Frank Gaffney interviews John Rosenthal, author of the Jihadist Plot

 

769446463JOHN ROSENTHAL, author of the book “The Jihadist Plot: The Untold Story of Al-Qaeda and the Libyan Rebellion” joins Frank for a special one-hour show to celebrate the release of his newest book.  During the hour, John discusses many of the topics covered in his latest publication, including the true background story of the Libyan Rebellion and how Al-Qadea played a part in the uprisings. He also discusses the implications that have been and still are emerging from the Obama Administration’s and other officials within the government’s refusal to recognize the true threat Jihad poses.

Listen to the interview here —-> Secure Freedom Radio

 

Clinton’s Republican Guard

hillary4By Andrew McCarthy:

With each new revelation, what has always been obvious becomes more pronounced: the State Department’s self-proclaimed final word on the Benghazi Massacre, the risibly named “Accountability Review Board” investigation, is a fraud. Yet, like the rest of the Obama administration’s obstructive wagon-circling, the ARB’s report continues serving its intended purpose: to thwart efforts to hold administration officials accountable. Even on Fox News, which has been admirably dogged covering a scandal the Obamedia has done its best to bury, the refrain is heard: How could the ARB report be a whitewash when its investigation was run by such Washington eminences as Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen?

The answer is simple: Pickering and Mullen were not chosen by accident; then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tapped them because, to insulate herself, she needed a pair of Beltway careerists held in high esteem by the progressive-friendly Republican establishment. As night follows day, Pickering and Mullen produced exactly the shoddy, politicized report that was expected of them – bleaching away the malfeasance of Clinton, a central figure in the scandal whom they did not even bother to interview.

Mrs. Clinton is a master of this game.

Recall that her top advisor at State was Huma Abedin, a longtime associate of Omar Abdullah Naseef, a rabid Islamic supremacist and financial backer of al Qaeda. For a dozen years, during most of which she was also working for Mrs. Clinton, Abedin worked at Naseef’s Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs – a building block of the joint Saudi regime and Muslim Brotherhood project to promote sharia enclaves in the West, encouraging Muslims to resist assimilation.

Abedin had begun working for then-First Lady Hillary Clinton in the nineties, while a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University. Founded in the early sixties, the MSA is first building block of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure, and its GWU chapter has quite a history: In 2001, its “spriritual guide” was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. As Patrick Poole hasdemonstrated, it was in the MSA that Awlaki first cut his Islamic supremacist teeth – as have a number of prominent Islamists, including (to name just two) Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood stalwart turned Egyptian president, and Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a now convicted al Qaeda financier who was a favorite “moderate” Muslim leader of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Abedin continued at Naseef’s journal until moving to the State Department with Secretary Clinton in 2009. Naseef, a wealthy, well-connected Saudi, was Secretary General of the Muslim World League, perhaps the most significant Saudi-Brotherhood collaboration in the world. In addition to founding the journal, Naseef  also started the Rabita Trust, a formally designated international terrorist organization. His partner in that venture was Wael Jalaidan, a founding member of al Qaeda who –whaddya know! – ran the MSA chapter in Arizona. The Rabita Trust that was an important funding source for Osama bin Laden. Ms. Abedin’s close tie to Naseef stems from the fact that he is the patron of her parents – Muslim Brotherhood operatives both. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a close associate not only of Naseef but of top Muslim Brotherhood sharia jurist, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In fact, Dr. Abedeen runs an organization, the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, that is part of Qaradawi’s Union of Good. Formally designated as an international terrorist organization, the Union of Good is a major supporter of Hamas.

Five conservative Republican members of the House had the gumption to ask why a person with Ms. Abedin’s alarming connections to prominent Islamic supremacists would be given a high-echelon State Department job, performance of which requires a security clearance granting access to top-secret intelligence. Based on Abedin and other officials with disturbing Islamist ties, the five members asked for inspector-general investigations into Muslim Brotherhood penetration of our government.

In response, Secretary Clinton deftly called out the Washington establishment’s Republican guard. Senator John McCain, House Speaker John Boehner, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, and other top GOP figures obliged, dutifully lambasting the House conservatives. Nothing to see here – just “a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations,” twaddled McCain. Boehner, who conceded that he did “not know Huma” and had not read the House conservatives’ letters, nevertheless assured Americans that Abedin had a “sterling character” and that the accusations  “were pretty dangerous.”

Mind you, while all this was happening, Obama administration policy, led by the State Department, was swinging dramatically in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East. Obama was even intervening in Libya on behalf of the Brotherhood and al Qaeda elements in Benghazi, toppling a theretofore American-supported regime that had been providing us with critical intelligence against anti-American Islamists. Yet, Secretary Clinton succeeded in burying the story. Thanks to the GOP greybeards, the media meme became purported conservative Islamophobia. The bullet was dodged as the manifest influence of Islamic-supremacists on Obama administration policy was ignored.

Unlike that outrage, the public’s interest has been roused by the killings of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, State Department IT specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, in virulently anti-American Benghazi – at a U.S. State Department compound of unexplained purpose which, under Clinton’s leadership, stood recklessly unprotected.

Read more at PJ Media

 

See also:

U.S., Allies Creating Ascendency of Islamist Radicals in Syria

SyriaFreeArmyFightersBigThe Clarion Project:

The U.S. and its allies have directly created the problem of Islamist radicals running the insurgency in Syria by providing support to them, all the while saying that they were simply supporting a domestic democratic uprising that reluctantly turned violent only after the regime turned to force.

In its report, the New York Times summed up the situation in Syria by saying, “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

The report went on to explain that most of the so-called rebels, or freedom fighters, seeking to overthrow the brutal but secular Assad regime are all radical Islamists. These are the same rebels to whom the US is giving hundreds of millions of dollars in nonmilitary aid.

Senator John McCain said that the problem caused by U.S. interventionism on behalf of the Islamist insurgents in Syria is all the fault of the non-interventionists. “Everything that the non-interventionists said would happen in Syria if we intervened has happened. The jihadists are on the ascendency, there are chemical weapons being used and the massacres continue,” he said.

The lead group, al-Nusra Front, is considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and is directly affiliated with al-Qaeda, to whose leaders it has pledged loyalty. The rest are radical Islamists of various stripes who have pushed aside secular fighting forces. They have already seized the government’s oil fields. They are beginning to repress wary secular activists with Islamic courts. If they obtain control of the chemical weapons compound, there is no telling what horrors they could visit upon the Syrian people and beyond.

Another prominent group, Ahrar al-Sham, shares much of Al Nusra’s extremist ideology but is made up mostly of Syrians.

The two groups are most active in the north and east and are widely respected by other rebels for their fighting abilities and their ample arsenal, much of it given by sympathetic donors from the Gulf states.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Obama Wants To Disarm Americans But Arm Terrorists

imagesCAOERYUZBy Theodore Shoebat

Obama wants to decree a ban on all assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons, which would apply to rifles and pistols.  On this ban, Obama stated clearly:

 

 

I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it… I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.

Yet, the Obama administration has been involved in providing weapons to rebels who have committed many atrocities throughout Syria. Why must Americans be disarmed and jihadists be given weapons to? Americans are simply observing a right, while the Islamists want guns to force Syria into becoming a Sharia governed state.

Leon Panetta, who is now retiring, and General Martin Dempsey, the principle military adviser of Obama, have both revealed that they supported a plan last year composed by Hillary Clinton and General Petraeus that would provide weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are all fighting for a jihadist cause.

John Mccain also supported, and still supports, this plan, saying

“I urge the president to heed the advice of his former and current national security leaders and immediately take the necessary steps, along with our friends and allies, that could hasten the end of the conflict in Syria”

Though Obama is said to have turned down this plan, he still has supported the Syrian rebellion in a very covert and elusive manner. The current administration has instead used a middle-man: Saudi Arabia, to receive American weapons and then transfer them to the hands of the jihadists.

Read more at Shoebat.com

 

Clinton acknowledges ‘spreading jihadist threat’

Hillary Rodham ClintonBY:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sparred with lawmakers Wednesday over what they claimed was the Obama administration’s bungled response to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Clinton became visibly irritated several times as she rebutted claims by Republican senators that the Obama administration intentionally misled the American public about the specific events that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) told Clinton that her response to lawmakers was not up to par.

“The answers your given this morning frankly are not satisfactory to me,” McCain said, chiding Clinton for failing to account for the administration’s lapses in knowledge.

“Were you and the president made aware of the classified cable from chris stevens that said that the united states consulate in Benghazi could not survive a sustained assault,” McCain asked. “Numerous warnings, including personally to me about the security were unanswered, or unaddressed.”

“What was the president’s activities during that seven-hour period?” McCain added, pressing for details. “On the anniversary of the worst attack in American history, September 11th we didn’t have Department of Defense forces available for seven hours.”

McCain went on to reprimand Clinton for arguing that it makes no difference whether the Benghazi compound was stormed by armed militants or attacked by protestors.

“I categorically reject your answer to Senator [Ron] Johnson about, well we didn’t ask these survivors who were flown to Ramstein [air base] the next day, that they—that this was not a spontaneous demonstration,” McCain said. “To say it’s because an investigation was going on? The American people deserve to know answers, and they certainly don’t deserve false answers.”

The American people were deceived, McCain maintained.

“Answers that were given to the American people on September 15th by the ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice] were false—in fact contradicted by the classified information which was kept out of the Secretary to the United Nations report who by the way in the president’s words had nothing to do with Benghazi, which questions why she was sent out to start with,” McCain said.

“Why do we care? Because if the classified information had been included it gives an entirely different version of events to the American people,” McCain continued. “If you want to go out and tell the American people what happened you should at least have interviewed the people who were there, instead of saying, ‘No we couldn’t talk to them because a FBI investigation was going on.’ ”

“The American people, and the families of these four brave Americans still have not got gotten the answers that they deserve,” McCain said. “I hope that they will get them.”

Clinton warned that America faces a “spreading jihadist threat” that is endangering U.S. assets across the globe.

Clinton became the latest in a series of high-ranking U.S. government officials to publicly recognize the immediate threat that terrorist forces pose to U.S. embassies and other American outposts in the Middle East and North Africa.

“We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” Clinton said. “We have driven a lot of the operatives out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, killed a lot of them, including [Osama] Bin Laden.”

“But this is a global movement,” Clinton said. “We can kill leaders, but until we help establish strong democratic institutions, until we do a better job with values and relationships, we will be faced with this level of instability.”

Read more at Free Beacon

The Left’s New Campaign to Destroy a Friend of Israel’s: Michele Bachmann

witch-huntBy Caroline Glick

To sign the Freedom Center’s  petition to stop the witch-hunt against Rep. Michele Bachmann,  click here. And  please spread the word about this petition far and wide!

Israel has many passionate supporters on Capitol Hill, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. These are men and women who are deeply committed to Israel and understand that Israel is the US’s only reliable ally in the Middle East and America’s most vital ally in the world today in light of the rise of radical Islamic regimes, movements and leaders.

Now that Obama has officially entered his second term in office, Israel enters a period unlike any it has experienced before. It will face a hostile US president who does not fear the voters. Moreover, it faces a US president who is so hostile to Israel that his first serious act after his reelection was to appoint Chuck Hagel Defense Secretary, (and John Brennan CIA Director).

As I wrote last week, I believe that Israel will not be the hardest hit by Obama’s “transformative” foreign policy over the next four years. As an independent state, Israel has the ability to diversify its network of strategic allies and so mitigate somewhat the hit it will take from the Obama administration. The US, and first and foremost the US military, will not be so fortunate.

Not surprisingly, Israel’s biggest defenders in the US Capitol are also the most outspoken allies of the US military and the most concerned about maintaining America’s ability to remain the most powerful nation on earth both economically and militarily. They are as well, Obama’s most outspoken critics on the Hill.

For their outspoken criticism, and their competence, these men and women have been targeted for political destruction by Obama and his allies. Last November we saw this leftist machine outgun and so defeat Cong. Allen West in Florida and Joe Walsh in Illinois. Both men were targeted by Obama’s smear machine that included, among other things, J-Street endorsements of their opponents, and rancid attacks against them.

One of the voices that Obama’s machine has spent millions of dollars trying to silence is that of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

As a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a contender in the Republican presidential primaries, Bachmann has been one of Israel’s most passionate and articulate defenders and one of Obama’s most effective critics on everything from federal spending to Obama’s abandonment of the US-Israel alliance to his opening of the US federal government and intelligence apparatuses to members of the Muslim Brotherhood – that is to members of a movement dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life.

For her efforts, Rep. Bachmann has been the target of repeated media smear campaigns, often joined by skittish Republicans like John McCain who failed to recognize the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise in Libya and Egypt, and failed to understand the danger that the penetration of the US federal government by Muslim Brotherhood members constitutes to US national security.

I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting with Rep. Bachmann on several occasions over the years. She is one of the most intelligent women I know. And her grasp of the nature and importance of the US-Israel alliance is extraordinary. So too, her understanding of the challenges to US national security is clear, educated and sophisticated.

Watch for instance these speeches that she has delivered in recent months.

The day she announced her candidacy for President:

 

And at the Values Voters Summit shortly before the Presidential election:

 

In the past, every time that I have written about Cong. Bachmann, I have been bombarded with comments from readers who say that they cannot believe I can support her, since they claim, she is such an extremist. But Cong. Bachmann is not an extremist at all.

What she is is a victim of a very successful smear campaign undertaken by people who recognize her talent, conviction, intelligence and effectiveness. They set out to destroy and marginalize her, just as they set out to destroy and marginalize Mitt Romney and West and Walsh and many others, because they perceive these leaders as a threat to their agendas.

Today Cong. Bachmann is the target of a new leftist smear campaign, organized by the far Left People for the American Way. The campaign involves a petition that has reportedly been signed already by 178,000 people demanding that House Speaker John Boehner expel Rep. Bachmann from the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

The proximate cause for the petition is a series of letters Bachmann and five other (wonderful and similarly courageous) Congressional colleagues penned to the Inspectors General of the Departments of Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the State Department, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice asking for the IGs to conduct an investigation of the ties senior officials in these departments have with the Muslim Brotherhood.

For her efforts, Bachmann was condemned not only by the Left, but by Senator John McCain as a bigot and a McCarthyite.

But she is none of these things. And last month, her concerns were borne out when the Egyptian magazine Rose al Youssef published an article about Muslim Brotherhood operatives in senior positions in the Obama administration. According to the article, these operatives have transformed the US “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world, to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Here is the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s translation of the article.)

Read the rest at Front Page

 

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

OB-VX147_bkrvph_DV_20130107195332By JONATHAN SCHANZER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at WSJ

 

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

Did CIA pick sanitize Obama’s passport records?

spyby Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – John Brennan, the Obama counter-terrorism adviser nominated this week to head the CIA, played a controversial role in what many suspect was an effort to sanitize Obama’s passport records.

On March 21, 2008, amid Obama’s first presidential campaign, two unnamed contract employees for the State Department were fired and a third was disciplined for breaching the passport file of Democratic presidential candidate and then-Sen. Barack Obama.

Breaking the story, the Washington Times on March 20, 2008, noted that all three had used their authorized computer network access to look up and read Obama’s records within the State Department consular affairs section that “possesses and stores passport information.”

Contacted by the newspaper, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack attributed the violations to non-political motivations, stressing that the three individuals involved “did not appear to be seeking information on behalf of any political candidate or party.”

“As far as we can tell, in each of the three cases, it was imprudent curiosity,” McCormack told the Washington Times.

The spokesman did not disclose exactly how the State Department came to that conclusion.

By the next day, the story had changed.

The New York Times reported March 21, 2008, that the security breach had involved unauthorized searches of the passport records not just of Sen. Obama but also of then-presidential contenders Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Again, the New York Times attributed the breaches to “garden-variety snooping by idle employees” that was “not politically motivated.”

Like the Washington Times, the New York Times gave no explanation to back up its assertion that the breaches were attributable to non-political malfeasance.

Still, the New York Times report indicated then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had spent Friday morning calling all three presidential candidates and that she had told Obama that she was sorry for the violation.

“I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” Rice said.

The newspaper quoted Obama as saying he appreciated the apology but that he expected the passport situation “to be investigated diligently and openly.”

According to the New York Times report, Obama’s tone of concern was obvious.

“One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that is going to stay personal and stay private,” Obama told reporters. “And when you have not just one, but a series of attempts to tap into people’s personal records, that’s a problem, not just for me, but for how our government is functioning.”

The New York Times noted that the files examined likely contained sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, addresses and dates of birth, as well as passport applications and other biographical information that would pertain to U.S. citizenship. Only at the end of the article did the New York Times note that State Department spokesman McCormack had emphasized the most egregious violation appeared to have been made against Obama.

Obama was the only one of the three presidential candidates involved who had his passport file breached on three separate occasions. The first occurred Jan. 9, 2008, followed by separate violations Feb. 21 and March 14, 2008. Moreover, all three of the offending employees had breached Obama’s files, while each of the passport files of McCain and Clinton had been breached only once.

The Brennan connection

The New York Times noted the two offending State Department contract employees who were fired had worked for Stanley Inc., a company based in Arlington, Va., while the reprimanded worker continued to be employed by the Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va.

The newspaper gave no background on either corporation, other than to note that Stanley Inc. did “computer work for the government.”

At that time, Stanley Inc. was a 3,500-person technology firm that had just won a $570-million contract to provide computer-related passport services to the State Department.

Analysis Corporation was headed by Brennan, a former CIA agent who was then serving as an adviser on intelligence and foreign policy to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.

Read more at WND

 

Law makers look the wrong way while investigating “Zero Dark Thirty” leaks

imagesCAOOSOE2By Kerry Patton

The historical fiction movie “Zero Dark Thirty” depicts the heroic actions of America’s best and brightest intelligence officers and US Special Operators who not only located but killed Osama Bin Laden. Today, a select group of elected officials are outraged over “Zero Dark Thirty.” They have taken an initiative to destroy the careers of US operatives who may have potentially leaked classified information to the movie’s producers.

They are looking at the wrong people to investigate.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s chairwoman, Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), and her team of corrupt “feel-gooders” like Senators McCain and Levin are on the warpath. The Intelligence Committee’s panel has begun a review of contacts between the makers of the film “Zero Dark Thirty” and CIA operatives. Nothing like using intelligence officials as the fall guys when things get ugly.

Before getting too far ahead of the “Zero Dark Thirty” investigation, let’s not forget statements made by key US officials that prove how untrustworthy they really are when it comes to handling classified information.

January 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta conducted an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes.” It was here the world first learned about the life of a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, who once served as a human source to the US intelligence community. Days after the OBL raid, Afridi was tracked down by Pakistani authorities in the Torkham border, apprehended, and approximately four months later in May sentenced to 33 years in prison for treason.

May 2012, the New York Times released an article titled Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will. It quotes White House national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, Obama’s chief of staff in 2011 William M. Daley, and Obama’s White House counsel Gregory B. Craig. The quotes used by these three men are actual leaks of information linking to classified material.

In June of 2012, Hot Air published an article titled McCain: Top-secret leaks coming from “highest levels” of White House. At the time, McCain and Feinstein were deeply concerned over leaks of information pertaining to US clandestine cyber warfare operations that dealt with Iran’s nuclear developments. He and Feinstein directly attacked the White House for these leaks.

July 2012, Sen. Feinstein was quoted as saying, “The White House has to understand that some of this (classified leakage) is coming from their ranks.” She later added, “There’s one book they can read and they’ll see it very carefully,” alluding to journalist David Sanger’s book that reveals the US and Israel developed a cyber-tool used to interfere with Iran’s nuclear arms program.

Now, let’s go back to the whole” Zero Dark Thirty” controversy.

Hampton Roads had revealed in their September 2012 article titled Feds: Hide Navy SEAL name given to Hollywood that an interview was conducted by Politico staff members. In that interview, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Mike Vickers specifically informed screen writer Boal about the name of someone he could speak with to assist in writing “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Boal was informed by Vickers, “the only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant.” Why make such a request? Why tell Boal to hide a name when Vickers himself failed in hiding it?

Vickers knew the individual he referred Boal to either served in or continues to serve in a classified position. The individual’s name was meant to remain secret. Vickers had absolutely no right to divulge this mysterious individual’s name to Boal in the first place. Vickers is guilty for leaking this information to a non-security clearance holding Hollywood screenwriter.

Leon Panetta is just as guilt as Vickers. Remember, he was the first American elitist who divulged information about a human source for the world to know about. Any decent researcher could have put pieces of the OBL raid together to make a decent movie script just based off his statements in that “60 Minutes” interview.

When it comes to enhanced interrogation techniques, Boal and Bigelow didn’t need a classified source. The technique of waterboarding can be observed on YouTube. A million open sources can be found on the internet that reveals the technique was utilized in the early years of the Afghan War. And even Sen. John McCain along with many other elected officials can be observed discussing the technique through Congressional hearings.

Senators Feinstein, McCain, and Levin are going after the wrong people. They are looking for a mid to low level fall guy. They refuse to do a little research and find links that will prove any leak provided to Baol and Bigelow came directly from the highest levels of our government.

This entire investigation is a huge scam and a waste of US tax payer money. Director Kathryn Bigelow and Screenwriter Mark Boal were provided inside material related to the Bin Laden raid. That is known. It is also known that inside material came and was directed from the highest members of our government—not some mid to low level operator.

But just like Benghazi, elected officials have once again proven to the American people how much they despise our intelligence community. They will do anything to cripple the morale of intelligence officers. Sadly, working as an intelligence officer for the US government comes with serious risks—risks from the enemy and risks from the enemy–the second being the enemy from within.

Kerry Patton is the author of Contracted: America’s Secret Warriors order a copy now.

McCain, Graham Must Acknowledge Threat of Muslim Brotherhood

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.

Happy Birthday Winston Churchill – You Are Still An Inspiration!

Winston-Churchill-150x150 Sharia Awareness Action Network:

By Scott Cooper

In the early 1930’s, Winston Churchill lost his seat in Parliament, and was largely unpopular because he warned of future troubles England would face if they failed to address the growing threat of Nazism in Germany.  Political Leadership ridiculed him, because they were still recovering from WWI, and they did not have the vision that Mr. Churchill did.

Mr. Churchill was a statesman, who wanted to prepare for the next generation.  He was disliked by the politicians who could only see through the next election cycle.

In many ways, Winston Churchill’s statesman like qualities can be seen in individuals who understand the Infiltration of The Muslim Brotherhood in America.  Five such individuals are Reps. Bachmann, R-Minn., Trent Franks,  R-Ariz., Louie Gohmert,  R-Texas, Thomas Rooney, R-Fla., and Lynn Westmoreland, R-GA, who were criticized last summer by GOP leadership simply for requesting an investigation into the background of State Department Employee Huma Abedin.  For example, John Boehner, before reviewing the facts of a letter stated that Michelle Bachmann was “pretty dangerous.”  John McCain, before doing any research called the effort for an investigation “Sinister”.  At one point John Boehner considered removing her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for doing the very thing that committee is tasked to do!

Interestingly enough, Mr. Churchill actually warned about the Islamist Threat as early as 1899, and again in 1921, as was mentioned in an editorial celebrating his 138th Birthday today!

There are modern day Winston Churchill’s among us today!  Five were mentioned above.  Many political leaders who are willfully blind to the truth of the Islamist threat don’t like these statesmen.  Some like Allen West, who have an articulate knowledge on this threat have actually lost elections; however we at The Sharia Awareness Action Network believe these individuals will end up being loved like Winston Churchill, who after defeat and ridicule, was called back to London almost a decade later to lead his country through World War II.

Happy 138th Birthday Mr. Prime Minister Churchill.  You still are an inspiration to many! 

Why all the hostility against investigating Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the US government?

By Dr. J. Michael Waller July 29, 2012:

The United States government is the world’s #1 target of foreign influence operations, as I teach in my graduate course on foreign propaganda.

So it is only proper that the proper federal authorities – Members of Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI, and inspectors general of various agencies – remain vigilant of foreign entities that attempt to manipulate public opinion or to target national decisionmakers.

Somehow, investigating Muslim Brotherhood influence operations here is off limits.

Some of our national leaders express a willful blindness about the Muslim Brotherhood. Last year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (pictured at left) testified before the House Intelligence Committee that the Muslim Brotherhood was a  “largely secular organization,” and that it had no “overarching agenda.” (See the ABC News video here.)

If one of my students made such a fictitious conclusion on a final exam, he would fail my course.

Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), corrected Clapper in a public statement: “I am concerned that the DNI’s assessment does not agree with recent public statements by senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood nor does it agree with the organization’s publicly stated goals,” Kirk said, calling the organization “radical.”

Indeed, through a spokesman, Clapper retreated from his comments. “He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization,” his spokesman said.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, who has courted several Muslim Brotherhood front groups, said that some elements are violent and others are not, but refused to provide details.

Others, like Senator John McCain (R-AZ), agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is “anti-American” and even dangerous, but get hysterical at the idea that authorities investigate well-documented concerns about possible influence on US decisionmaking.

Even though the right-hand person to the current secretary of state reportedly is from a Muslim Brotherhood family – her late father, mother and brother were or are members of, or associated closely with, the organization and its front groups.

Did those family connections have any effect on the US policy to back the overthrow of the pro-American government of the Arab world’s largest populous country – leading to its replacement by the Muslim Brotherhood? Policymakers and the public are entitled to know. Five Members of Congress requested a probe to determine the Brotherhood’s influence in the State Department.

The hysteria against those lawmakers, amounting to ad hominem attacks from members of the legislators’ own Republican Party, was creepily vicious. McCain led the charge, in an odd breach of Senate decorum denounced a federal lawmaker by name from the Senate floor. He was echoed by the tearful House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and others, the attacks led to a curious circling of the wagons in parts of the media, including opinion outlets associated with the Republican Party.

Even William H. Webster, Jimmy Carter’s FBI director who became CIA director late in President Reagan’s second term, chimed in with a gratuitous personal attack on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), pictured, who was the lead signer of the letter asking for the investigation into possible Muslim Brotherhood influence operations against the government. Webster, generally considered an elder statesman in law enforcement and intelligence matters, made a downright weird comment to Newsmax (of all places), slamming Bachmann and calling her comments “morally wrong” and even “illegal.”

Wait a minute – Webster has a distinguished bipartisan career as a judge, FBI director for nine years, CIA director, and head of various government commissions relating to national security. Why in the world would he call a lawmaker’s expression of opinion, and call for a federal investigation, “illegal”?

What’s going on?

I know Michele Bachmann, and I once briefed her for three hours about Muslim Brotherhood influence operations to shape US foreign policy and national security policy. I know many others who briefed her, and the scholars, law enforcement and national security professionals and others who prepared the briefing materials. I know that they are completely justified in their concerns.

Now, when my colleague Diana West, the nationally syndicated columnist, wrote about the controversy, the Washington Examiner spiked her piece. The Examiner, which thrives on politics, didn’t even run news stories on the controversy, West writes.

Watch this issue, everyone. Lots of clues that there’s something deeper. For the past decade, the FBI has been relying heavily on the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations as secret sources against presently violent Islamist individuals and groups. I know this firsthand, from many inside sources, from two Muslim Brotherhood operatives who work through front groups, and as an eyewitness. Could the Bureau be using Webster and former FBI agents like Congressman Rogers to attack critics of the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to remain in favor with its Brotherhood collaborators? Rogers has even hinted that Rep. Bachmann should be kicked off the intelligence committee simply for asking for an investigation.

These actions tell me that Bachmann struck such a nerve that the Muslim Brotherhood told the FBI it would no longer cooperate unless she was shut down. Nothing else explains it.

Read more at Acme of Skill

Dr. J. Michael Waller is the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of International Communication at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, DC.

Obama vs. the First Amendment

By Andrew C. McCarthy:

Democrats and their sharky Obamedia defense lawyers are in a snit. For three dreamy convention days in Charlotte, they told themselves that, for the first time in decades, it was their guy who had the upper hand when it came to national security. Now that bubble has burst, the way contrived narratives do when they crash into concrete challenges. At that point, an airy president of the world won’t do; we need to have a president of the United States, a job that has never suited, and has never been of much interest to, Barack Obama.

Defense against foreign enemies is the primary job of the president of the United States. The rationale for the office’s creation is national defense — not green venture capitalism, not rationing medical care, not improving the self-image of the “Muslim world,” not leaving no child behind, not blowing out the Treasury’s credit line. Yet, though we are entering the late innings, foreign policy and national defense have not been factors in the 2012 campaign.

That is worth bearing in mind when we hear the laugh-out-loud narrative of Obama as foreign-affairs chess master. The president badly wants to win reelection. If there were anything to his alleged prowess, we’d not have heard the end of it. What we’ve heard, instead, is a bumper-sticker: “Obama killed Osama.” The Left hoped to paste it over the president’s generally dreary record. Even with the Obamedia in coordinated overdrive, the plan can work only if Mitt Romney lets it work — and, thankfully, it looks like he won’t.

Democrats and their sharky Obamedia defense lawyers are in a snit. For three dreamy convention days in Charlotte, they told themselves that, for the first time in decades, it was their guy who had the upper hand when it came to national security. Now that bubble has burst, the way contrived narratives do when they crash into concrete challenges. At that point, an airy president of the world won’t do; we need to have a president of the United States, a job that has never suited, and has never been of much interest to, Barack Obama.

Defense against foreign enemies is the primary job of the president of the United States. The rationale for the office’s creation is national defense — not green venture capitalism, not rationing medical care, not improving the self-image of the “Muslim world,” not leaving no child behind, not blowing out the Treasury’s credit line. Yet, though we are entering the late innings, foreign policy and national defense have not been factors in the 2012 campaign.

That is worth bearing in mind when we hear the laugh-out-loud narrative of Obama as foreign-affairs chess master. The president badly wants to win reelection. If there were anything to his alleged prowess, we’d not have heard the end of it. What we’ve heard, instead, is a bumper-sticker: “Obama killed Osama.” The Left hoped to paste it over the president’s generally dreary record. Even with the Obamedia in coordinated overdrive, the plan can work only if Mitt Romney lets it work — and, thankfully, it looks like he won’t.

As Obama struggled to put daylight between himself and his record, the press was duly pathetic. The president, Politico was quick to cavil, had nothing to do with “the statement by Embassy Cairo.” An administration official declaimed that it “was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.” You are to believe the Obama White House exists in a galaxy separate from the Obama State Department, which itself inhabits a frontier distant and detached from the U.S. embassy in Cairo — except, one supposes, for the $38,000 in taxpayer funds the embassy spent on Obama autobiographies, apparently thought to be craved by Egyptians, at least when they’re not ever-so-moderately chanting “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas.”

Read more at National Review

Huma Abedin and the Republican Betrayal of Michele Bachmann

By Steven Simpson:

On June 13th of this year, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and four other Republican House members issued a letter to the State Department’s Deputy Inspector General requesting that various Government agencies investigate charges that the Muslim Brotherhood, (MB),  has penetrated into the American government in their well known attempt “to destroy Western civilization from within.” The letter also named other Islamist organizations attempting to do the same, and alleged that Huma Abedin—Secretary of State Clinton’s deputy chief of staff—as well as her family has deep ties to the MB and other Islamist groups.

When Bachmann & Co. issued their letter alleging Islamist infiltration into the highest echelons of the American government, they might as well have thrown a firebomb or hand grenade into the gilded chambers of the Republican controlled House, as well as the Democrat controlled Senate. Indeed, it is Michele Bachmann who has suffered the most from her courageous stand, and she apparently has been designated as Enemy Number One, not only from Democrats, but from the Republican Establishment Elite. Leftists and Islamists must be laughing hysterically as they see Republicans commit verbal cannibalism against one of their own.

Instead of Rep. Bachmann – who sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – being supported by her “colleagues” for taking such a brave stand, she was singled out with relish by 21st century versions of Brutus, Judas, and Benedict Arnold on both sides of the aisles. Rep. Bachmann seemed to be targeted especially by Republicans who verbally pulverized, pilloried and lambasted her. This even included self described “conservatives.” Even the leftist establishment media had a field day with Republicans besmirching Rep. Bachmann’s intentions to wake—and shake—this country up as to what Islamic extremism represents. Indeed, the Republican establishment did a better job than the leftist media in trying to portray Rep. Bachmann as some sort of Islamaphobic racist lunatic. (“Islamaphobe” and “racist” now being the two most dirtiest words in the English lexicon.) A country that survived a mass murder atrocity only eleven years ago seems to have forgotten who the enemy is. To these elitist Republicans, it appears that the messenger (Rep. Bachmann) and her message (Muslim infiltration) are the real enemy. And that message and especially that messenger must be silenced.

The other four signers to the “Bachmann letter” are: Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL),  Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), who like Rep. Bachmann both serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;  Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ),  who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), who sits on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee). These officials hold very sensitive positions and are privy to intelligence reports that the public rarely, if ever, hears about. It would seem absurd for such officials to jeopardize their own careers if they thought that their allegations were somehow “crazy,” “lunatic,” or nothing but lies or hearsay.

The allegations against Abedin, the Brotherhood, and other Muslim “organizations” appear to be air tight. Attempts to Islamize America through peaceful methods were already thoroughly documented in such books as Infiltration written by Paul Sperry back in 2005. Sperry was also co-author with P. David Gaubiz of the 2009 book Muslim Mafia which continues where Infiltration left off. Another 2005 book that talks about Hezbollah cells in America as early as the 1990’s is Lightning out of Lebanon by Tom Diaz and Barbara Newman.. The books are shocking, disturbing and infuriating as the reader realizes just how inept, callous, ignorant, and arrogant the American government is to Islamist terrorists and extremists in our own backyard.

More recently, experts on Islamist extremism—both domestic and foreign—like Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy and Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, have thoroughly documented how deeply embedded Islamists have become in the Government and intelligence agencies of the United States.

Another individual who has been trying to wake the American people up from their decades of slumber has been Walid Shoebat. Mr. Shoebat, perhaps more than anyone else should know about Islamist supremacism. A Palestinian Muslim by birth and a radical Muslim at that, Mr. Shoebat became a born-again Christian in the 1990’s and went from being virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli, to embracing both America and Israel. His website has kept up an almost daily account of the “Abedin affair” and those Republicans and “conservatives” who have acted more like collaborators of the Islamists, than American patriots.

It has been eleven years since 9/11 and it appears that Americans—from politicians to plebeians—have gone back to sleep in the face of the Islamist menace. Perhaps most unforgiving is the fact that politicians—particularly Republicans and “conservatives” have tried at every level to stymie Rep. Bachman and her few brave colleagues from making the American people aware of how lethal the Islamist hydra is. Indeed if another 9/11 type atrocity were to take place in America, there is no doubt that Americans would be asking the very politicians who are flaying Rep. Bachmann as to what they have been doing in trying to keep America safe.

But who are these Republicans and “conservatives” who have skewered Rep. Bachmann over the coals and shamelessly played to the leftists and Islamists? Well, they are establishment and elitist Republicans like the 2008 stain of the Republican Party, John McCain, and the vanilla Republican who is House Speaker, John Boehner. Perhaps even more disturbing have been so-called “conservatives” like Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), and the new conservative “kid on the block” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). The above politicians, who apparently are terrified and terrorized of being labeled “Islamophobes” have called Rep. Bachmann’s allegations everything from “ugly” and “sinister” (McCain) to “pretty dangerous” (Boehner), to “the wrong thing to do” (Sensenbrenner), and finally to “I don’t share those feelings” (Rubio). Not satisfied with verbally crucifying Rep. Bachmann, each of the above issued their own panegyrics and odes to the character of Abedin. Indeed, how well do they know Abedin and her “character?” All the while, these craven and cowardly politicians ignore the call for an investigation into undue Islamist influence that grows like a contagion by the day in America. What are they afraid of? And why?

If there is one positive sign from Congress, it is that Congressman and former Lt. Col. Allen West (R-FL) has backed up the claims of Rep. Bachmann. Colonel West gave the American people an excellent and concise history lesson on Islam and Islamic extremism. Indeed, if anyone knows what Islamist supremacism and expansionism is all about, it is Col. West who heroically and valiantly fought against Jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan up close. Also recently backing up Rep. Bachmann has been Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

Though this story may sound old, it is not going to go away, because Islamist expansionism appears to be in America to stay. From the White House to local governments, the call for “religious tolerance” and literal prostration to the practitioners of the religion of Muhammad grows stronger by the day.

Those who laugh and scorn at Rep. Bachmann today, may yet come to rue the day in the future. Islamist extremism may not be going away, but neither is the intrepid Congresswoman from Minnesota. Indeed, it is only true conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Allen West who will be able to have the intestinal fortitude to take on the Herculean task of taming the Islamist menace to American society. Unfortunately, it appears that it will be a long struggle.

Steven Simpson has a B.A. in Political Science with an emphasis on Middle Eastern studies, as well as a Master’s Degree in Library Science. In addition to Canada Free Press, Steven’s previous articles have appeared on the American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Front Page Magazine, and Hudson-NY.org. Steven can be reached at: ssimusa@hotmail.com

Eleven Years of the Same Mistake

By Bruce Thornton On September 11, 2012

Eleven years ago today America was violently awakened to the fact that it was at war. The attacks of 9/11 were the latest gruesome assault in the long conflict between the West and Islam, a war most Americans didn’t know was being waged, a war that had been going on for 14 centuries. Yet for the following eleven years, America’s response to this war has been compromised by the serial violation of Sun Tzu’s dictum, “If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Eleven years on, we still haven’t taken an accurate measure of the enemy who wants to destroy us.

The ruins in New York were still smoking as the preposterous explanations for the murders started pouring forth, most of them marked by what Andrew McCarthy calls “willful blindness” not just to the doctrines of Islam that motivated al Qaeda, but to our own unexamined assumptions and received wisdom. Of course, the left blamed America for the attacks, professors blaming the “terrorism” of the first Gulf War, or the “millions of victims of American imperialism,” or the “fascism of U.S. foreign policy over the past many decades.” Support for Israel was another spurious cause of jihadist violence, even though bin Laden himself cited the dissolution of the Ottoman caliphate, not the creation of Israel, as the most important “disaster” that led to the 9/11 payback.

More common in the mainstream media were the various psychological explanations that reflected the modern secularist view of religion as a Marxian “opiate” or a Freudian “illusion,” compensation for a lack of jobs or political freedom. The New York Times editorialized that “the disappointed youth of Egypt and Saudi Arabia turn to religion for comfort” for their lack of economic opportunity or political participation. Bill Clinton, on whose watch al Qaeda and bin Laden were allowed to proliferate and attack America with impunity, trotted out the antique progressive fingering of “poverty” as the motive for jihadist violence: “The forces of reaction feed on disillusionment, poverty, and despair.” Such reductive psychologizing was a favorite of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the Delphic oracle of received wisdom, who claimed that economic inferiority and lack of development in Middle Eastern states caused “dissonance and humiliation” that “produces lashing out,” as though the jihadists were teenaged juvenile delinquents with low esteem. Ignored in all these analyses were the numerous jihadist tracts that legitimized their attacks with appeals to 14 centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence.

Yet the Bush administration was equally dismissive of Islamic theology as the engine of jihadist violence. Lack of liberal democracy and political freedom, not Islamic belief, was the breeding ground of terrorism. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the time necessary in order to eliminate state sponsors and facilitators of Islamic terrorism, soon came to be conducted from the perspective of the larger “Bush Doctrine” of democracy promotion. In the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America, the idea of supporting and fostering global democracy formed one key part of that strategy. The NSS asserted that there is “one sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise,” for “these values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society.” Thus the foreign policy of the U.S. will be “to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.” Bush returned to these themes in January 2005 in his inaugural speech, in which he linked U.S. security and global peace to the “force of human freedom” and the expansion of democracy: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

But these assumptions ignored the central place religion holds for pious Muslims, for whom obedience to Allah is more important than political freedom or democracy, and Islam and shari’a law provide a perfect, divinely sanctioned system for organizing political, social, economic, and private life. This rejection of Western political systems as un-Islamic has for decades characterized theorists of jihadism like Hassan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, all of whom related the moral decadence and irreligion of the West to its seductive but false “benefits of freedom.” This failure to acknowledge and take seriously the different “philosophical assumptions, underlying values, social relations, customs, and overall outlooks on life,” as Samuel Huntington wrote in 1996 in his prophetic The Clash of Civilizations, that create civilizational differences was particularly significant for Islamic states. Islam’s historical record of violent expansion on its “bloody borders,” its own universalist pretensions, its anger at its faith being surpassed by a West it once dominated, and its theologically sanctioned confidence in its superiority and divine right to global dominance, all make Islamic civilization particularly unlikely to acquiesce in a “new world order” that reflects Western values and its secularized culture.

Despite the continuing dubious outlook for the success of the democratic project in Afghanistan and Iraq, difficulties reflecting in part the civilizational differences Huntington wrote about, there was little prudence in our foreign policy establishment’s response to the wave of revolutions, violent protest, and regime changes in the Middle East that started in Tunisia in December 2010 and was quickly dubbed the “Arab Spring.” Indeed, reactions to these events reprised the unexamined assumptions about democracy as the default global political order that had animated the Bush Doctrine. Senator John McCain asserted that the Libyans battling Muammar Gaddafi were aiming for “lasting peace, dignity, and justice.” Senator Joseph Lieberman’s article in Foreign Affairs summarized the Arab Spring as a struggle for “democracy, dignity, economic opportunity, and involvement in the modern world.” And President Obama claimed that Egyptians revolted against Hosni Mubarak because they wanted “a government that is fair and just and responsive.” All ignored the numerous polls and evidence that critical masses of rebels wanted to create Islamic regimes founded on shari’a law.

The subsequent electoral success of Islamist parties eager to create governments that substantially incorporate illiberal shari’a law, or the ascendancy in Egypt of the anti-Western, illiberal Muslim Brothers–– whose credo is “God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations”––seemingly has not troubled this bipartisan cheerleading for the magic powers of democratic elections. The June 2012 election of Muslim Brother Mohammed Morsi as Egypt’s president was met with congratulations from Republican Senator John McCain and Independent Joseph Lieberman: “The Egyptian people have spoken,” the senators said in a joint statement, “and we respect their choice and look forward to working with President-elect Morsi in a spirit of mutual respect and in pursuit of the many shared interests of the United States and Egypt.”

The Obama administration has been particularly eager to perpetuate this delusional belief that democratic machinery and rhetoric can trump deep-seated religious beliefs that conflict with Western notions of human rights and freedom. As a consequence, Obama had encouraged and legitimized Egypt’s Muslim Brothers. His Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, called them “a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” an estimation contradicted by numerous statements by Muslim Brother spokesmen and spiritual advisors advocating shari’a law, promoting violent jihad against Islam’s enemies, and calling for the abrogation of the peace treaty with Israel. Regarding the treaty, Egypt’s intentions may be divined in a statement made by Morsi’s spokesman, who has declared, “Our capital won’t be Mecca or Medina, but Jerusalem, millions of shahids [martyrs] will march on the city.”

As for the possibilities of a liberal democracy taking root in Egypt, consider Morsi’s statement that “The day will come when the Sharia of the truth is put into effect,” and his pardoning of 25 convicted jihadist leaders.  Morsi has also called for the release of the “Blind Sheikh” Abdul Rahman, who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that killed 6 people and wounded over a 1000. Just recently a consortium of jihadist outfits have threatened to burn down the American embassy in Cairo and take hostages from the survivors if Rahman and other terrorists held in the U.S. are not released. Morsi has also met with leaders of Hamas, the Muslim Brothers terrorist subsidiary that controls Gaza, and recently travelled to Tehran to forge closer relations with the mullahs’ genocidal regime. Meanwhile, violent assaults on Egypt’s Christian Copts continue, with over 100,000 having fled their homeland since the revolution began. Despite all these red Islamist flags, President Obama has invited Morsi to the White House in September 2012, and is negotiating $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt.

These 11 years of delusion, which have culminated in the Obama administration’s empowering a jihadist regime in the strategically important and most populous Arab state in the Middle East, are the consequence of our continuing failure to understand accurately the motivating religious ideology of the jihadists. We have perpetuated the empirically dubious claim that Muslims like the Ayatollah Khomeini or Osama bin Laden, revered as heroes across the Muslim world, had “highjacked” the noble “religion of peace.” Once again Thomas Friedman provides the best example of this sort of thinking: “Muslims have got to understand that a death cult has taken root in the bosom of their religion, feeding off it like a cancerous tumor.” Friedman’s simile, however, is false. Jihadism is not a diseased “tumor” in Islam, but a vital organ. Jihad is a core Islamic belief copiously documented in the Koran, hadiths, and theological writings, a belief that fueled Islam’s great conquests from the Atlantic to China.

In the coming years, we would do better to heed Sun Tzu’s injunction about knowing our enemy, instead of listening to the numerous apologists and propagandists who separate jihadism from Islam and whitewash the latter’s long history of supremacism, illiberalism, and violence. We need to take seriously the respected theologians and teachers like the Ayatollah Khomeini, the architect of the Iranian jihadist regime who once said, “Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! . . . Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and the shadow of the sword.” Substitute “nuclear weapons” for “sword” and you’ll see how grievous in the next decade will be the consequences of failing to take our enemy seriously when he tells us what he believes, and then shows us what he will do to honor that belief.

Published at Front Page