On The Wrong Side of History

By Ralph H. Sidway:

In perhaps the most significant reversal of political and global alignment since the overthrow of Christian Russia by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Barack Hussein Obama has transformed the United States of America from a Christian-centric, Western democratic republic, into an Islamist-enabling oligarchy drowning in Soviet-style scandals, casting a long, dark shadow across hundreds of millions of innocent victims the world over.

Other outlets are ably covering the Obama administration’s numerous domestic scandals (Benghazi, IRS, NSA, etc.), but the unifying theme seems to be government control over every aspect of life, with rapid erosion of personal and religious liberty.

In the geo-political sphere, we can quickly survey what has been repeatedly documented here at this site concerning Obama’s determined support for the Muslim Brotherhood from the very beginning of his first term, through to the Administration’s blatant interference on behalf of the MB prior to the June 30 protests leading to Morsi’s ouster.

The Copts (joined by pro-secular forces) in Egypt have utterly rejected Obama and U.S. Ambassador Patterson due to their support for the Muslim Brotherhood, with an unprecedented grass roots movement now calling for the removal of Patterson.

Even more dramatically, in the July 26 demonstrations in support of the Egyptian Military, protesters called not only for the exit of Obama and the United States, but for a re-alignment with Russia.

July 26 Tahrir Square Protest Sign shows huge image of Putin with “Bye Bye America” caption.

“Obama Out — Putin In” and “Bye-Bye America” are the chants and placards this time around, as Obama’s foreign policy chickens come home to roost (as his firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright might put it).

In spite of the waves of attacks and murders of Christians by Muslim Brotherhood thugs, since the June 30 demonstrations the Copts seem to hold cautious hope for a renewed secularist dynamic, as the Military holds firm, even as both sides in Egypt reject Obama and the U.S.

In Syria, the unique tapestry of Christian confessions have become completely exasperated by U.S. support of the jihadi rebels, a Syrian Christian delegation pleading in Congressional testimony, “Why is America at war with us?

In spite of their testimony, GOP senators led by John McCain (but vigorously opposed by Rand Paul) have cast their lot with Obama, thinking that supporting Islamic extremists serves the greater good.

Once again, Putin’s name — and his voice — rises above the mediocrity of amoral U.S. leadership. Referring to the viral video of a Syrian rebel leader cutting out and eating the heart of a slain enemy combatant, Putin slammed Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, for desiring to support terrorists, stating, “One should hardly back those who kill enemies and eat their organs.”

In the Syria debate, Putin has seized upon something Obama has either forgotten or simply isn’t wired to comprehend: the moral responsibility of the Great Powers to protect those least able to defend themselves. Pumping arms to the Syrian jihadis benefits no one, and only puts defenseless Christians in the crosshairs.

Yet as is clear, Obama has picked his horse in the Syria race. Thus, per his 2012 campaign slogan, Obama pushes “forward.” Forward, with what Raymond Ibrahim has identified as a “proxy war on Mideast Christians.”

Such is the geo-political and moral collapse of the United States. Once the “shining city on a hill,” Obama’s America has lost its luster, and has left a vacuum in international human rights leadership. A vacuum which seems about to be filled by a reinvigorated and suddenly immensely relevant Russia.

Read more

Morsi’s Downfall Shifts Regional Alliances

download (11)By Ryan Mauro:

The revolution (not a coup) that toppled Egyptian President Morsi isn’t just a decisive defeat for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; it has triggered events that may signal a regional realignment. Just a month ago, the Muslim Brotherhood was ascending as it had never before; now it is in a downward spiral.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s reign has managed to align the fractured non-Islamist opposition. A Zogby poll taken from April 4 to May 12 showed that only 29% of Egyptians had confidence in Morsi. This poll was taken weeks before his July 3 overthrow when an estimated 17 million people took to the streets.

The U.S. criticized the military’s intervention, with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) going so far as to recommend the suspension of aid to Egypt. You can judge the wisdom of this recommendation by those that agreed with it:

The Islamist government of Turkey, facing its own internal challenge from non-Islamists, immediately condemned the Egyptian military and took the Muslim Brotherhood’s side. The Islamist government of Tunisia is urging the Muslim Brotherhood to stay in the streets until Morsi is reinstated.

The countries that immediately congratulated the Egyptian people were Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The Jordanian government embraced its liberal opponents in order to marginalize the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah fears a “Muslim Brotherhood crescent developing in Egypt and Turkey” and says Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Morsi are false democrats.

The United Arab Emirates has called for a Gulf coalition against both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The Saudis, though they are Islamists themselves, distrust the Muslim Brotherhood and have been supporting the Brotherhood’s rivals in Syria. These are the countries who took the side of the Egyptian people, not the U.S.

The biggest change in the strategic landscape since Morsi’s ouster is the position of Qatar, a U.S. “ally” that was more allied with the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatari support for the Islamists was so massive that the three above countries (including Saudi Arabia!) complained about it.

Read more at The Clarion Project

 

Nile of democracy will flood jihadists of Egypt

1002293_10201357138313437_1680318255_nBy Walid Phares:

As soon as the Egyptian military asked President Mohammed Mursi to step down and dismantle his Muslim Brotherhood regime, millions in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities and towns celebrated the end of what they felt was a dangerous fascistic regime. But despite an overwhelming popular support for the ousting of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) from power, some U.S. leaders, starting with President Barack Obama and later joined by Republican Senator John McCain, expressed their rejection of the move because they argued it was “directed by the Egyptian military against a democratically elected Government.”

Awkwardly, the United States executive branch, along with some of its supporters in the legislature, sided with the Muslim Brotherhood, known to be hard core Islamists, against a wide coalition of democratic and secular forces which called on the military to help them against what they perceived an oppressive regime. Observers both in the Middle East and in the West have asked how this equation can hold. Why would Obama and McCain end up backing the Ikhwan while the liberals and seculars forces of Egyptian civil society rise against the Brotherhood? The chaos in Washington has several roots but one global fact is clear: U.S. Foreign Policy has lost momentum in the Arab Spring.

Muslim Brotherhood maneuvering

The first waves of the revolution in January 2011 were launched and inspired by secular and reformist youth, as I had projected in my book The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East published in 2010, before the upheavals. The first Facebook page of the “Egyptian Revolution” attracted 85,000 “likes.” Many of these early online supporters hit Tahrir Square and drew up to a million citizens from the middle class, from labor, students, women and minorities. The revolution was the baby of moderate, secular and democratic segments of Egyptian civil society who have never spoken in public or taken action on the streets. Once the U.S. and international community recognized them as peaceful demonstrators, the Muslim Brotherhood rushed in and created their “quarter” inside the Square.

From there on, the Ikhwan maneuvered between the military and the youth, pitting one against the other and taking full advantage of the Obama Administration’s vigorous support. In June 2012, Mohammed Mursi won Egypt’s presidential election. This election was praised as “democratically held” by Washington and Western chanceries. While vastly questioned by the Egyptian opposition, the results were accepted as a democratic fact, internationally. Mursi was “democratically elected” in as much as the opposition was not able to draw any attention from a U.S. influenced Western coalition. The sour reality was more of a Washington endorsement to the Ikhwan, trusting their ability to change towards the better, than a truly popular representation. All observers agreed that half of the Mursi voters were not even members of his party, but were rather simply opposed to the other candidate, a remnant of the Mubarak regime.

Mursi then used the next twelve months to deconstruct every aspect of the democratic achievements of the initial Egyptian revolution. He issued a Presidential “constitutional decree,” modifying the constitutional basic rights of Egyptians with major setbacks for women, minorities and seculars and without consultations with the opposition. On those grounds alone, Mursi has committed a breach in constitutional and human rights of Egyptians. He then attempted to transform the leadership of the Army and security forces into Ikhwan extensions; appointed extremist governors throughout the country, including a member of a terrorist group as a governor of the Luxor district, a target of the group’s terror strikes in 1997. In parallel, the Brotherhood regime allowed Islamist militias to grow across the country and opened a dialogue with al-Qaeda linked groups in Sinai. In foreign policy, Mursi stood against the African campaign against al-Qaeda in Northern Mali; consolidated ties with the ICC-indicted head of Sudan’s regime, General Omar Bashir; hosted terror group Hamas in Cairo, aided the Nahda Party in Tunisia as the latter reduced women’s rights in their country and established cooperation with the Jihadi militias of Libya, one of which was responsible for the Benghazi attack against the U.S. consulate in September 2012. In 2013, Mursi presided over a rally to support the A-Q affiliated al Nusra Front in Syria and backed suicide fatwas issued by his allies.

On the economic level, the Brotherhood regime mismanaged the country’s fledgling finances while at the same time receiving significant funding from the United States, Europe and Qatar. The social disparities already monumental under Mubarak became epic under Mursi.

Read more at Al Arabiya

 

The ‘Gang of Eight’ and Immigration Reform: ‘Bordering on a National Security Nightmare’

photo

The “Gang of Eight” Can’t See Straight

February 20, 2013, by MICHAEL CUTLER:

In the wake of the recent elections, immigration has risen to the top of the list of newsworthy stories-in part pushed to that position of significance by statements made by key members of Congress and the President that “Pathways to Citizenship” must be provided to what they claim is a population of 11 million illegal aliens.

Some politicians, particularly those from the Republican Party, are being stampeded to act irrationally in a move to appeal to a segment of the American electorate, “Latino Voters.” We will address this foolhardy notion shortly.

While the Democratic Party has been most often seen as the party that was eager to enable and encourage millions of aliens, including illegal aliens, to enter the United States, the reality is that both Democrats and Republicans see significant gains to be achieved by opening America’s borders to aliens from around the world, irrespective of how they enter the United States.

What both parties have ignored is that America’s immigration laws were originally enacted to protect innocent lives and protect the jobs of American and lawful immigrant workers.

A Singular Issue

Immigration is not a single issue but is, rather, a singular issue that affects nearly every threat and challenge confronting America and Americans. The impact is arguably greatest where the issue of national security is concerned.

Prior to World War II, the responsibility to secure America’s borders and enforce and administer immigration laws was the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Labor. Back then it was understood that the key to growing America’s middle class and, in so doing, increase the standard of living for great numbers of American citizens, was to prevent American workers from being subjected to unfair competition from large numbers of foreign workers.

This is how the “American Dream” was born.

The responsibility of enforcing and administering immigration laws was transferred to the Department of Justice during the World War II out of a concern for the potential for saboteurs, spies and subversives to seek, in one way or another, to enter the United States. The concern was that they would try to attack America and its ability to turn out all sorts of war-related goods ranging from guns, aircraft, tanks, ships and other such essential machinery of war.

The primary mission for the five branches of the United States military is to keep America’s enemies as far from her shores as possible. In a manner of speaking, this is tantamount to declaring that their mission is to secure America’s borders externally while the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is charged with securing America’s borders from within the United States.

When the DHS fails in its mission it undermines the efforts and sacrifices of America’s military men and women to carry out their missions. Yet all too often, this is ignored by the media and our nation’s leaders.

The Gang of Eight

During the past several weeks the White House has put together a “working group” of four Democrat and four Republican senators. These eight senators have come out in favor of enacting legislation that would grant lawful status and a pathway to citizenship for the officially estimated population of 11 million illegal aliens. In reality, it is likely that should such a legislative catastrophe be foisted on the United States, it would result in the legalization of more than 30 million aliens, many of whose true identities (even their countries of citizenship), their backgrounds and their intentions would be unknown and unknowable.

These senators are:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

They are referred to as the “Gang of Eight.” Since Democrats expect newly naturalized citizens to support their interests and vote for their candidates, it is not surprising that they would seek to enact “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that would provide an estimated population of 11 million illegal aliens with lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship.

These politicians are often unwilling to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens. They are not really pro-immigrant but pro-illegal alien!

To provide clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Legal Vs. Illegal

Those who claim that there is no lawful way for immigrants to legally enter the United States ignore the fact that every year the United States admits more than 1.1 million lawful immigrants. This is a greater number than all of the immigrants admitted into every other country on our planet. These immigrants are provided with Alien Registration Cards that comply with the alien registration requirement of the INA that began with the Alien Registration Act of 1940. These lawful immigrants are immediately placed on the pathway to United States citizenship. The United States also admits more than 150 million non-immigrant visitors every year.

Meanwhile, the Republicans know that many of their deep-pocketed contributors are eager to witness massive numbers of foreign nationals (aliens) entering the United States. Banks are eager to move the earnings of foreign workers from the United States to their home countries, while corporations know that the entry of millions of foreign workers-both legal and illegal, drives down wages. Labor needs to be thought of as a commodity. If the demand for a commodity remains relatively constant but the supply of that commodity increases significantly, the value of that commodity will drop precipitously.

There is, indeed, much money to be made by exploiting foreign workers.

Here is a link to an article I wrote that appears in spring 2012 edition of “The Social Contract” that is entitled: “Immigration: The Modern Day Gold Rush”

During Ronald Reagan’s second term as President, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was enacted. This legislation provided for the legalization of an estimated one-and-a-half million illegal aliens. However, by the time the dust settled, it turned out that between three-and-a-half and four million illegal aliens had been granted lawful status.

In order to make this “one time” amnesty program palatable to those who opposed an amnesty for illegal aliens, IRCA also contained provisions that, for the first time, would penalize employers who intentionally hired illegal aliens with fines and even criminal prosecution. While it may have sounded like a good idea, these “Employer Sanctions” provisions of IRCA were largely unenforced because, at the time, there were only about 2,000 special agents employed by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). They were stretched far too thin, and only a relative handful of agents were ever able to conduct employer-sanctions investigations.

Today ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the agency that was created in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, has about 7,000 special agents. But unlike the INS, ICE enforces a far broader spectrum of law including customs laws. Many of the managers of ICE came from Legacy Customs. These bosses have little experience in enforcing immigration laws and, all too often, even less interest in the immigration laws. Even when managers at ICE are willing and motivated to enforce the immigration laws, they find that they lack the resources and, even more importantly, the backing of the administration to enforce the immigration laws.

America has 50 “Border States”

Earlier I mentioned the way that both America’s military services and DHS are charged with securing America’s borders. It is vital that the true nature of our borders be understood.

Many politicians have come to refer to California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas as being “America’s four border states.” Incredibly, the Gang of Eight have decided that none other than Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of DHS, should be given the authority to decide when America’s borders are secure so that the unknown millions of illegal aliens present in the United States can be processed for lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship. Does anyone expect her to say that she has not done a good job of securing America’s borders? Is this the only issue that should be considered?

Read more: Family Security Matters

20080110_cutlerMichael W. Cutler, is a retired INS Senior Special Agent. His career with the INS spanned some 30 years. He has provided expert witness testimony at more than a dozen Congressional hearings, he provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission and provides expert testimony at state legislative hearings across the country and in trials where immigration is at issue.

Mr. Cutler has been named Senior Immigration Editor at AND Magazine. His commentaries and weekly video programs that focus on border security and immigration issues especially where they impact national security, community safety, the economy and a host of other issues can be found at: http://www.andmagazine.com/category/talk_border.html

Obama Doctrine: America Allies with Muslim Brotherhood to Promote Middle East ‘Stability’

20110520_ObamaIkhwan

 

By Barry Rubin:

Here is what I wrote in October 2010, when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood — Muhammad al-Badi — had just given a sermon calling for the overthrow of Egypt’s government (which happened four months later) and a jihad against the United States, a country he considered weak, foolish, and in retreat from the Middle East:

[Al-Badi's sermon is] one of those obscure Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their preconceptions.

Two and a half years ago, who would ever have thought that the United States would enter an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood? There were hints in President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, yet now it is clear that this is the new basis for regional security sought by the Obama administration.

For all practical purposes the closest allies to the United States are no longer Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a moderate Egypt, but an Islamist Egypt, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian rebels led by the Brotherhood.

And literally every mainstream media outlet, every expert who speaks in public, every Democrat, and the majority of Republican politicians still don’t realize that this is true.

American history has witnessed the Truman Doctrine (help countries fight Communist takeover), the Nixon Doctrine (get local middle-sized powers to take part of the burden of the Cold War from the United States), the Carter Doctrine (defend Gulf Arab states from Iranian aggression), and the Reagan Doctrine (go on the offensive against Soviet expansionism).

Now, we have the Obama Doctrine: ally with the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the Middle East.

Is this an improvement on a strategy based on alliances with pro-Western dictators? We are still working with dictators, but now they are also anti-American and even more oppressive than their predecessors. The old dictators, as horrible as they were, were content with the status quo (except for Iraq, where the overthrow came without a new extremist regime taking power), whereas the Islamist dictators want the fundamental transformation of their societies. The old dictators were resigned to the regional situation; the Islamist ones want a wave of new revolutions, terrorism, wars against Israel.

And sooner or later they will strike out against America, just as they give their Salafist allies free rein to do so.

The occasion for declaring that an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups is the new Obama Doctrine is, of course, the decision to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. As recently as April 28 – a mere six weeks ago! — the New York Times was talking of an imminent rebel victory. Now, panic has set in regarding a total rebel collapse.  This has prompted a rush to give weapons to the rebels even as they seem to have stopped the government advance without additional American weapons. In some parts of the country the rebels are the ones advancing.

The weapons will be given to the Supreme Military Council, which runs the Free Syrian Army (FSA). But while the FSA is nominally led by defected military officers, most of its soldiers hold views closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The fig leaf will be that these guns are being given to “moderates” — like the people Senator John McCain met with. The truth is that  they will be given to people whose politics encompass hatred for Jews, Christians, and the West generally, and who are ready to engage in what, in American politics, has come to be known as homophobia and a War on Women.

If the rebels were to win, this would mean imposing a Muslim Brotherhood government on Syria. The Syrian political opposition organization the United States recognizes and has financially supported is overwhelmingly run by the Brotherhood, and it refuses to admit real moderates and Kurds on a serious level.

Note that this is the second Muslim Brotherhood entity the U.S. government has provided with weapons. The first was the Egyptian government, which — despite its questionable human rights record–  the Obama administration has no objection to helping. The shipment of weapons was not even postponed as a gesture.

Read more at PJ Media

 

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.