Rabbis across America hold “religious outreach” events with known members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood who are usually also leaders of Hamas?  How was Sheriff Baca of America’s largest county – Los Angeles – able to regularly raise money for Hamas (dba CAIR) without being prosecuted after being told publicly in a hearing by a U.S. Congressman that CAIR is a Hamas entity?
How are elected and appointed officials and law enforcement officers able to publicly promote known Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood organizations with no repercussions?
Because we are at war – a war in the information battlespace – and we are losing.
Our government provided material support to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Libya and are now doing the same in Syria.  Isn’t this in violation of U.S. law?  Wouldn’t any U.S. citizen be prosecuted for this?
Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF) is now promoted by major banks across the globe because Islamic Scholars (like Taqi Usmani and Yusuf Qaradawi – see above) tell the leaders of major financial institutions that SCF is simply a way for Muslims to handle their money in accordance with “religious practices.”  Yet, a portion of the money associated with SCF must go to support Jihad – “terrorism” – in accordance with Sharia.  How can this be?
Because we are at war – and we are losing.
Friends, our enemy has insinuated itself inside local school boards, civic groups, universities, political circles, and is driving the “religious outreach” efforts across this country.  Well intentioned but naive people are being drawn in an used by the enemy to defend the enemy and “stand up” for their “religious” rights.
Men and women in positions of leadership in this nation have not even taken the time to get to know an enemy that unequivocally states he wishes to destroy us.
But, the enemy has taken the time to know us.  This enemy knows us very well.  The enemy knows American leaders are more concerned with their reputations and not being embarrassed than defending the Constitution by all means necessary.
The enemy uses intimidation and pressure tactics – they call it the “political pressure approach” – to get what they want.  What do they want?  They never want us to look at authoritative Islamic Law.  They want to shut down all conversations about the Islamic threat.  They want us looking anywhere but to Islam to define the threat.  Therefore, “Violent extremism” or some other made up and useless phrase becomes the focus of the day.
Advising our senior leaders, controlling the language we use to describe the threat, and shutting down any critique of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Doctrine are their goals.  It appears they are batting a thousand.
This is much more a counterintelligence and espionage issue than it is a counterterrorism one.  So we will keep focusing on Counterterrorism – things that go boom and people who want to make them go boom.  That will be our focus.  And while we are doing it, the enemy will continue to work with our leaders to create foreign and domestic counterterrorism policy which serves the enemy’s purposes, softens the ground domestically gets law enforcement to back off so as not to “offend” the Muslim Community, and turns a blind eye to facts and evidence identifying the threat to the American people.
We will continue to let Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Al Qaeda leaders to teach our military and law enforcement about “Islam” while the Brotherhood and Hamas build $100 million dollar Islamic Centers across America which their own documents state are military outposts from which jihad will be launched.
And all the while the “mainstream” media in America – ABC, NBC, CBS – is silent…even when Al Qaeda is involved.
Friends, until we realize how dire the situation is, we cannot even begin to discuss solutions. Once you understand how dire the situation is, the solutions required become a whole lot clearer.

The “why?” of Muslim Brotherhood outreach

By Leslie Burt:

In his June 4, 2013 report, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,”  Patrick Poole asks the question,

Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations “moderates” and embraced them as outreach partners? In a number of cases from the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, the leaders of these organizations (some of whom are now in federal prison) were under active investigation at the same time they were meeting with senior U.S. leaders at the White House and the Capitol and helping develop U.S. policy. Now these same Islamic organizations and leaders have openly encouraged a purge of counterterrorism training that have effectively blinded law enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence agencies to active terror threats as seen in the inaction of the FBI concerning the Boston bombing suspects and other terror cases. This study poses serious questions as to the efficacy and even security concerns about U.S. government outreach to Islamic groups, which often turn out to be Islamist militants, enemies of Islamic moderation, and even supporters of terrorism.

***

Perhaps the most baffling element to the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach since the 1990s is the steadfast refusal by its supporters to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that testifies to its catastrophic failure. What pathology can explain how prosecutors can identify Muslim leaders and organizations as supporters of terrorism in federal court, and at the same time high-ranking government officials embrace these same leaders and groups as moderates and heatedly defend their inclusion as outreach partners? The answer might only lie in the realm of theology and not psychology.

While it is true that the Muslim Botherhood has, through very effective influence operations, affected U.S. counterterrorism policy we have to remember that it was the U.S. that originally reached out to them starting clear back in the Eisenhower administration. Our intent was to influence them and use them to counterbalance our enemies. However, it has turned out that the Muslim Brotherhood has won the influence game by taking advantage of our ignorance of their true theologically driven agenda. We’ve learned the hard way that they are only moderate while they are politically weak. When empowered, the mask comes off to reveal their true violent extremist nature. The evidence has been there all along for anyone taking the time to examine the history of the Muslim Brotherhood since their formation in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna

In my May 6, 2013 post , Anatomy of a Coverup  which I will re-post here, Daniel Greenfield gives what I believe is the definitive answer to Poole’s question. Why are we partnering with terrorists? Do click on the link and read his entire article. It explains a lot.

As the steady drumbeat for a select committee to investigate Benghazi continues, hopefully the drip, drip, drip of new information will edge us closer to examining the whole Middle East foreign policy rationale of the Obama administration. Elections have consequences and foreign policy should be a campaign issue in the coming 2016 presidential elections. But CPAC so far is playing it down:

CPAC AGAIN FAILS TO ADDRESS FOREIGN POLICY

Could it be the influence of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan? Sign the petition:

Tell The ACU: Grover Norquist Must Go

dereliction-of-duty-five

Anatomy of a Coverup

We now have whistle blowers set to testify that what happened in Benghazi is very different than what the Obama administration has told us. We also have the proof that the Benghazi talking points were scrubbed. The question being asked now is why did Hillary Clinton and so many top administration officials, including General Petraeus, go to such extraordinary lengths to present a false narrative?

Daniel Greenfield has written a very good explanation of the Obama administration’s foreign policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda in his piece, “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet” at Front Page that helps answer this question:

In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.

The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.

Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.

Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.

The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.

And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.

As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?

To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.

Read more

The Obama administration, with it’s cultural relativist world view, believes that BOTH Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda can be moderated by making a  transition to democracy with our help. There has been an Orwellian re-branding of the word terrorism in order to sell this idea to the public as well as a denial of the so called al Qaeda “franchise’s” ideological links to “core” al Qaeda. So when the al Qaeda militia we were partnering with (Feb. 17th Martyrs Brigade) to protect the embassy actually assisted al Qaeda members from Yemen and possibly Egypt to attack and kill our people in Benghazi, they had to cover that up or risk Obama losing the election. Hillary Clinton went to extraordinary measures to change the Benghazi talking points in order to protect her political future as well as Obama’s. As a bonus, she managed to insert the lie of the “offensive” video tape in order to advance the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Walid Phares: ” These forces were not on the map as a threat to US national security because of a political determination that they were on the right side of history, and they were perceived as in transition to integration.”

Clare Lopez: “The real issue — which is what the CIA, the State Department or anyone in the U.S. government has been doing backing regime change operations across the Middle East and North Africa region in the company of and for the benefit of Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood jihadis — never gets addressed, much less explained by the ARB or anyone else.”

Related articles

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

By Walid Shoebat:

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

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

Mitchell: Insists Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are clean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Also see:

 

 

 

U.S. Lifts Ban on Immigrants With Links to Terrorism

immigrants oath

The Obama admin.is overriding the U.S. Criminal Code for individuals who have provided material support to terrorism.

BY CLARE LOPEZ:

Muslim Brotherhood affiliates scored a major victory in their efforts to degrade U.S. national security measures in early February 2014 when the Obama administration decided to override by fiat portions of the U.S. Criminal Code and immigration policy pertaining to individuals who provide “material support to terrorism.”

As published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State issued a joint notice that, henceforth, certain asylum seekers and refugees who only provided “limited material support” to terrorism would be allowed into the U.S.

The earlier law as written, The Real ID Law of 2005, states quite explicitly that the definition of engaging in terrorist activity includes:

To commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit … to a terrorist organization [emphasis added]

Such activity, no matter how minor, constituted grounds for exclusion from entry to the U.S.

By unilaterally lifting restrictions — without so much as consulting Congress — for those intending immigrants who engaged in “(1) certain routine commercial transactions or certain routine social transactions (i.e., in the satisfaction of certain well-established or verifiable family, social, or cultural obligations), [or] (2) certain humanitarian assistance,” that benefited terrorist organizations, the Obama administration simply overrode existing law. So far, both the judicial and legislative branches of the U.S. government have let the administration get away with it.

According to the Daily Caller, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry signed the exemptions despite very real concerns about the legality of the executive branch deciding to ignore aspects of an existing law it doesn’t want to enforce and replacing them with its own guidelines.

Former State Department official and current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies Jessica Vaughan worried as well that “those evaluating these cases will be ordered to ignore red flags in the applications, especially if the applicant is supported by one of the many advocacy groups that have the ear of senior DHS staff.”

The new policy decree marks a significant win for agents of influence belonging to advocacy groups acting on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda to pursue “civilization jihad” “to destroy Western civilization from within…by [our] hands,” as asserted in the “Explanatory Memorandum,” a key Brotherhood document introduced as evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

As described at some length in “The Islamists’—and their Enablers’—Assault on the Right: The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan,” an February 11, 2014 dossier of particulars published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), it is precisely in executing political influence operations aimed at U.S. national security leadership (whether Republican or Democratic) that the Muslim Brotherhood so excels.

The CSP paper explains in exhaustive detail and with meticulously referenced citations how the Muslim Brotherhood targeted the Republican Party and the conservative movement over a period of years and succeeded in placing senior operatives such as Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad, and Khaled Saffuri deep inside senior leadership circles.

It was at those top levels of government—the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Community, and the National Security Council—where critical decision-making took place, especially in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that set U.S. counterterrorism strategy on a hopeless loop that deliberately avoided, and indeed later would forbid, knowledge about Islamic doctrine, law and scripture as the animating inspiration for Islamic terrorism.

By divorcing the enemy’s core ideology from study of the enemy threat doctrine, Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence succeeded in ensuring that U.S. blood and treasure would be endlessly and fruitlessly expended in Counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare, nation-building exercises and democracy experiments in the most unsuitable places possible: Muslim lands under rule of Islamic law (sharia).

As noted in CSP’s 2010 Team B II Report, “Shariah: The Threat to America,” Americans do pretty well at defending against military-style frontal assaults. We do far less well, though, at either recognizing or countering the “menace posed by jihadist enemies who operate by deceit and stealth from inside the gates.

And yet it is the latter threat that poses a far more serious threat to open, tolerant societies like ours than the openly terrorist attack like the one that struck on 9/11.

Read more at Clarion Project

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

Also see:

U.S. Still Declares Support for Muslim Brotherhood

Harf assuring world that there’s nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood

Harf assuring world that there’s nothing to fear from the Muslim Brotherhood

by :

During a press conference in Washington, D.C. this last Wednesday, Deputy Spokesperson for the U.S. State Department Marie Harf said that “The United Sates does not rank the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.”

This despite the fact that those who support the Brotherhood often employ terrorism, including al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations; this despite the fact that, since the ousting of the Brotherhood and Morsi, Egypt has been engulfed in terrorism; this despite the fact that the Brotherhood and their supporters targeted Egypt’s Christians, destroying around 80 churches in a few weeks.

Meanwhile, Maj. Gen. Sisi, the man who ousted the Brotherhood to massive praise in Egypt, just went to Russia to meet with President Putin, as the U.S. continues losing one of the Mideast’s most strategic nations.

In Russia, the Muslim Brotherhood is a banned organization.

Even the UK’s former prime minister, Tony Blair recently declared “This is what I say to my colleagues in the west.  The fact is, the Muslim Brotherhood tried to take the country away from its basic values of hope and progress. The army have intervened, at the will of the people…”

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt; and many fellow Egyptians — both Muslim and Christian — know that it is involved in terrorism.  Russia and many other nations also know this.

But apparently not the United States.

The other possibility is that the U.S. government does know of the “nefarious” nature of the Brotherhood, but is allied to it anyway.  During the same conference, Harf said that contact between the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the Brotherhood is ongoing.

Much of this was revealed in the context of Ahmed Eleba, an employee of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo currently arrested for, among other things, his close ties to the Brotherhood, including Khairat al-Shater.

Currently imprisoned, al-Shater is the deputy leader of the Brotherhood; along with Morsi and other top Brotherhood leaders, he is being tried for, among other things, direct ties to terrorism.

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

Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney:

Islamists Inside the Wire

Egyptian authorities last month arrested a local employee with the U.S. embassy in Cairo. It turns out he was actively involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has properly been declared a terrorist organization in Egypt.

Incredibly, he was also reportedly in charge of the embassy’s “political Islam” portfolio. Is it any wonder that the Obama administration has been so supportive of this Islamist group, which is sworn to our destruction?

Ten influential national security professionals yesterday warned of a similar problem with Muslim Brotherhood penetration and influence operations – not overseas, but here, within the conservative movement and Republican Party. These leaders have called on the American Conservative Union to take corrective action.

And Team Obama must do the same, by ending its ties to and support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Go here to see the report

183770806

 

 

Some Issues with “Counter Terrorism – The Right Approach and Solutions”

20101101_TalibanTerroristFamily Security Matters , by JANET LEVY:

(See Alan Kornman’s article here.)

Three important points need to be emphasized here:
1)  It is accurate that Carter was naive about Khoumeni’s goals as a religion leader.  However, the fact that the Shah refused to give Carter’s cronies some contracts in Iran was a significant part of the equation.
2)  The Russian position vis a vis Islam is nuanced and not a clear case of doing what is necessary to fight terrorism.  Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky maintains that the Russians privilege Muslim citizens in the service of regaining territory that was part of the former Soviet Union.  See his white paper:  Made in Moscow Terrorism:  The Hidden Hand of the KGB.  – Click Here
3) It is very important to distinguish between terrorist groups as, at times, it is expedient to forge a temporary alliance with one side over the other.  Such is the case with the current relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel to fight the soon-to-be-nuclear Shias in Iran.  In 2012, the Saudis abandoned the Muslim Brotherhood after a six decade relationship.  When the Brotherhood took control of Egypt with the election of Morsi, the Kingdom switched its allegiance to the Egyptian military.  Essentially, the Saudis broke with the MB to protect their domestic grip on power
Also see:

Secure Freedom Radio with John Guandolo: Raising a Jihadi Generation

CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO

download (65)John Guandolo discusses his new book, RAISING A JIHADI GENERATIONJohn is a former Marine Reconnaissance Officer who served as a commissioned officer and Platoon Commander in both the 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company and 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, leading his infantry unit through combat operations in the Persian Gulf War.  He has also served the FBI as a Subject Matter Expert in the Counter Terrorism Division (CTD), SWAT Team Leader, and a Special Agent for 12 years.   From his perspective in the national security community, John recounts the pervasive political correctness that that inhibits Federal law enforcement from understanding and strategically responding to the threat of Islamist terrorism in the United States.

Visit his website at Understanding The Threat

 

Video: The Legacy of FDR’s Normalization of Relations with the USSR

nov16 (1)

With (left to right) Stanton Evans, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, Chris Farrell and (not pitcured) Stephen Coughlin

Eightieth Anniversary of Deal That Facilitated Penetration of U.S. Government, Society

Washington, DC — Eighty years ago this Saturday, President Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed for the first time to recognize the Communist regime of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did so on the basis of formal undertakings by then-Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov that the Kremlin would not engage in subversive actions in America.
The rest, as they say, is history. And a sordid and still unfolding history it is.

“The 16th of November 1933 is a day that truly should live in infamy. This symposium will explore its significance both in terms of much of the most sordid history of the 20th Century — and as the predicate for similar forces at work in the 21st.”

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to convene a symposium to review that history — both that of the immediate post-normalization period, of World War II, of the Cold War and of today — from noon-2:00 p.m. at the headquarters of Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

  • Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character;
  • M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government Relations;
  • Christopher Farrell, Chief Investigator, Judicial Watch; and
  • Stephen Coughlin, author of the forthcoming book, Catastrophic Failure.
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy, moderator.

Diana West at 7:09, Stanton Evans at 24:15, Chris Farrell at 47:09, Stephen Coughlin at 57:57 followed by Q&A (which you do not want to miss)

How the CIA Helped The Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate the West

muslim brother hasan al banna (3)by Jerry Gordon (August 2011)

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) was founded by fundamentalist Egyptian school teacher, Hasan al Banna in 1928. He advocated violent Jihad and the replacement of secular governments with a worldwide totalitarian Caliphate governed under strict Islamic Shariah law. Banna became a devotee of Adolf Hitler, who was himself an admirer of Islam and militarist Jihad conquest. Despite Banna’s assassination by Egyptian authorities under King Farouk in 1949, the MB succeeded in establishing branches throughout the Middle East, such as Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Jordan and Syria. There are even branches in Europe and America. The Hamas Charter of 1988 seeks the obliteration of the Jewish State of Israel. Among MB fronts in the US are:

  • Council of American Islamic Relations;
  • Islamic Society of North America;
  • Islamic Circle of North America;
  • Muslim Students Association;
  • Muslim American Society;
  • International Institute for Islamic Thought; and,
  • Muslim Public Affairs Council.

These MB fronts were identified as unindicted co-conspirators in the Federal Holy Land Foundation trial with convictions in 2008,  involving the funneling of upwards of $36 million to Palestinian MB affiliate Hamas in Gaza. Uncovered in the HLF trial was a 1991 strategy plan of the MB in the US to overthrow our Constitution and form of government via ‘stealth Jihad’ and replacing it with a Shariah–ruled Caliphate.

The Arab Spring and US Relations with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

President Obama at al-Azhar University  June 2009 (3)

President Obama at al-Azhar University Cairo, June, 2009 “A New Beginning” Speech

With the election of President Obama in November 2008 and his Muslim Outreach initiative, exemplified by his Cairo “A New Beginnings Speech” at al Azhar University, the Obama administration extended a welcome to the MB. Investor’s Business Daily noted the ensuing chronology of events, punctuated by the overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt during the Arab Spring of 2011 that swept the heartland of the Muslim ummah.

2009: The White House invites ISNA’s president to President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies, even though the Justice Department just two years earlier had blacklisted the Brotherhood affiliate as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial — the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.

2009: Obama delivers his Cairo speech to Muslims, infuriating the Mubarak regime by inviting Brotherhood leaders to attend.

2009: The White House dispatches top presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett to give the keynote speech at ISNA’s annual convention.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which strongly supports the Brotherhood.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is a moderate, “largely secular” organization.

2011: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad. Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, had been calling for “days of rage” before the rioting in Egypt. Before Obama’s Cairo speech, Qaradawi  wrote an open letter to the President arguing [Islamic] terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2011: The Brotherhood vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel. Since Mubarak’s fall, it has worked to formally reestablish Cairo’s ties with Hamas and Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians.

2011: White House security adviser gives friendly speech at Washington-area mosque headed by ISNA’s new president.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of Muslim Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

What is not well known is that the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood to the west was facilitated by the CIA during the Cold War Era as part of an anti-Soviet, anti-Communism initiative during the Eisenhower Administration. The creation of an Islamic Center in Munich, involved an ex-Nazi Turkologist, and former Nazi Muslim veterans from the Soviet Muslim satellites which were captured by advancing German forces during WWII in the Caucasus and Crimea. The CIA funded Hasan al Banna’s son-in-law to advance the MB cause via the World Muslim League.  This resulted in an MB beachhead in the US launched from the Munich Islamic Center.
The Muslim Brotherhood Mosque in Munich

In an interview in the New English Review, Sam Solomon had this comment about the functions of a Mosque:

A mosque is a seat of government. A mosque is a school. A mosque is a court. A mosque is a training center. A mosque is a gathering place, or social center. It is not a place of “worship” per se as understood and as practiced in Western societies.

Mosque in MunichPulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Ian Johnson illustrates that conclusively in his investigative book, A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, CIA and the Rise of The Muslim Brotherhood in the West. Johnson earned his Pulitzer for a Wall Street Journal series about the Chinese religious group, Fulan Gong.  He has been a long time resident in Germany and until early in 2010, was the Berlin Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal. His book is about how an accidental discovery of a map in a “Londonistan” extremist Muslim bookstore, where he had been a regular customer, triggered five years of research into the MB mosque in Germany that led to his book. Johnson notes the accidental discovery:

Wandering the aisles, I noticed a peculiar map of the world. [. . .]Famous mosques decorated the edge of the map- the Grand mosque in Mecca, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the wondrous Blue Mosque of Istanbul and the Islamic Center of Munich.

Johnson goes on to note:

Almost all of the Brotherhood’s activities in the West originated among the small groups of people who ran the Mosque. Munich was the beach-head from which the brotherhood spread into Western society.

But he notes the cautionary aspect of this tale:

The parallel between the 1950’s and today are striking. [. . .]. Now like a half century ago in Munich, western societies are seeking Muslim allies . . . Munich shows the danger of doing so without careful reflection and scrutiny.

To which we would add the dangers of an intelligence community thoroughly mis-informed about basic Islamic Jihad doctrine. A doctrine that most post WWII administrations in Washington have evaded acknowledging as the primary threat facing this county and the West in the 21st century.

Watch this You Tube Video by author Ian Johnson at the New American Foundation discussing his book, A Mosque in Munich:

 

 

Read more at New English Review

See also:

Video: Gadi Adelman on The Washington Terrorist Love Affair

ga

 

Gadi Adelman goes over all the basics of the Muslim Brotherhood, why they are a threat and the extent of their influence operations within the highest levels of our government. This is a good video to share with people who need to wake up!

 

Speech from 9/28/13 at the NC Constitution Day Tea Party Rally at Pilot Mountain:

 

CAIR-FAIL: Analysis of CAIR’s 2013 Report on Islamophobia in the U.S.

download (43)By Louis Palme:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has released its 2013 report on Islamophobia, titled “Legislating Fear”. The report constitutes one big pity party over the abject failure of CAIR (and other Islamist organizations) to convince Americans that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Although the report is 162 pages long, much of it was cut and pasted from their previous 2009-2010 report.

CAIR receives most of its funds from overseas, so they are somewhat accountable for how effectively that money is being spent. Since the Islamists are losing ground in terms of anti-Sharia legislation and school textbook dawah, they must blame someone (actually, lots of people and organizations) for their failures. They have identified 69 different organizations “whose primary purpose is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims”, either directly or by regular support. It is a matter of concern, however, that the long litany of grievances, offending individuals and “anti-Muslim” organizations could provide ample impetus for fanatical Muslims to carry out bloody “Islamic justice.”

Nowhere in this document, however, is there any acknowledgement that the Islamists have been making demands and insisting on prerogatives that run counter to the U.S. Constitution, state laws, and basic human rights. Also, nowhere is there any suggestion that perhaps the Islamists need to modify their Islamic ideology to make it more compatible with Western civilization in the 21Century.

CAIR wants the word “Islamist” dropped from the American lexicon. They argue that those who use it are “making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used”. Unfortunately, Islam is at best 14 percent religion (Quran) and 86 percent political (Muhammad) based on Bill Warner’s analysis. What are most offensive to non-Muslims are the political activities of Muslims exercised under the cover of religion. Until CAIR can suggest a word that covers Islam’s unprecedented obsession with society outside the mosque (including the despised kufrs), the word Islamist must apply.

CAIR goes to great lengths throughout the report to conflate criticism of the ideology of Islam with anti-Muslim bias. They define an Islamophobe as “an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.” In consistently linking Islamic ideology with Muslim people, the report sees pervasive bigotry where the actual situation is just the condemnation of Islamic doctrines that fly in the face of civil rights and community harmony.

Money, money, money: Right from the opening page of the report, CAIR is asking for money, both from Muslim-Americans and from overseas supporters. They have tallied up the money spent by the opposition right down to the dollar! $119,662,719, to be exact. Why not just say $120 million? They are also quite jealous over the salaries made by the opposition. Not only does the CAIR report quote the exact salaries of David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel and others, but a table on page 14 calculates an average salary increase of 12% for the parties listed. It looks as though CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is bucking for a raise.

Financial Disclosure Hypocrisy — CAIR gleaned most of its information about the anti-Islamist organizations by reading the IRS Form 990’s required by non-profit organizations. This is both ironic and hypocritical, since CAIR lost its non-profit status in 2011 because it has failed to file those forms disclosing its own membership and sources of funds since 2006. It was only due to the Tea Party tax exemption brouhaha that their tax exempt status was reinstated earlier this year.

Friends and Enemies Lists – Given the number of brutal assassinations by Muslims of non-Muslims (often with no justification), CAIR’s lengthy lists of friends and enemies with pictures is troubling. Those assassinations include Daniel Pearl (2002), Theo Van Gogh (2004), Salmaan Taseer (2011), Lee Rigby (2013), and Dominic Parker (2013). The “Best List” contains only four individuals – Rais Buhuiyan, Chris Christie, Dick Durban, and Anderson Cooper (who would be arrested and hanged if he ever set foot inside Saudi Arabia or Iran). The “Worst List” includes David Caton, Jerry Boykin, Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, Herman Cain, Peter King, David Yerushalmi, Allen West, and Walid Shoebat. Also mentioned are the state legislators who sponsored “anti-Islam” legislation (better known as American Laws for American Courts).

So-called Anti-Islam Legislation – The title of CAIR’s report and longest chapter in the report deal with the advance of the American Laws for American Courts legislation.  According to the report, there have been 78 ALAC bills introduced in 29 states. Six states (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee) have successfully passed such legislation. These laws essentially confirm that the state and federal laws take precedent over foreign laws. From CAIR’s point of view these laws “have at their heart the goal of subjecting Islam to government-sanctioned censure.” Naturally, Muslims who emigrated from countries where Islam was the national religion might see these laws as “censure”, but the fundamental problem ignored in CAIR’s report is that Sharia Law contradicts the U.S. constitution and many state laws with regard to cruel and unusual punishments, mandated eye-for-an-eye revenge, women’s rights, freedom of worship, inheritance, and equality before the law, just to name a few. CAIR cannot even honestly describe Sharia Law: “It is a set of interpretations [not laws which exact physical and corporal punishments, mind you] of the Quran and other Islamic sources [Only a small fraction of Sharia can be traced to the Quran; the rest is man-made, as is evidenced by the development of five schools of Islamic jurisprudence several centuries after the Quran was “handed down.”]; it is dynamic and intended to accommodate the time, place and laws – in America that means the U.S. Constitution – of the particular community [not to mention that the most recent codification approved by the U.S. based International Institute of Islamic Thought – Reliance of the Traveler – was written around 1360]. . . . Sharia mandates Muslims to respect the law of the land in which they live [except that R of T states in paragraph w43.5(c), “it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.”]

CAIR goes on to argue that Sharia Law in America is a “non-existent problem.” Human rights advocates have identified fifty cases in twenty-three states where Sharia Law was applied in contradiction to State and Federal laws. These cases were discovered only because they were reversed on appeal – a process that few victims of Sharia Law have the knowledge or resources to undertake (See, http://shariahinamericancourts.com/). Don’t tell 17-year-old New Jersey bride, “S.D.”, that Sharia Law is a non-existent problem:  She was repeatedly raped and beaten by her new husband who successfully argued in court that it was his right as a Muslim to treat his wife that way (See, New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man’s Right to Rape is Religious Freedom). Fortunately, the case was overturned on appeal.

Read more at Islam Watch

CAIR’s Hit List Overshadowed by Justice Dept. Criticism of CAIR

nihad and saylorBY CLARE LOPEZ:

It’s been a tough week for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. First came the plaintive wail of “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States,” a 162-page hit list from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) documenting groups and individuals it really wishes wouldn’t be quite so effective at pointing out how the doctrine and sacred texts of Islam form the legal basis for Islamic terrorism.

The report’s introductory letter from CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad leads off with a dismayed acknowledgement of the dramatic success of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) initiative, which has seen six state legislatures – Arizona, Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Louisiana – pass bills designed to “protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.”

That CAIR even needed 162 pages to get through the impressive cadre of media outfits, non-profit organizations (among them the Clarion Project), publications, think tanks and their donors, is testament to the vibrancy of the counterjihad movement that strikes such foreboding into the U.S. Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) establishment.

Then the next shoe dropped. On September 19, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General released its “Review of FBI Interactions with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.” The report is sharply critical of the way the FBI implemented and managed its 2008 policy on curtailing contact with CAIR in the wake of overwhelming evidence about CAIR’s ties with HAMAS (the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch) which had been documented presented in 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) HAMAS terror funding trial.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Huma Abedin: Assistant Editor of Radical Islam Journal

Huma and ClintonIf Huma Abedin is an anti-Islamist Muslim, then she must explain how she reconciled her involvement with a radical Islamist journal.

By Ryan Mauro:

Islam expert Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad andSharia vs. Freedom, has discovered alarming extremism in an Islamist journal bearing the name of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and wife of New York City mayoral candidate, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.

The Clarion Project helped bring attention to the Islamist ties of Abedin in July 2012, specifically her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her position as an assistant editor of the Islamist journal from 1996 to 2008. More recently, we’ve covered thedonations from an Al-Jazeera lobbyist to the mayoral campaign of her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.

The publication in question is the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Originally known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs Journal from 1979 when it began to 1995. The Institute was founded by Abedin’s late father and two Islamist colleagues that led the Muslim World League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth, two powerful engines of Wahhabism.

Abedin was the assistant editor of the journal for at least a dozen years, from 1996 (the year she began working as an intern at the White House) to 2008. She worked alongside several family members on the publication, including her mother, brother and sister.

Her mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist resume, though the overlaps in the Islamist infrastructure can make it confusing. In short, Abedin’s mother is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.

Read more at The Clarion Project

American Betrayal on The Daily Caller with Ginni Thomas

l.jspBy Diana West, May 27, 2013

A writer awaiting the official release (tomorrow!) of a book could do absolutely no better than to sit down and talk through the sure-to-be-controversial findings with The remarkable Ginni Thomas of The Daily Caller.

In her introductory comments, Ginni writes:

Dear reader,

Diana West is a meticulous researcher who writes compellingly. She is also a new friend. Her new book,“American Betrayal,” reads like a historical thriller as she weaves remarkable details from a variety of sources, including intelligence archives from the collapsed Soviet Union. In this week’s interview, West explains the thesis of her book that she admits even shocked her: “Americans have been betrayed … by our leaders going back to FDR’s administration in the 1930s because we were penetrated by Soviet agents to such an extent that our policies and, indeed I argue, our character as a nation was subverted.” You may not agree, but give this one a read if you are ready to have your brain stretched!
This interview includes her observations about what is not being discussed in the Benghazi turmoil, why ideology matters, the inevitable erosion of trust in our government and President Obama’s record on relating to allies and enemies.

Watch the full interview on The Daily Caller’s “Leaders with Ginni Thomas”

Also see the 5 minute segment of the interview dealing with Benghazi at the following link:

Author Diana West on Benghazi: ‘It’s what happens when you switch sides openly’ [VIDEO]