See also: CAIR Attacks Members of Congress & Defenders Egypt H/T Walid Phares
See also: CAIR Attacks Members of Congress & Defenders Egypt H/T Walid Phares
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Coptic Solidarity and its Egyptian secular allies and friends, are pleased to inform the public of the success of a visit by a bipartisan Congressional delegation to Egypt to strengthen the relationship between the American People and Egypt and to deepen the US-Egyptian alliance against terrorism and extremism. The delegation included Republican and Democratic Representatives Dana Rohrabacher, Michele Bachmann, Louie Golmert, Dana Edward, Steve King, Steve Stockman, Robert Pittenger, and Louis Franklin.
The delegation met with Interim President Mansour, minister of Defense General al-Sisi, and members of the cabinet, and visited the Pope Tadraous, spiritual leader of the Coptic Church. They had excellent meetings and assured Egypt’s leaders that a majority in the US Congress stands firmly with Egyptians against terrorism and extremism and reject the violence and radical ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The delegation visited burned churches and expressed its horror at the damages and victims at the hands of Muslim Brotherhood militias and Jihadi Terrorists. Pope Tawadros told the delegation that “the community paid a dear price, dozens of churches were burned down, but if these sacrifices help in bringing freedom to Egypt, we consent.” The delegation assured the Pope that Congress would do all it can to support the Egyptian people, the Coptic community and to all civil society moderates in Egypt.
Three leaders from the delegation, Representatives Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Steve King held a joint Press briefer at the Egyptian American Chamber and declared their “full support to Egypt’s people, Government and revolution, in confronting the terror and oppression of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said “we are with you people of Egyptagainst the common threat, the Muslim Brotherhood. We have diversity of opinion in Washington, but be sure the people of Egyptare standing with Egypt against the Brotherhood terror.” Congressman Gohmert said “we were opposed to send military assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood regime before your revolution, but now we will work on getting all military assistance needed to fight the Jihadists and the Terrorists.” Congressman King said “we will work on an economic partnership between the US and Egypt and make sure you move forward to a stage of democracy and economic success.” The press briefer can be viewed here:
In Washington, Dr Walid Phares, Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group and advisor to members of the US Congress and the European Parliament on Middle East affairs said “this delegation brought hope to Egyptians that the American public stands firmly with the democratic revolution, support the aspirations of the 30 million Egyptians who marched for freedom and is a partner in the struggle against Terrorism.” Phares said, “Egyptian Americans have worked hard to insure the success of a Congressional initiative to Egypt. The Coptic Solidarity Conference held in June on Capitol Hill was supported by many members of Congress, some of whom in fact were part of the delegation to Egypt. That Conference triggered several meetings and initiatives that inspired the formation of this delegation. The presence of Egyptian secular leaders at the Coptic Solidarity Conference inWashington also helped convincing Congressional leaders that what later happened in Egypt wasn’t a coup, but a real popular revolution.”
Coptic Solidarity will continue to help building positive relationships between the US Congress and Egypt as well as between European legislatures and the Egyptian people.
Coptic Solidarity is non-profit organization dedicated to leading efforts to achieve equal citizenship for the Copts in Egypt. For more information, contact Hal Meawad 240-644-5153, or firstname.lastname@example.org
Brennan’s misunderstanding of the global jihadist threat facing America was on display during a February 2010 speech at New York University. Outlining his understanding of the War on Terror, Brennan claimed it wasn’t a war on terror at all, but a war targeted exclusively at Al-Qaeda:
They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing — absolutely nothing — holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. We are not waging a war against terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic that will never be defeated, any more than a tactics of war will. Rather, such thinking is a recipe for endless conflict…We are at war with Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and any comment to the contrary is just inaccurate.
But the exclusive focus on Al-Qaeda as the sole enemy was rejected by none other than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the testimony she gave to the Senate Armed Service Committee just a few weeks ago, where she warned of a “spreading jihadist threat” in North Africa, one that is growing into a “global movement.”
So it seems that Brennan’s views are extreme even within the senior levels of the Obama administration.
Brennan said as a matter of national policy we needed to reach out to the ‘moderates’ in the Hezbollah terrorist organization, a view he apparently has held for a while as evidenced by a 2006 CSPAN interview where he said that “you can’t divide the world into good and evil.” “Moderate” terrorists?
It bears mentioning that prior to 9/11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group in the world, not only the 238 Americans killed in the 1983 suicide bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, but the kidnapping and death of U.S. Embassy CIA Station Chief William Buckley.
Read more at Breitbart
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
To sign our petition to stop the witch hunt against Rep. Michele Bachmann, click here.
Over the last four years, the United States has suffered a series of comprehensive intelligence failures. These intelligence failures ranged from a lack of preparation for the attacks of September 11, 2012, the misguided assessment that there was a moderate group of Taliban willing to form a government and the refusal to believe that the Arab Spring would lead to Islamist takeovers, rather than liberal open societies.
The Obama Administration’s foreign policy has been one disaster after another and it has been quick to blame intelligence failures for its own mistakes. When accounting for its lies about a YouTube trailer leading to the attack on the Benghazi mission, Obama blamed the intelligence. But it turned out that the intelligence had been edited and censored for political reasons. What appeared to be an intelligence failure in Benghazi was actually political manipulation. And the same may well be true of the entire Arab Spring, of Afghanistan and the entire spectrum of attacks on September 11, 2012.
As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was proven correct in all the areas where the Obama Administration and its political allies suffered from intelligence failures.
In September 2011, one year before the attacks, Michele Bachmann warned that the Arab Spring was a disaster that would lead to the rise of radical elements across the Middle East. Widely ridiculed for it at the time, she was demonstrating the insight and foresight that a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is supposed to have.
Where Obama was proven wrong; Bachmann was proven right. When Michele Bachmann first warned about the Muslim Brotherhood, it was an obscure organization to most people in Washington D.C. After its successful seizure of power in Egypt however, Bachmann’s critics no longer have any excuse for pretending that condemning the group’s ruthless manipulations is a conspiracy theory. Not when Egyptian liberals are among the loudest voices warning about the Muslim Brotherhood threat; not just to Egypt or the Middle East, but to America as well.
A recent article in the Egyptian magazine, Rose El-Youssef listed some of the prominent and influential Muslim Brotherhood figures with access to the policymaking apparatus of the Obama Administration. Two of those figures were in the Department of Homeland Security. This article was another piece of evidence in a mountain of evidence, much of it collected by the FBI, about the conspiratorial activities of the Brotherhood and its front groups in the United States.
It wasn’t the intelligence that failed. It was the political operation that allowed Muslim Brotherhood operatives close access to the policymaking apparatus of the United States government that led to the politicized intelligence and the policy failures. Those policy failures led to the ascendance of Al Qaeda in North Africa and the Middle East, the triumph of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the attacks of September 11, 2012.
Nevertheless liberal organizations have launched a petition demanding that she be removed from the intelligence committee for spreading “conspiracy theories” and attacking “dedicated public servants”. After the complete implosion of Obama’s foreign policy, such attacks should be seen for what they are; an attempt to silence one of their critics who had been right all along while covering up their own lies.
To understand the source of the politicized environment that led to the foreign policy disasters, we need look no further than the Center for American Progress and its tentacle, Think Progress.
The Center for American Progress is a secretive think tank funded by covert donors which was described by Time Magazine as Obama’s idea factory and the single greatest influence on his administration. For all intents and purposes, CAP was the criminal brain in the Frankenstein of old Clinton staffers that would become the Obama Administration.
Read more at Front Page
People for the American Way (PFAW) has launched a new campaign against Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who, after her recent re-election to Congress, has been re-appointed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
A PFAW-sponsored petition with 178,000 signatures is to be presented to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Monday 21 January 2012 to protest Bachmann’s HPSCI appointment.
Citing what PFAW calls “ugly Islamophobic fear mongering,” the petition decries what it alleges are Bachmann’s “unfounded and irresponsible attacks on dedicated public servants.”
Although it does not say so specifically, the PFAW petition likely refers to a set of letters signed by Rep. Bachmann and four Congressional colleagues – Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Tom Rooney (R-FL) and Lynn Westmorland (R-GA).
The letters were sent in June 2012 to the inspectors general of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State and the Office of the Director of National Security (ODNI). The letters note that U.S. foreign policy has undergone a dramatic shift in the direction of open support for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and question whether that policy shift may be the result of Brotherhood influence operations.
Given that the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding case had established with voluminous documentary evidence from the Muslim Brotherhood’s own archives that its mission in America is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” Congressional requests, most particularly from the HPSCI, that inspectors general look into the possibility of Brotherhood penetration into the highest levels of the U.S. government would seem to be most appropriate.
As the debacle of the Islamic Awakening continues to churn across the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region, and Muslim Brotherhood operatives consolidate their sharia rule in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt (and move closer to ousting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad), the collaboration of the U.S. government in the Brotherhood’s “grand Jihad” is as critical to the jihadis as it is inexplicable to defenders of genuine democracy both at home and abroad.
As Rep. Bachmann and her colleagues rightly pointed out, U.S. policy, once implacably opposed to the march of Islamic jihad, shifted dramatically during the years following the 9/11 attacks. At the same time, individuals with close links to the Muslim Brotherhood were named to advisory and appointed government positions.
Read more at Radical Islam
Click here to sign a counter-petition:
“Stop the Witch Hunt Against Rep. Bachmann.”
Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at RadicalIslam.org and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 20 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
By Robert Spencer
The Leftist advocacy group People for the American Way (PFAW) has launched an all-out war against Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN). On Monday it plans to present House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) with a petition bearing 178,000 signatures, demanding that Bachmann not be reappointed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Michael Keegan, president of PFAW, explained Bachmann’s crime: “Michele Bachmann has used her position on the Intelligence Committee to spread baseless conspiracy theories and smear the reputations of honorable public servants. Speaker Boehner himself called her actions ‘dangerous.’ It’s mysterious, then, why he has chosen to reward her reckless extremism with continued access to sensitive national security information and a powerful platform for her agenda.”
Since Boehner has indeed previously thrown Bachmann under the bus, he may be susceptible to this appeal; if he is at all fair-minded, however, he will recognize not only that Bachmann deserves her place on the Intelligence committee, but that she may be more deserving than any of her colleagues of such a place.
For while Bachmann was widely criticized and ridiculed for daring to suggest that Muslim Brotherhood elements had infiltrated the U.S. government, corroboration of her allegations has recently come from an unlikely quarter: Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, which asserted in a December article that six highly-placed Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators within the Obama Administration had transformed the United States “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (A translation of the article is available from the Investigative Project here.)
According to the Investigative Project, “the six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.”
These represent many of the individuals and groups about whom Bachmann had raised concerns. For example, Bachmann’s letter last summer to the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security stated that Elibiary had “extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood” and “sympathy for Islamist causes,” and accused him of “gain(ing) access to classified documents.”
And indeed, in 2011 investigative journalist Patrick Poole reported that “Elibiary may have been given access to a sensitive database of state and local intelligence reports, and then allegedly shopped some of those materials to a media outlet.” According to Poole, Elibiary approached “a left-leaning media outlet” with reports marked For Official Use Only that he said demonstrated rampant “Islamophobia” in the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). The media outlet declined to do a story, but what was Elibiary doing shopping the Official Use Only documents in the first place?
Poole checked with Steve McCraw, director of the Texas DPS, who “confirmed that Elibiary has access to the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC) database, which contains hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports and products that are intended for intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies.” Said McCraw of Elibiary: “We know that he has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.”
There have been questions about Elibiary’s true allegiances for years. He was one of the speakers at a December 2004 conference in Dallas titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary.” The visionary in question was none other than the founding father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
When I questioned him about his appearance at such a conference, Elibiary claimed that he hadn’t known what kind of conference it was going to be, although he didn’t explain why he went ahead and appeared there anyway once he found out. Among those who found this explanation wanting was journalist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News, whose skepticism angered Elibiary. The great moderate subsequently threatened Dreher, telling him: “Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.”
Read more at Front Page
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, Did Muhammad Exist?, is now available.
by Lee Stranahan
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.
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.
There are multiple ways to access “The Project.” This chilling documentary can be viewed ON DEMAND at TheBlazeTV or now on DISH channel 212.
Is there a government cover-up at play?
A 2001 raid in Switzerland unearthed a chilling manifesto now dubbed “The Project,” a detailed Islamic blueprint for infiltrating, subverting and ultimately defeating the U.S. and the West. Today, 80 file boxes worth of evidence submitted during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history to date — including “The Project” documents, are being withheld from the American public by the Department of Justice.
On Wednesday, September 26, TheBlaze documentary unit released the first installment of this chilling two-part series outlining how the current administration has stonewalled repeated requests by Congress to release the disturbing documents and for allowing the Muslim Brotherhood greater entree into American government. Further the documentary reveals just how close American-Islamic operatives from groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have been to subverting the U.S. and Israel.
The Holy Land Foundation trial
The lynchpin of documentary is found in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which was brought to bear by the Justice Department first in 2007 and then again in 2008 against the Holy Land Foundation, a “charity” that was later found to have funneled more than $12 million to the terrorist organization, Hamas. During the discovery process for the trial, prosecutors submitted 80 boxes of Islamic material including the The Project document. Strangely, “subject matter experts” were subsequently called in deemed the documents inadmissible as evidence. The identity of these experts or the grounds on which they came to their conclusion has never been revealed.
During the trial, five Islamists were convicted, including a founding board member of CAIR. The documentary also delves into many of the key players and American-Islamic groups currently operating against U.S. interests and discusses other un-indicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Soviet and Nazi parallels
The first half of the documentary provides background on “The Project” documents and how the Muslim Brotherhood has been successfully waging a “propaganda” campaign in much the same way the former Soviet Union did before and during the Cold War. One such push advocated by the Brotherhood is to purge the U.S. and its government of anything deemed offensive to Islam, including teachers, lecturers and library books.
Among those interviewed for the series was Rep. Michele Bachmann, member of the House Intelligence Committee, who likened the “purging” of people and material critical of Islam as akin to the type of purging that was carried out in Nazi Germany at the behest of Adolf Hitler.
TheBlaze documentary team also drew stark parallels between the current climate surrounding the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of U.S. government and that of the Communist infiltration of U.S. government during the Cold War. The documentary reminds viewers that after the Hitler-Stalin pact — a non-agression pact between the two nations during WWII — was violated, a contingent of Americans began a Communist “outreach” effort, believing it prudent to incorporate Communists into the U.S. government, including the Treasury Department and the pre-cursor to the C.I.A.
To place the Islamic threat in its proper context, the documentary notes how the Communist Manifesto, by all means nothing more than a minuscule pamphlet, became the greatest “life and death threaten to the Western world” until 1990. Likewise, Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (which, ironically means “my struggle,“ the same as ”jihad”) provided key insight into the führer’s political ideology and goals of world domination long before he put his “Final Solution” into effect.
Juxtaposing World War II and the Cold War with the current war on terror, the documentary also points out how critics of Islam today are being vilified in much the same way as was Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and, ten years earlier, Democratic Senator Martin Dies Jr.. Ironically, both Dies and McCarthy were correct in their assertion that American government had been breached by those who championed a totalitarian ideology anathema to U.S. interests.
Today, those who question the Islamist-influence on U.S. government, or who call terrorism and Islamic extremists by their rightful names, are painted as “bigots” — much like those who questioned one’s Communist affiliation was dubbed a “Red Baiter.” This policy of shaming Islam-critics in the public square is a propagandist tool engineered to stifle honest and open dialogue.
Ironically, one of the panelists noted that were President Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office today, he would have considered Islamism a far more grave threat to the United States and greater Western world than was the Soviet Union.
Go to The Blaze to read the rest and see video clips
“The Project” documents were the work of Islamist Youssef Nada and became Muslims’ blueprint for defeating the U.S. by controlling speech through shame, coercion and blasphemy laws and by endearing Islamists and Islamist-causes to the U.S. government. The goal is to subvert the U.S. in a way that would be gradual, yet permanent.
Anyone who sees the parallel between Nada’s plan and how the U.S. government has recently latched onto the term “Islamophobia,” using it as a catalyst for purging FBI training manuals of information on Islam, or how Muslim Brotherhood members have been given entry into U.S. government, can see “civilization jihad” is already in full swing.
The document was drafted in 1982 and discovered during a raid by authorities in Switzerland in 2001. They were submitted as part of 80 boxes worth of evidence by prosecution during the Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history to date — but were ultimatley not permitted for reasons that remain unknown. Today, “The Project” documents have been classified and are withheld from public view by the Department of Justice despite pleas by members of Congress to unseal the records.
Calling on experts like Stephen Coughlin, Andrew McCarthy and Rep. Michele Bachmann to name a few, The Project provides key insights into why Americans are currently witnessing an increase in political correctness where Islam is concerned, a U.S. “policy of appeasement” in the face of terrorist acts, and how members of the current administration are warming to a host of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates.
At the end of the day more than 700 documents and 300 presentations were deemed by “ unusable“ by alleged ”subject matter experts“ during the Holy Land trial because they were considered ”offensive to the Muslim community.” Even the FBI was denied the identity of who, exactly, these so-called subject matter experts were.
Since Nada’s blueprint was discovered and translated earlier on (and is provided below), his blueprint for what is essentially a global caliphate is clear. What is not clear are the details contained in the rest of the file boxes, or why the administration appears to be protecting those who seek jihad against the U.S. and the West. At the end of the day, lawmakers and experts are adamant that the documents belong not to the Executive Branch of U.S. government, but rather to the people.
Andrew McCarthy, the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for prosecuting the “Blind Sheik,” weighed in throughout the series, saying he did not see “any valid reason” nor any “legally compelling reason” to withhold the evidence.
Perhaps the most ironic point to note is that defendants in the Holy Land Foundation trial had access to these documents as part of the discovery process, yet when members of the House Judiciary Committee on oversight called on U.S. Attorney General to furnish them with the same, their attempts were stonewalled.
To note, the Holy Land Foundation was found guilty in 2008 of providing $12 million in funding to Hamas. Named as un-indicted co-conspirators in the trial were the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which have documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference
One of the ways in which Nada’s plan is currently manifesting itself, is through the Organization of Islamic the Conference, an international body comprising 56 Islamic states and the Palestinian Authority dedicated to Muslim economic, social, political and religious solidarity. In other words, a modern-day caliphate.
The largest undertaking by the OIC to date is, according to experts consulted in the documentary, to restrict U.S. First Amendment rights particularly with regards to slandering Islam. Sound familiar?
To this end, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even attended a summit in Turkey to meet with the head of the OIC as he was garnering support for United Nations Resolution No. 1618 concerning defamation of religion.
Experts consulted agree that Clinton then “committed to a foreign entity” that she would use a classic method of shame and peer pressure to coerce all those who would stand in disagreement with the resolution.
Many forget that the caliphate, as embodied by the Ottoman Empire, existed less than 100 years ago. Experts consider the OIC a modern-day caliphate and it is already seeking the implementation of sharia law with regards to blaspheming against Islam through the UN Human Rights Council. In fact, the OIC proudly dubs itself the “Ummah,” or Muslim community. It should also be noted that the Obama White House has even appointed an OIC special envoy, Rashad Hussein.
Go to The Blaze read the rest and watch video clips
Michele Bachmann at Voters Value Summit, Family Research Council, gives an excellent speech explaining what’s really going on with the recent Muslim attacks on US foreign ministries: the international criminalization of all communications considered denigration of Islam. She lays the blame on Obama’s dangerous foreign policy of appeasement and offers a plan of what must be done to correct the situaton.
For the full transcript of the speech go to Politico
In the wake of the Islamic attacks on U.S. Embassies in Cairo, Benghazi, and elsewhere continue to reveal lapses in both judgment and security on the part of the State Department, perhaps it’s time to revisit the concerns of Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), et. al. about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government.
Though there were five letters sent to five separate Inspectors General (IG) back on June 13th (with a 90-day deadline given to those IG’s to respond with a report; that deadline passed this week), it might be time to take a look at the one letter that has been the most controversial – the one sent to the Deputy Inspector General for the State Department – Harold Geisel – that included a copy that went to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The letter chronicled several items of concern with respect to actions taken by Clinton. One of those concerns is extremely relevant in light of the recent embassy attacks and the real reason behind them (quashing free speech rights). Here is that excerpt:
A succession of meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – a multinational group that is, like the Muslim Brotherhood, determined to impose shariah worldwide. These are now known as “the Istanbul Process” and are aimed at finding ways to accommodate the OIC’s demands for restrictions on freedom of expression guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, so as to preclude “blasphemy” against Islam and its adherents.
Furthermore, Col. David Hunt (Ret.) is pointing directly to Hillary Clinton for making the decision not to assign Marines to Benghazi.
Foreign Policy is reporting that the State Department has essentially shut down when it comes to discussing the Benghazi attack.
PowerLine is citing a ‘well placed’ source with some information about the State Department that doesn’t sound good:
I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: “Chaos.” The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida.
Penetration of multiple U.S. Embassies IS penetration of the State Department.
That leads us to the most controversial name in the letter from Bachmann, et. al. to the Inspector General’s office at State – Huma Abedin.
Did we say the deadline for the Inspectors General to respond to Bachmann, et. al. is up?
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: email@example.com
by EDWARD CLINE
Earlier this month author and former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy gave a terrific, informative, and comprehensive address at The Center for Security Policy at the National Press Club. It was principally an answer and a rebuttal to the criticisms of a group of five House representatives who called for a multi-agency investigation into the backgrounds of numerous Muslims now employed in various capacities in those agencies. One of those letters went to deputy inspector general of the State Department, and one of the persons named in the letter was Huma Abedin, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.
McCarthy was the point man in the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik,” over the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He is a Republican conservative with a libertarian bent who writes for National Review.
Abedin, it seems, has very close family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist supremacist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the United States (if not its destruction, as well). The Mainstream Media and its allies on the Left immediately charged Michele Bachmann, representative from Minnesota, with alleging that Abedin is an operative or spy for the Brotherhood. McCarthy and others have countered with the facts: that Bachmann, based on knowledge that Abedin especially has had family connections with the Brotherhood, suggested that perhaps she had not been as thoroughly vetted as a possible security risk. Bachmann and her colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee were requesting an investigation of the vetting of Abedin and other individuals. And nothing more.
The ensuing attack on Bachmann gave Senator John McCain of Arizona a chance to grandstand in Congress in Abedin’s defense. Abedin and McCain, apparently, are friends. However, he committed the same error as the mainstream media made, and interpreted Bachmann’s request for an investigation as an allegation of “guilt by association.”
McCarthy not only deflated such a charge in his Center for Security Policy speech, but provided ample evidence that the Brotherhood has indeed infiltrated the highest ranks of government for the purpose of influencing American foreign policy. During his speech, he said he could not now say how many Muslims were in positions of influence or even had access to security-sensitive documents.
However, there was a reservation in McCarthy’s depiction of the Islamic peril. That reservation compromises and qualifies everything else he had to say. These are the troubling paragraphs. The non-bolded Italics are mine:
Now, let me be clear about what I said and what I didn’t say. I said Islamist influences, I did not say Muslims. I don’t know how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people. Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative. Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government, in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major institutions. We are lucky to have them because they have embraced the culture of individual liberty that is the beating heart of Western civilization. They have accepted the premise of our society that everyone has a right to freedom of conscience and equality before the law. They have accepted our foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law for themselves, irrespective of the rules of any belief system or ideology. They construe Islam’s spiritual elements and its laws as a matter of private conscience, not as a mandatory framework for society. (Italics mine.) Those Muslims are not Islamists.
What is troubling is that this is a common sentiment among virtually all well-read, knowledgeable, and actively out-spoken anti- and counter-jihadist writers and observers. The only Muslims I would completely trust with my life would be apostates: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, and a handful of others. These individuals have repudiated Islam in its entirety, discarded it as moral code, and warned that there can be no such thing as a moderate Islam. They have acknowledged that there is no such thing as a “moderate,” peace-loving Muslim, either, that there is no halfway point between obeying Allah’s commands and the laws of man-made governments, which Allah decreed, through Mohammad, were an “abomination.”
Parenthetically, the concept of a conscience is strictly religious in nature, by which one’s explicitly held moral principles are at variance with the more pragmatic or “practical” actions one must take to pursue one’s ends. As such a dichotomy, a conscience serves more as a leash rather than as a guide to moral action.
Let us for the moment take McCarthy’s statement as true – that these “patriotic” Muslims are not security risks and who sincerely do not wish harm on the United States – and pose some important questions:
Which parts of the Islamic doctrine do “moderate,” peace-loving, “patriotic” Muslims reject, or object to, or claim have been misinterpreted by “extremists” and “radicals”? To my knowledge, this question has never been answered, neither by any “moderate” Muslims, nor by any non-Muslims such as Andrew McCarthy or Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes. It would be interesting to know which parts of that doctrine do not call for death, destruction, enslavement or conquest – that is, the later, abrogating Koranic verses.
And if one could identify those parts, and segregate them from the belligerent, violent parts, could the remainder be justly called “Islamic”? Could a Muslim who adhered to those non-violent parts, and eschewed the violent ones, still be called a “true Muslim”? Would he be any kind of “Muslim”? Would “conservative” or “extremist” Muslims regard him as one, or label him a slacker, or an apostate?
If one has serious reservations about one’s beliefs, yet steadfastly holds onto them in the face of the choices of rejecting them, compromising them, or of being consistent with them, is this a matter of faith, or of a congenital psychological or epistemological disorder? If a private conscience is a personal matter, characterized by a belief in an all-knowing, omnipotent deity who commands one to be moral (without any demonstrable, perception-based, reality-grounded proofs), where would one’s strongest loyalty lay? With the belief, or with secular law? In a crisis, would a Muslim’s personal ‘belief system” trump his purported belief in the “foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law for themselves”?
Islam’s basic tenets reject any kind of individualism. Islam is inherently hostile to such concepts of individualism and political liberty. Islamic ideology seeks to extinguish those things. To wit, as cited in the Journal Huma Abedin worked on for twelve years:
The Western habit of reducing religion to the function of a residual force, separating it from the state and relegating it to personal and individual affairs, places a deep gulf between the West and other traditions, especially the Islamic. (p. 6) The Islamic world sees the West as arrogant, materialistic, repressive, brutal, and decadent with a lack of human moral values. The domains of Islam perceive Western culture as threatening because of its materialism, imperialism and its championing of unfettered individualism at the expense of the common social good. These hallmarks of Western culture are seen as the source of all troubles. (p. 9) Muslim intellectuals believe that Western modernity is based on a metaphysical foundation of immanence that denies transcendence. Sayyid Husayn Nasr describes, “The embodiment of the Divine Will, as a transcendent reality which is eternal and immutable, as a model by which the perfections and shortcomings of human society and the conduct of the individual are judged….” Sayyid QuÏb described it [modern Islam] as “a disastrous combination of avid materialism and egoistic individualism.” (p. 9) The war that has been declared against Western modernity now seeks a new modernity, and, unlike Western modernity, it is not based on a revolution of rising expectations and infinite progress, but, rather, on the idea of a human mind at peace with itself, committed to the sanctity of man and of nature. The search for this new modernity in the Islamic world gives a high priority to the ideal of justice and the balancing of individual human rights with the rights of the human community as a whole. (p. 11) The most common notion of freedom in the West today is to do, be or say whatever one wishes without intervention. A substantial range of actions by individuals or groups cannot be questioned. But in the Islamic notion of freedom, an individual’s or group’s freedom is restricted if fellow human beings complain of sentimental or sensual feelings as a result of those actions. (p. 11)
All Italics are mine. Need I point out the inherent hostility of Islam to individualism? Islam requires the unquestioning submission of the individual to Islamic authority.
All non-Islamist or non-supremacist Muslims are faced with such a contradiction and the attending problematic conflict of conscience. If they refuse or are unable to question their faith, what then? If one could demonstrate to them that their faith is incompatible with their purported patriotism and loyalty, what would they do about it? Repudiate Islam, or continue to profess double and irreconcilable commitments?
Read more: Family Security Matters
Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.