Tag Archives: Islamist influence operations

Problems in the U.S. Military: Denying Islam’s Role in Terror

Posted on by
2

The U.S. Army seems to have succumbed to PC-Islamist sensitivities. It has issued a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify jihad as "communal military defense … when [Muslims] are threatened or under attack." In addition, U.S. servicewomen have been urged to don head scarves when interacting with Afghan locals while all soldiers are warned to "respect Islam" in order to prevent violence there.

The U.S. Army seems to have succumbed to PC-Islamist sensitivities. It has issued a special handbook for soldiers that appears to justify jihad as “communal military defense … when [Muslims] are threatened or under attack.” In addition, U.S. servicewomen have been urged to don head scarves when interacting with Afghan locals while all soldiers are warned to “respect Islam” in order to prevent violence there.

by David J. Rusin
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013 (view PDF)

Editors’ note: This article discusses many public figures in the context of the positions they held in December 2012 when the article was submitted. There has been much turnover in government and military posts since then, but the problems caused by political correctness remain despite the changes in personnel.

As U.S. service members risk their lives to combat violent jihadists abroad, military leaders, both uniformed and civilian, capitulate to stealth jihadists at home. By bending to Islamists’ appeals for religious sensitivity, these leaders ignore the most crucial lesson of the Fort Hood massacre: Political correctness can kill.

The War On Training

A key battleground in the war of ideas between Islamists and the West is military training because Islamists seek to suppress knowledge of their beliefs and goals.[1] This campaign hit high gear in 2011 when journalist Spencer Ackerman of Wired launched a series of articles documenting “offensive” training employed by various government agencies. He highlighted, among others, FBI materials stating that Islamic doctrine calls for war against non-Muslims and equating greater religious devotion with the potential for violence.[2]

On October 19, 2011, dozens of Muslim groups, many Islamist in nature, signed a letter to John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, with a copy to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, demanding that the administration “purge … biased materials” and jettison “bigoted trainers.”[3]However, Panetta’s Department of Defense was already on the case. Five days prior, Jose Mayorga, deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, had directed the Joint Staff to compile information on the “current processes used to vet CVE [countering violent extremism] trainers.”[4]

The Islamists’ most notable scalp to date—presented to them by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army general Martin Dempsey—is that of Matthew Dooley, a decorated Army lieutenant colonel who had taught at the Joint Forces Staff College of the National Defense University.[5] At issue was Dooley’s courseon Islam and Islamic radicalism during which he spoke of Islam as an ideology, not just a faith, and war-gamed provocative scenarios in which it would be confronted as such.[6]

A colonel enrolled in the class complained to his superiors, leading to the course’s suspension in April 2012.[7] On May 10, Wired published course materials focusing on a handful of slides conjecturing about “total war” and taking the conflict to civilians, but which also included a disclaimer that the specific counter-jihad model was meant “to generate dynamic discussion and thought” and did not constitute government policy.[8] According to The Washington Times, Dooley’s attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) have maintained that “the discussion about all-out war … was conducted by a guest speaker. It involved theoretical ‘out of the box’ thinking on what happens if Islamic extremists commandeer Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and begin destroying U.S. cities: How does the U.S. respond?”[9]

External lecturers in the class were a major target of Wired, which highlighted their politically incorrect statements such as that the Crusades had been initiated after centuries of Muslim incursions and that Islamists see the fall of Arab regimes as stepping stones to global dominance.[10] Ironically, one maligned guest speaker, Stephen Coughlin, had been fired from his post with the Joint Staff years earlier because of his own controversial work on Islamic warfare.[11]

Though one could debate whether aspects of Dooley’s approach were unbalanced, the military’s reaction surely was. Hours after the Wired exposé appeared, Dempsey condemned the class at a news conference.[12] ”It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound,” he said, adding that Dooley, referred to as “the individual,” was no longer teaching. Soon Dooley was ordered removed ”for cause,” and his superiors produced a negative officer evaluation report, derailing his career.[13] On November 26, Ackerman relayed that Dooley had been transferred to a “bureaucratic backwater.”[14]

TMLC lawyers argue that the military chose to “throw him under the bus in public” without ever privately instructing Dooley to tweak the course’s content.[15] The center further asserts that Dempsey’s words prejudiced the investigation, that the syllabus had been approved, and that university policies guarantee the right to academic expression “free of limitations, restraints, or coercion by the university or external environment.”[16] Two congressmen also objected to what they saw as excessive punishment;[17] in response, the Pentagon issued a report defending Dooley’s dismissal on the basis that the class “did not meet appropriate academic standards” and was “overtly negative with respect to Islam.”[18] According to a TMLC press release, the military’s primary goal was to appease Islamists and make an example out of Dooley, so others “will refrain from telling the truth about Islam or confronting the difficult strategic challenges facing our nation for fear of jeopardizing their professional careers.”[19]

Read more at Middle East Forum

Related articles

 

Obama and the Jihad

Posted on by
1

images (34)Front Page:

Editor’s note: Below is the video of the panel discussion “Obama and the Jihad,” featured at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2013 West Coast Retreat. The event was held February 22nd-24th at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California. A transcript of the discussion follows. Speakers: Andrew McCarthy, Robert Spencer and John Solomon

Jamie Glazov: We have a heroic truth-teller by the name of Michele Bachmann.  And one of the names that she was concerned about was Mohamed Elibiary.  An Egyptian magazine, by the way, just recently boasted that the Muslim Brotherhood is penetrating Washington.  And one of the names they mentioned was Mohamed Elibiary.

Just want to tell a very quick story about this individual, and for us to let it swirl around in our head that this is a person that today’s in the Homeland — he’s on the Advisory Council in Homeland Security.  Mohamed Elibiary in 2004 gave a speech at an evening dedicated to the Ayatollah Khomeini.  It was a tribute to the grand Islamic visionary.  This is in 2004.  This is a mass murderer — the killing fields, Ayatollah Khomeini.  Imagine one of us gives a speech at a conference praising Adolf Hitler or Stalin.

And Robert Spencer, our distinguished guest with us this evening, approached Mohamed Elibiary, if I am correct — right, Robert?

Robert Spencer: Yes.

Jamie Glazov: And he asked him — what were you doing there?  And he said — oh, I was there, but I didn’t really know what it was about.  But, you know, I was there anyway.  And we are not investigating this.

Imagine that you end up at a conference praising Adolf Hitler, and you don’t know why you’re there.  And then you’re there anyway, and your reaction is — oh, they’re praising Adolf Hitler here tonight.  Well, I’m here anyway, might as well go ahead and make the speech.  Because he did go ahead and make the speech.

This is one of the individuals in our government today.  And what I’m thinking about is — do we have a right to ask some questions?  Should there be an investigation?

Ladies and gentlemen, the future must not belong to the slanderers of the Prophet of Islam.  In Islam, “slander” is also known and interpreted to be not even slander; it could be just saying something uncomfortable.  It could be saying something that Muslims just don’t want to hear.  And my response to that is — no, Mr. President, the future must belong to the truth-tellers.

And we have three of them with us this afternoon.

Andy McCarthy: For all the awful things there are to say about the Obama Administration — and there certainly isn’t time in a panel, in a weekend, in a lifetime, to catalogue all of those — a lot of what we’re seeing today is simply Obama exploiting an atmosphere that has been created over a course of more than 20 years.

I said 20 years — Jamie mentioned the Blind Sheikh prosecution — Tuesday will be the 20th anniversary, if you can call it that, of the World Trade Center bombing.  And I thought that was pretty significant, because we just got through the testimony at the confirmation hearing of John Brennan.  And Michele catalogued a lot of Brennan’s dubious background last night.  But I think the most interesting thing I’ve come across about Brennan is his speech about jihad just a couple of years ago, and explaining his interpretation of the concept of jihad.

And the interesting thing about that is that here we are 20 years after the Trade Center bombing, 20 years of jihad in America, and we actually don’t even know what jihad is yet, even at an official level.  And I think the interesting thing — if you go back to that trial and flash forward to today, a couple of interesting things stand out.  One is the Blind Sheikh wanted his defense at the trial to be that we couldn’t hold him liable for green-lighting acts of terrorism, for issuing fatwas — or the Islamic edict, juristic edict, approving a course of conduct — any course of conduct, but in this instance, terrorist attacks.

Because in his view, he was simply performing under Sharia the customary traditional role of a jurist of his academic accomplishment, which meant that the members of the flock or the faithful would come to him, propose one course of conduct or another — you know, can I marry this person, can I blow up this building and, you know –

(Laughter)

– everything in between.  And it was the Sharia jurist’s job to say, you know, yes, that’s permissible or no, it’s not permissible.

So back in those days, we had a great — I thought, the greatest trial judge in the United States at the time, later the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, who, after hearing arguments about it, would not allow that defense to be presented to the jury, on the common-sense principle that we are in the United States, and we follow American law in the United States.  And it didn’t matter what Sharia said, or really — not just to single out Sharia — what any other religious code would say in terms of where religious law would collide with the civil law.  Because there’s a lot of Supreme Court law that says that, you know, basically if you allow chaos like that, you have every person being a law unto himself.  And that’s not an acceptable way to have a civil society.  So that defense got bounced out pretty easily.

The reason I think that’s interesting is — flash forward almost 20 years, in my own home state of New Jersey. And we had a woman, a Muslim woman, who was married to a Muslim man who she was trying to divorce, who was serially raping and beating her.  And she went into New Jersey state court to try to get a protective order.  And the court refused to give her the protective order under circumstances where there was no doubt that the attacks and the sexual abuse was actually going on.  But the court reasoned that he was simply following his religious principles, under which his own understanding of them was that she had no right to say no.

So think about that.  We go from 20 years ago — where a Sharia defense basically gets laughed out of court on a very straightforward, confident idea of American law that we follow our own law in the United States, we don’t — Sharia’s not the law of the land — to a situation we have now where — not just in New Jersey; that case happened to be reversed on appeal — but in almost every state in the Union, we’ve had Sharia principles creeping into our law.

And the reason I think we’ve had them creeping into our law is what a lot of our distinguished speakers have discussed throughout the course of the day, and that is cultural confidence.  We really lack it.  And we’ve lacked it for 20 years.  And the result of that is that the people who are now in charge of our government really have precedents that you could drive a truck through.  And that’s pretty much what they’re doing.

I mean, what we’ve done for 20 years is basically suppress any discussion of our enemies’ ideology.  I mean, I’ve said probably every bad thing that you can say about the idea of using the civilian courts as your main counterterrorism weapon, the idea of bringing our enemy combatants into court and awarding them all of the Bill of Rights protections.

Let me tell you the one really good thing about using civilian courts.  And it’s one that I don’t think has been replicated by any other part of our government.  And that is that juries won’t convict people unless you give them a rational explanation not only of what was done but why it was done.

So even though 20 years ago we were saying the same things that we’re saying today — you know, religion of peace, Islam has nothing to do with terrorism — back then, it wasn’t violent extremism, but the basic message of the government was we didn’t really have a national security problem so much as we had 20 knuckleheads in Jersey City who weren’t representative of Islam as a whole.  And if we could just reign them in, all would be well.  And they said that in the White House, they said it in the White House Pressroom, they said it on the steps of the courthouse, Janet Reno said it, everybody in the government said it.

The only place it didn’t get said was inside our courtroom.  Inside the courtroom — because we had to prove to the jury not only what was done in the way of terrorist attacks but why it was done — we were actually able to prove why the terrorist acts were committed.  And what we were able to show was that there was an unavoidable, undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine — and I’m not going to try to parse at this point, you know, Islamism or Islamist, or — we’ve had that discussion again and again.

What I’m talking about is what’s undeniably in Islamic doctrine — the nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims, and the mediating agent from one to the other, where people like the Blind Sheikh — who we wanted to paint as wanton killers but who, in fact, were authoritative figures in their own communities.

Go to Front Page for the rest of the transcript

CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller #STANDWITHPAMELAGELLER

Posted on by
3

pam-gellerby Breitbart News: For the last four years, Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com and the American Freedom Defense Initiative have held events at CPAC featuring guests she invites to discuss the influence of Islamism on America. But this year, the American Conservative Union (ACU) has no room for Geller or her message.

In 2009, she brought Geert Wilders, who is the head of the third largest party in the Netherlands and has spoken out against the Islamization of his country.

In 2010 she held an event that her organization, The American Freedom Defense Initiative, hosted, titled “Jihad: The Political Third Rail”, with speakers like Allen West, Wafa Sultan, Simon Deng, Anders Gravers, and Steve Coughlin.

In 2011, she hosted an event discussing the Ground Zero Mosque with 9/11 families. In 2012, the event was titled “Islamic Law in America.”

More at Breitbart

via #STANDWITHPAMELAGELLER

Huge thanks to Michelle Malkin, who took to twitter and really stepped up to support me in the wake of the Breitbart article: “CPAC Turns Away Pamela Geller”. Joining Malkin are Mark Levin, The Right Scoop, Maggie’s Notebook, Robert Spencer, Instapundit, Donald Douglas, Theo Spark, Patrick over at T&R, Lucianne,IOTW, Tim at Freedom Post, Marooned in Marin, and many others.

Every year I organize a critical event covering issues CPAC won’t touch, like jihad and sharia. Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan wield enormous influence and have kept Robert Spencer and me and so many of our colleagues off the CPAC schedule for years.

“Michelle Malkin, others #StandWithPamelaGeller after CPAC snub” March 2, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

However edifying this year’s CPAC gathering will be for attendees, its organizers have provided plenty of entertainment value to the public in the run-up to the event. Who will appear — Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Dr. Ben Carson, for example — hasn’t caused as much of a stir as who won’t be in attendance. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wasn’t invited, GOProud has been excluded, and today Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative announced that her application to speak has been ignored.

Check out all these tweets. If you are on twitter, please use the hashtags #standwithpamelageller and #CPAC and #CPAC2013.

Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs

6a00d8341c60bf53ef017d416ee9f0970c-600wi

Suhail Khan, A Case Study In Influence Operations:

 

Organizations Grover Norquist is Using To Subvert The Right:

 

Grover Norquist’s Ongoing Influence Operation:

Related articles

VICTORY: FETHULLAH GULEN CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION DEFEATED IN VIRGINIA

Posted on by
1
victoryBy Pamela Geller:
Necessary, freedom-loving pushback. Fethullah Gulen urges Muslims to build schools to indoctrinate an entire generation using US taxpayer dollars. More here on the “Imam’s Army.” More on Gulen here:

Gulen left Turkey in March 1998 citing health reasons (like many, many millions of people, Gulen has diabetes). At the time he was being investigated for plotting to overthrow the secular republic to replace it with an Islamic state (he had been imprisoned for six months in 1971 under a similar charge). In the spring of 1998, a video was aired on Turkish TV in which Gulen appeared to state the following:

“You must move in the arteries of the system, without anyone noticing your existence, until you reach all the power centers… You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey… Until that time, any step taken would be too early – like breaking an egg without waiting the full 40 days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all – in confidence… trusting your loyalty and sensitivity to secrecy. I know that when you leave here – [just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and feelings expressed here.”

The Gulen Charter School application was defeated by the school board, 8 to 1. Here’s the video from the Loudoun County Public Schools site.

4th Tuesday School Board Meeting 2013-02-27 Feb 26, 2013 04h 10m Agenda Video MP3 Audio MP4 Video

28 people signed up to speak, with the overwhelming majority against it.

Federal agencies – including the FBI and the Departments of Labor and Education – are investigating whether some Gulen charter school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service, according to knowledgeable sources.

….. Gulen’s followers have been accused of pushing for an authoritarian Islamic state, there is no indication the American charter network has a religious agenda in the classroom.

[...] Rather, it is focused on whether hundreds of Turkish teachers, administrators, and other staffers employed under the H1B visa program are misusing taxpayer money.

Here is Gulen infiltration state-by-state. Much thanks to Atlas reader Denise Lee (see below) for her eyewitness coverage:

The Loudoun County School Board met Tuesday night to decide on whether to accept the charter school application from a group with questionable ties to Fetullah Gulen. I attended the hearing and the workingmeeting the week before on February 19th. There were over twenty speakers signed up that night, only three of which were for the charter school, also known as LMITA (Loudoun Math and IT Academy.) I was impressed by the intelligent remarks and well thought out concerns of parents and other Loudoun County residents. They  brought up the problems with the application itself that was not complete, had spelling errors and that did not address major concerns like transportation, whether a cafeteria would be provided, a budget or most importantly, what the curriculum would be. These were legitimate concerns especially since the head of the application team, Fatih Kandil, in the working meeting that followed the hearing couldn’t answer these questions and basically said that Loudoun County should give him the $8 million he was requesting and then he would show them his plan. Mr. Kandil is the former principal of the failing Chesapeake Science Point Charter School and front guy who goes around the U.S. opening these charter schools for Fetullah Gulen and his movement. You can read about what goes on in Mr. Gulen’s mind here: http://counterjihadreport.com/2012/10/08/gulens-false-choice-silence-or-violence/

The hearing went along smoothly until two men got up to speak, John Stevens and John Grigsby. Mr. Stevens accused those who opposed the school of being bigots and said that he would never want to be on their side. He also encouraged the school board to “stick it to ‘em” meaning to vote to approve the application. Mr. Grigsby spoke about how ashamed the Christians in the audience should be for opposing this school. You can see for yourselves what these two dhimmis had to say here:http://www.muslims4liberty.org/loudoun-school-board-hearings-used-by-islamophobes-to-spread-hate/ There were several really good speakers who got up and talked about why the application should be denied. Dana Weinberg is a businessman who said if this application came across his desk it wouldn’t even make it through the first round for consideration and he cautioned board members to look into their souls before making up their minds. And the last speaker, Rachel Sargent, who is a former Loudoun County school teacher and who was born in the U.S. but whose family were Christian pastors in India who were abused by Muslims, gave a brilliant rebuttal to Mr. Stevens’ and Mr. Grigsby’s obnoxious speeches and who reminded us that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. My favorite part of her speech, besides listing and describing all the current Gulen sponsored charter schools that are failing or have failed around the country, is when she described Mr. Kandil’s role in traveling to try to set up more charter schools by comparing it to the Beach Boy’s song, “I get around”. You can see and hear these speeches here: http://lcps.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=23

Read the rest at Atlas Shrugs

Related articles

Guandolo: Brennan’s Terrorist Associations, Gross Ignorance, and Lack of Candor Make Him Unfit for Duty as CIA Director

Posted on by
1

brennan 5by John Guandolo:

Amid the Administration’s rush to:  apologize for and disregard America’s founding principles; financially and militarily support America’s enemies like Hamas and other Muslim Brotherhood entities (read “Egypt”); embrace noxious regimes like Iran; handle the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi in Carteresque fashion; shrink America’s nuclear capabilities as well as the fighting forces of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps; and host terrorists in the White House while simultaneously allowing known Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood operatives to serve inside DHS, it should be no surprise to readers that President Obama has nominated a John Brennan to be the next Director of Central Intelligence (DCI).  Mr. Brennan’s inability to discern friend from foe, his ignorance of our enemies, and his shadowy behavior make him unfit for government service in any national security capacity, specifically as Director of Central Intelligence.

As the senior advisor to the President of the United States for Counterterrorism, John Brennan has maintained close relationships with Islamic organizations in America which operate on behalf of terrorist organizations.  Senior Hamas operatives, such as Nihad Awad of the Hamas entity the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and leaders of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (See Fear the Muslim Brotherhood by Andrew C. McCarthy) have been given access to senior National Security staffs and provided input to U.S. counterterrorism strategies for the White House at the direction of John Brennan.

Mr. Brennan does not keep his support of the Muslim Brotherhood quiet.  He has spoken publicly on numerous occasions at Muslim Brotherhood events in his official government capacity.  As a matter of record, he has been a keynote speaker at a number of conferences and functions applauding the efforts of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and its leadership:

 

Evidence presented in a federal court in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v HLFRD, Dallas 2008), and upheld by the appellate court, revealed the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is a Muslim Brotherhood organization and a financial support entity for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.  Despite this, Mr. Brennan continues to work with ISNA, gives its leaders access to senior government officials, and supports their appointment to key positions inside the U.S. Intelligence Community.   The current President of ISNA, Imam Mohamed Magid, sits on the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, which reports directly to Secretary Napolitano.  With the support of John Brennan, Imam Magid works with the National Security Council which has publicly applauded this Hamas supporter (Magid) in official government functions.  See The Muslim Brotherhood in America: Deputy National Security Advisor McDonough Meets with Hamas Support Entity.

This past summer, Members of Congress led by Congresswoman Bachmann sent letters to the senior Inspectors General in the United States (Department of Justice, Department of Defense, etc.) requesting they investigate the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the United States government.  When asked about the Congressional request, Mr. Brennan laughed and acted as if the request was absurd despite the mountain of evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration at the Pentagon, FBI, White House, DHS, CIA, and other key government agencies.  Mr. Brennan literally laughed.  This reveals his gross ignorance of the problem or that he intends to do nothing about it.  He is either ignorant beyond all reasonable belief or grossly (and I argue criminally) negligent.

Mr. Brennan also appears to be ignorant on basic matters concerning Al Qaeda and their global strategy aimed at bringing down the West.  Because Mr. Brennan believes Al Qaeda is our primary enemy, he should be well versed in these matters, especially since he worked as an analyst for the CIA, as the head of the Counter Terrorism Center, and as the President’s “Counterterrorism Czar.”

In official press conferences, Brennan has stumbled when asked WHY Al Qaeda does what it does.  According him, “Al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam so that they are able to attract these individuals” (e.g. “Underwear Bomber” Abdulmutallab).  See video below:

Al Qaeda’s own leaders and strategic documents definitively state Al Qaeda is waging a global war on the West because it is a requirement of Islamic Law (Shariah) to wage Jihad until the world has submitted to Islamic Law (Shariah) and the global Islamic state (Caliphate) is re-established.

Read the rest at Understanding The Threat

 

Shock claim: Obama picks Muslim for CIA chief

Posted on by
3

JBby Drew Zahn:

One of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam has announced that President Obama’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, converted to Islam years ago in Saudi Arabia.

As WND has reported, former FBI Islam expert John Guandolo has long warned that the federal government is being infiltrated by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. But Guandolo now warns that by appointing Brennan to CIA director, Obama has not only chosen a man “naïve” to these infiltrations, but also picked a candidate who is himself a Muslim.

“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia,” Guandolo told interviewer and radio host Tom Trento.

“That fact alone is not what is most disturbing,” Guandolo continued. “His conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The fact that foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a very sensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor … [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds of environments, which makes him completely unfit to the be the director of Central Intelligence.”

Brennan did indeed serve as CIA station chief in Riyadh in the 1990s and today holds the official title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. On Jan. 7, Obama nominated Brennan as the next director of the CIA, though he has yet to be confirmed.

“Are you kidding me?” Trento balked at Guandolo’s allegations. “The head of the CIA is a Muslim? For real? … Are you sure?”

“Yes I am,” Guandolo asserted. “The facts of the matter are confirmed by U.S. government officials who were also in Saudi Arabia at the time that John Brennan was serving there and have direct knowledge. These are men who work in very trusted positions, they were direct witnesses to his growing relationship with the individuals who worked for the Saudi government and others and they witnessed his conversion to Islam.”

Read more at WND

Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, “Popcorn and a (world)view.”

John Brennan Speaks on National Security at NYU

Related articles

#MyJihad: CAIR’s New Disinformation Campaign on “Jihad”

Posted on by
2

1347800307_jihad-humaidjpg__35180_zoom

By Christopher Holton

The internet has literally been littered with news reports about a new propaganda campaign being waged by the head of the Council on American Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Chicago director.

The man’s name is Ahmed Rehab and his methodology has been to run advertising on buses to change the public perception of the word “Jihad.”

Rehab has chosen two of the most liberal cities in America in which to conduct his campaign so far: Chicago and San Francisco.

The name of the campaign is “MyJihad” and it aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle. Rehab claims that this is the “true” meaning of Jihad.

Unfortunately for Rehab, he is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

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

6183g0glblL

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

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been catalogued by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

“Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam.”

Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?

#myjihad

Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces andthe Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)

Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)

Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)

Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)

Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)

Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)

Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)

Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)

United Jihad Council (India)

Contemporary Video Evidence of Widespread Use of the Term “Jihad”

Finally, there is a mountain of video evidence which illustrates vividly the widespread contemporary use of the term Jihad:

First, we have a 10 minute video from a Palestinian Authority TV children’s show using the term Jihad:

Next we have a 1-minute video of female terrorists from the group Islamic Jihad:

Here is a 2-minute news report on Taliban fighters vowing to continue to wage jihad after the death of Osama Bin Laden:

Then there’s this 6-minute tribute to the “Lion of Jihad,” Osama Bin Laden:

A 24-second sound byte from British-based Imam Amjen Choudary on Jihad in Islam:

More from Choudary; in this case a 2-minute warning that Jihad is on its way:

A 2-minute segment from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of Al Qaeda, on Jihad:

A 40-second call by Zawahiri to Pakistanis to rise up in Jihad:

A 3-minute news report on Somali Al Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab using Social Media to call Muslims to Jihad:

A 4-minute posthumous call to Jihad by American-born Anwar al Awlaki. Keep in mind that, before he became head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Awlaki had been an Imam at mosques in San Diego, Denver and northern Virginia and was regarded as a great “moderate” who was a favorite show pony for “outreach” programs. He was invited to the Pentagon. He delivered sermons to the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association on Capitol Hill. Prominent CAIR officers, employees and members attended these sermons. At least one former CAIR employee who attended Awlaki’s sermons on Capitol Hill in Washington DC is now in jail on terrorism charges:

A call to Jihad by Yasir Arafat–three years after signing the Oslo Accords…

A 5-minute call to Jihad by the Chairman of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Syria:

A 4-minute call to Jihad from the Sudanese Minister of International Cooperation:

Related articles

Conspiracy of Brothers

Posted on by
5

morsi-obamaBy Daniel Greenfield in FrontPage

To read and order Frank Gaffney’s pamphlet, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, click here.

November was just about done and Chris Matthews, the MSNBC host voted most likely by his own staff to have a poster of Barack Obama over his bed, was cheerfully coming to the end of his sideshow list. With the White House in the background, Matthews sneered about the “weak conspiracy” claim by Congressman Gohmert that the Obama Administration was taking advice on Middle East policy from a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

Matthews didn’t even bother trying to factually challenge the claim in any way. Savvy MSNBC viewers were expected to dismiss the idea of a secretive organization trying to influence American foreign policy … unless it was run by the Jews.

At Mother Jones, David Corn sneered at Franklin Graham for promoting the Muslim Brotherhood “conspiracy theory.” But both Matthews and Corn were a little behind the times. That summer when Hillary Clinton arrived in Egypt, she was confronted by shoe-throwing protesters denouncing her for supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Think Progress, the left’s shiniest spin machine, explained that the Egyptian protesters had gotten the peculiar idea that there was a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy from American “Islamophobic” bloggers. Several months later, the object of the fanciful conspiracy theory, Mohammed Morsi, orchestrated a seizure of power, rammed through an Islamist Constitution and sent gangs out to brutalize and torture protesters with no direct condemnation from the White House or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A month after Matthews had sneered at the idea that Muslim Brotherhood members were exercising inappropriate influence over American foreign policy; the venerable Egyptian magazine Rose El-Youssef ran an article about the six Muslim Brotherhood operatives, including two in the Department of Homeland Security, who were influencing American foreign policy on the Brotherhood’s behalf.

While Rose El-Youssef had been a pro-government magazine, during the revolution its journalists had locked out the pro-Mubarak CEO and a new editor had been appointed by the Council of Ministers. Nor could the article be characterized as propaganda or even opinion journalism. Shawki simply laid out the biographical details of the Muslim Brotherhood figures without any trace of indictment or blame.

Shawki listed six men, Arif Alikhan, the assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; and Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. He also listed Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as well as Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. Not to mention Huma Abedin.

The article carefully avoided drawing any conclusions; the magazine had earlier faced legal charges for “smearing” President Morsi by discussing his outreach to Hamas. Instead the article let the facts about the six men speak for themselves.

Arif Alikhan, was described as a Qutb-ist, after the Brotherhood’s Sayyid Qutb, who saw the most serious American national security documents. Elibiary’s organization, it mentions, was financed by the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. And so on down the list it goes concluding with Eboo Patel’s relationship with the family of Hassan al-Banna of the Brotherhood.

In response, Obama’s goofy ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, penned a letter to the magazine expressing her “disappointment” in the article’s implication that Muslim Americans are guided primarily by their religious beliefs and could not be trusted to provide neutral advice to the United States. Anne went on to say that the United States does not back any single Egyptian faction and that stories based on rumor and innuendo have no place in the magazine.

Patterson was still operating as if the accusations of Muslim Brotherhood influence could be banished with the usual accusatory cries of Islamophobia, even when dealing with a Muslim magazine in Egypt.

MSNBC and Mother Jones naturally could not be bothered to cover the Rose El-Youssef story. And neither could slightly more mainstream liberal outlets like CNN or the New York Times. Like Patterson, they were still pretending that Egyptian suspicions of the Brotherhood’s power grab and their distrust of Obama for supporting the Brotherhood were some strange Islamophobic idea that they had picked up from, as Think Progress put it, “conservative blogs.”

When Egyptians protested against the Obama Administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, the response from Think Progress was to blame Michelle Bachmann and Frank Gaffney for influencing them. And while Frank Gaffney has indeed led the way in exposing Muslim Brotherhood influence on this side of the ocean, the Egyptians who had been living with the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorism and plots for nearly a century had extensive experience of their own with the violent and fanatical organization.

During the mounting controversy over the Huma Abedin case, Frank Gaffney wrote an invaluable pamphlet on the formerly Nazi-funded organization. “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration,”, published by the Freedom Center, described in detail the influence wielded by Muslim Brotherhood agents and sympathizers within the highest circles of foreign policy in the country. Beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood’s program of conquest, recovered by the FBI, and listing some of its more influential agents, Gaffney made the case that there was every reason to investigate them and it.

 

Rather than address this state of affairs, the media still insists on pretending that anyone who questions the Brotherhood is trafficking in conspiracy theories. Unable to understand the liberal Egyptian critics of the Muslim Brotherhood, the media stays on safe ground by attacking American terrorism researchers like Frank Gaffney.

The Muslim Brotherhood had been trying to take over Egypt for nearly a century. Now that it has succeeded, it is reasonable for both Americans and Egyptians to wonder how that came about. There is no question that a major foreign policy disaster of this magnitude merits investigation. And investigating a foreign policy disaster requires that we understand the influences that led to the bad decisions that made it happen.  That is as true now as it was after the fall of China to the Communists.

The Egyptians who have lost their freedom are asking these questions. We, who have not yet lost our freedom, should begin asking those questions as well before it is too late.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here. 

Related articles

Islamist CounterInsurgency in America – Thinking Like an American Jihadi

Posted on by
3

20121207_PELOSI_nihad_cairby ALAN  KORNMAN

Our American Jihadi adversaries believe that Allah’s divinely ordained  Islamic governance is best for all mankind and our man made laws, Constitution  and Bill of Rights, are corrupted.

The Jihadi Muslim Brotherhood are winning the hearts and minds of the  American people in a very patient and methodical stratagem of war they call the  “Civilization-Jihadist Process” as outlined in “An  Explanatory Memorandum, On the Strategic Goal For The Group in North  America.”

4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North  America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-JihadistProcess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan  (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of  grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within  and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the  believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over  all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to  this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s  destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the  final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who  chose to slack.

Allah’s Law 3 – U.S. Freedom O

The failed COIN or CounterInsurgency operations are known around military  circles as the Petraeus  Doctrine.  The Petraeus Doctrine’s primary focus is winning the hearts  and minds of our Islamist adversaries.  Yes, I use the world adversaries  because if the Islamists were not adversaries we wouldn’t have to win either  their hearts or their minds.

America may have won the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but never won  the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghani people.  The result of those  failures resulted in Nouri al-Maliki’s Iraq becoming a proxy state for  Iran.  In 2014-15, after U.S. forces leave the Afghanistan theatre, I  predict, the Taliban will topple the Karzai government and instill Shariah  Islamiyya or Islamic law across that nation.

President Obama was successful in his vision of removing the colonialist  dictator Hosni Mubarak from his 30 year rule in Egypt.  The Egyptian people  voted in Mohamed Morsi of The Muslim Brotherhood whose stated goal is to destroy  “western civilization from within.”

Recent Successes for Team Jihadi in America

4/24/12 – “The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday ordered the  entire U.S. military to scour its training material to ensure it doesn’t contain  anti-Islamic content. The order came after the Pentagon suspended a course for  senior officers that was found to contain derogatory material about Islam.” (Wired  Magazine).

June 2, 2009 – DHS designated the shooting  at a military recruiting center in Arkansas by, Abdulhakim Muhammed as a  “drive by shooting” not a terrorist attack on a military facility.

December 2011 -  Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were mystified that the Fort  Hood shooting was classified as “work place violence” by the Dept. Of  Homeland Security(DHS).

The FBI  training manual changed. Nearly 900 pages of training that was considered  offensive to Islam were deleted.  Rep. Gohmert discusses that the FBI  training manual can no longer mention the terms: Islam, Muslim, jihad, enemy,  Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, caliphate, Shariah law. (Source)

9/25/2012 – President Obama said at the UN, “”The future must not belong to  those who slander the prophet of Islam…”

These are examples of American Jihadis winning the hearts and minds of our  policy makers at the highest levels of law enforcement, military, and  government.  The Jihadis have a strong incentive to influence how the  United States Government labels terrorists.  The Jihadis know that if we  (Americans) can not identify the enemy by name we will not be able to defeat  them.

The result of these American Jihadi influence operations is that many of  those most knowledgeable on the Islamic Terrorist Threat Doctrine have been  purged from our government.

The little known U.S. Muslim Engagement Project is the driving force that  brought our Jihadi enemies inside the gate.

U.S.-Muslim  Engagement Project

The main goal of this engagement project is to “elevate  diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving key conflicts involving Muslim  countries” and Muslim groups in the United States.

Inside the beltway policy  heavyweights like Madeline Albright, Richard  Armitage, and Dennis Ross have made this engagement  project the de facto policy guideline for whomever the government  deals with involving Islamist issues domestically.

The result of this ‘engagement project’ is that our government officials are  desperately looking for established Muslim groups in the United States to  partner with.  The objectives of the, U.S. Government / Muslim group,  partnerships is to shrink the base of Islamic extremism through conflict  resolution and dialogue in the U.S.  It’s also reported they found unicorns  in North Korea.

Sounds good on the surface until you find out known American Jihadis like  Ingrid Mattson (ISNA), Dalia Mogahed, and Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul  Rauf are the wolves our government is consulting with on important foreign and  domestic policy matters.

ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) is the number one listed Muslim  Brotherhood affiliate operating in the United States.  This is the same  Muslim Brotherhood who wrote the Civilization-Jihadist Process whose self  professed goal is to destroy Western civilization from within, by our own  hands.

American Jihadis Huddle At Justice Department

On 10/21/2011 Neil  Munro of the Daily Caller reported, “Top Justice Department  officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied  them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals,  additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’  criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.”

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez was at the meeting huddling with  American Jihadis.   Absent were any dissenting voices like devout  Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and experts in the Islamic Threat Doctrine, Frank  Gaffney, Tom Trento, Clare Lopez, and Stephen Coughlin.

The American Jihadis have succeeded in getting cutbacks in anti-terror  funding, purging of FBI training manuals, and targeting FBI trainers they deem  offensive.  It appears  Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez was  listening very closely to his American Jihadi allies and then doing their  bidding.

The Next American Jihadi Military Objective

The one objective the American Jihadis have not successfully implemented is,  any criticism of Islam is labeled racial discrimination and hate speech,  requiring enforcement of Title  VI anti-discrimination laws against anyone who “offends” followers of  Shariah compliant political Islamic doctrine and theology.

If you value your freedom of speech pay close attention to what these  American Jihadis want.  If making public criticism of anything illegal,  does not get you mad at the government, ISNA, CAIR, MPAC, etc…. your silence  is what our adversaries are counting on.

The American Jihadi’s Have Been Busy

On September 25, 2012  Patrick  Poole wrote an article titled, “57 Top U.S. Muslim Groups Demanded  Government-Wide ‘Islamophobia purge’ in a Letter to the White House.”

Below are the American Jihadi’s  2009 demands to John Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland  Security.  As of December 2012 our American Jihadi adversaries have  successfully gotten the demands below implemented by our Federal Law Enforcement  Agencies at both the Federal and State levels.

1.     Purge all federal government training  materials of biased materials.

2.     Mandatory re-training program for FBI  agents, Army Officers, all Law Enforcement

3.     Anyone who promoted biased trainers  should be disciplined.

4.     Ensure that bigoted trainers and biased  materials…are not utilized in the future.

Naturally it will be the 57 American Jihadi groups listed in the “letter”  that will determine

What gets Purged

Who gets re-Educated

Who gets re-trained

Who gets fired

What Books Get Banned

and

We 57 American Muslim Groups Will Determine What Is Best For  You

Patrick Poole summed it up nicely by stating, “Purges, blacklists,  re-education, and book banning.  Sounds like a recipe for the a Muslim Khmer Rouge.”

These are the actions of a coordinated Jihadi political/criminal enterprise  whose objective is to weaken our government’s ability to train this generations  and the next generations law enforcement and military tasked with protecting our  countries national security interests.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Family Security  Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional  coordinator of The United  West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His  email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

 

McCain, Graham Must Acknowledge Threat of Muslim Brotherhood

Posted on by
3

muslim_brotherhood_demonstratorsBreitbart:

by Lee Stranahan

As the Benghazi story played out in the media, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham emerged as two Republican voices spearheading the fight against the White House’s ridiculous narrative. As the Muslim Brotherhood gains power in Egypt, a serious examination of the Brotherhood is increasingly critical to our national security.

Senators McCain and Graham led the charge against Rep. Bachmann this past summer when the Minnesota Congresswomen raised concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence and more specifically about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s longtime aide Huma Abedin and her connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. At the time, McCain railed against Bachmann on the Senate floor:

These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks have no logic, no basis, and no merit and they need to stop. They need to stop now.

Actually, the accusations were both specific and substantiated. Rep. Bachmann responded by saying she was concerned about “the serious national security concerns I had and ask[ed] for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups’ access to top Obama administration officials.” Senator Lindsey Graham also attacked Bachmann, saying:

The person saying it (Michele Bachmann) has no idea what they’re saying because they’ve never met (Huma.) She is about as far away from the Muslim Brotherhood view of women and ideology as you possibly could get. She’s a very modern woman in every sense of the word, and people who say these things are really doing her a disservice because they don’t know what they’re talking about.

However, Bachmann’s accusation was never that Huma Abedin wasn’t “a modern woman.” It was that Ms. Abedin had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, a fact that neither McCain nor Graham can dispute.

Two months later, on September 11th, multiple violent assaults took place on Americans in Egypt and Benghazi, Libya. As we now know, the Obama administration covered up the true nature of the attacks and blamed it on a YouTube video.

The disturbing truth is that the reason for the repeated mentions of the video may be the Obama administration’s longstanding work to help aid the Muslim Brotherhood in censoring critics of Islam. About a week after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, an event happened that went largely unnoticed in the election-focused United States when a French magazine published cartoons of Muhammad that fueled more Islamist ire:

Essam Erian, acting head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, told Reuters: “We reject and condemn the French cartoons that dishonor the Prophet and we condemn any action that defames the sacred according to people’s beliefs.”Calling for a U.N. treaty against insulting religion, he added: “We condemn violence and say that peaceful protests are a right for everyone. I hope there will be a popular western and French reaction condemning this.”

 

That U.N. treaty against ‘insulting religion’ that the head of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood called for is something that the Obama administration has been actively working with Islamist nations to ratify for years. As Professor Jonathon Turley has pointed out:

…the Administration is legitimating the prosecution of religious critics and dissidents with this initiative. It should immediately end its support for the standard and reaffirm the protection of religious critics in the United States.

 

Senator McCain and Senator Graham aren’t telling the American people that the Obama administration used the Benghazi attack to promote the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda of silencing critics of Islam. That appears to be the purpose of President Obama’s speech to the United Nations on October 25th, where it’s no coincidence that he mentioned the YouTube video six times. The idea that the Obama administration is working to silence critics of Islam isn’t just a theory; the Obama administration put this affront to American First Amendment freedoms into action after Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods, the father of slain ex-SEAL and Benghazi hero Ty Woods, that the Obama administration would “make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” This wasn’t just bluster. The filmmaker was arrested and sentenced to a year in prison, just as Secretary of State Clinton said would happen. It’s one of the most outrageous acts in the entire Benghazi affair and indicates a Muslim Brotherhood influence on U.S. Policy, which is exactly what Rep. Bachmann was concerned about:

The Muslim Brotherhood is not shy about their call for jihad against the United States. We seek answers through these letters because we will not tolerate this group and its affiliates holding positions of power in our government or influencing our nation’s leaders.

 

Rep. Bachmann was right. Her concerns were not just real, but prescient. Senator Graham and McCain attacked the clear truth that the Muslim Brotherhood is influencing our nation’s leaders. The truth was evident at the time. After Benghazi, it’s glaring.

Related articles