Stephen Coughlin and Frank Gaffney on Islamic subversion of the US government

 

download (83)Available at Amazon: An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America (Center for Security Policy Archival Series)

In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago in connection with fundraising for Hamas.The FBI’s Washington Field Office subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found; it revealed over 80 banker boxes of the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. One of the most important of these documents made public to date was entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. It amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America and senior Hamas leader named Mohammed Akram. It had been approved by the Brotherhood’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference and was meant for internal review by the Brothers’ leadership in Egypt. It was certainly not intended for public consumption, particularly in the targeted society: the United States. For these reasons, the memo constitutes a Rosetta stone for the Muslim Brotherhood, its goals, modus operandi and infrastructure in America. It is arguably the single most important vehicle for understanding a secretive organization and should, therefore, be considered required reading for policy-makers and the public, alike.

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

Also see Citizens for National Security (CFNS) key report: “Homegrown Jihad in the USA – Muslim Brotherhood’s Deliberate, Premeditated Plan Now Reaching Maturity©”

John Guandolo: The Muslim Brotherhood in America – We are at war and we are losing

I recently attended a talk by John Guandolo where he addressed the recent commendation of the  Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center by the Virginia State Assembly. We should all be outraged and flooding their offices with emails and phone calls politely educating them on the terrorist connections of this mosque. John asserted that this was at the very least an act of criminal negligence and just another indication of the fact that “we are at war and we are losing”. He spoke for about two hours on the Muslim Brotherhood. The material he covered closely follows the following four part series of articles that I found published at Breitbart in 2011.There is a lot of valuable information here which needs to be studied over time so tuck this away in your files. download (82)

By John Guandolo:

Part I – Understanding the Threat  (Published March 2, 2011)

It is now March of 2011. That jihadi attack on the United States is over nine years behind us. The declaration of a global jihad from Iran in 1979 is over 30 years in our rear view mirror. The national security apparatus of the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to “make America safer,” yet we still have not defined our enemy – or even tried. There is no place in the national security structure which has objectively evaluated the threat doctrine of our enemy, and then created a strategic plan for victory for the United States – per U.S. warfighting doctrine. This lack of strategic understanding of the nature of the threat we face is not only costing us lives on the battlefield in wars with no realistically stated objectives, but so long as we drift aimlessly, we cannot win and we allow the enemy to move our boat as he sees fit. That, is the enemy’s strategy. And he is executing with great success.

Does anyone wonder how it is the U.S. military is crushing the enemy on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan (and elsewhere) daily, yet not winning the strategic war?

The United States continues to view the wars (the establishment sees this as several conflicts, not as one global conflict) as kinetic engagements where guns, air power, drones, bombs, and other weapon of war are brought to bear on “Al Qaeda terrorists” and others with whom we are engaged on the many battlefields around the world. At the FBI, the focus is on preventing the next attack. While this is important, “attacks” are not the main focus of effort for this enemy. Local and State Police are also focused on preventing attacks, the physical security of office buildings, critical infrastructure, and the safety of important public figures. When the subject of an investigation is found NOT to be involved in a plot to cause “violence” that case is closed and the investigator goes on to the next one in the stack. This is where we are losing the war. While preventing a school bus bombing or the take-over of a bank by Jihadis should be taken seriously by our law enforcement officers, from the enemy’s perspective, these are tactical engagements, not strategic.

Every brand new intelligence officer in the United States military knows that when the United States evaluates a threat, our doctrine drives us to begin our process with WHO the enemy says he is and with WHAT the enemy says are HIS reasons for acting. That is where the U.S. analytical process begins – per our own doctrine. If we had done this after 9/11, we would not have so much confusion about the enemy we are engaging.

One hundred percent of the enemy we are fighting states he is fighting “Jihad” in the “Cause of Allah” in order to implement Islamic Law (Shariah). Therefore, U.S. analysts must begin here. Does Islamic Law exist? If so, what does it say about “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad? In fact, authoritative Islamic Law does exist. There are not “a thousand interpretations” as the Muslim Brotherhood advisors tell our leadership. Islamic Law does define “Jihad” and the requirements for Jihad. Islamic Law as defined by those using it to kill us and overthrow our government necessarily becomes the “Stated Enemy Threat Doctrine.” As a 4-star general told me a few months ago when I asked him what he thought about the fact that when Al Qaeda quotes Islamic Law they are always accurately quoting Islamic Law: “Well, if that’s true, it completely changes the nature of the way we are fighting this war.” Exactly.

Our entire national security apparatus is focused (fixed) on the threat of the violent Jihadis – Al Qaeda and the hundreds of other jihadi groups throughout the world engaging U.S and allied troops on the ground around the world.

Read more at Breitbart

Part II – MB history and their arrival in America (Published March 6, 2011)

In the autumn of 1914, the nearly 700 year old Islamic state (Caliphate), known as the Ottoman Empire, entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers (Germany et al), having already signed a secret agreement with Germany a few months earlier to do so. Following the defeat of the Imperial German Army and the end of the war, the Allies partitioned the Turkish country which led to the Turkish War of Independence. National hero and leader Mustafa Kemal created the secular nation-state of Turkey, and became its first President. Mustafa Kemal “Ataturk” (father of Turks) dissolved the Islamic Caliphate, did away of the position of “Sultan” in the system, banned overt Islamic signs such as the growing of beards, wearing of head coverings, and the public call to prayer by the muzzeins, and replaced Arabic script with Latin. The legal, business and social systems were turned on their heads in favor of those fashioned closer to a Western-style than an Islamic one. Ataturk built a secular military to protect Turkey.

The 700 year old Islamic Caliphate was dissolved. Across the Muslim world, this was not well-received.

A few years later (1928) outside of Cairo,Egypt, Hassan al Banna and his colleagues formed the Society of Muslim Brothers. Their purpose: to re-establish the Caliphate under which Shariah (Islamic Law) is the law of the land, and liberate the Islamic nation from the yolk of foreign rule. The Creed of the Brotherhood was, and is today: “Allah is our goal; the Messenger our Guide; the Koran our law; Jihad is our Way; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

download (81)Over the next decade, the “Muslim Brotherhood” built a multi-tiered system in furtherance of achieving its objectives – the same objectives they maintain today. Spreading throughout Egypt, the Brotherhood – or “MB” – strongly opposed the presence of British military troops and influence in Egypt. Under Islamic Law, the presence of non-Muslim forces in Muslim lands is a “weighty matter which cannot be ignored.” The Brotherhood used violence against the British troops and their families. They also fought against the system in Egypt which was not adhering to Islamic Law, targeting judges and others in the government. The Egyptian government sought to identify, capture, and/or kill members of the Brotherhood. In 1948, the Muslim Brotherhood killed the Prime Minister of Egypt, and in 1949, the Egyptian security service gunned down MB founder Hassan al Banna on the streets of Cairo.

This is not surprising, since violence is inherent to the MB’s structure. The “Special Section” is an integral part of the Muslim Brotherhood and conducts “Special work” – “military work” or violence and warfare. These are the guys who conduct assassinations, bombings, and other similar operations within the MB. The Special Section still exists today – several of the International leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood or “Supreme Guides” have come from the Special Section – a hint the MB doesn’t eschew violence as they say they do.

The Muslim Brotherhood worked with the Nazi’s during World War II, as Hassan al Banna was fond of Hitler. Under the guidance of Muslim Brother Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti (senior Islamic Jurist) of Jerusalem, the MB created an all Muslim SS Division within the Nazi’s Third Reich.

Read more at Breitbart

Part III – The settlement process (Published March 12, 2011)

Thus far in our journey towards better understanding the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the United States, we have laid the foundation of their global strategy, their foundational beliefs, and their arrival in the U.S. in the 1960’s. As we have discussed, the Brotherhood established their first organization in 1963 at the University of Illinois in Urbana – the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – and from the MSA, nearly every major Islamic organization in the United States was formed – all MB front groups.

But how did the Brotherhood actually insinuate itself into the fabric of America? How is it possible that today the most prominent Islamic organizations in North America are controlled by the Brotherhood and actually seek to subordinate the individual liberties of Americans (and Canadians) to the slavery of Shariah (Islamic Law)? In Part III of this series, we set out to help clarify the way the MB “settled” here in America. Please note the MB did so with their objectives clearly at the forefront of their minds – (1) re-establish the global Islamic state (Caliphate) and (2) implement Shariah (Islamic Law).

For this exercise I will use two extremely useful Muslim Brotherhood documents. The first is a speech given by Zaid Naman (aka Zeid al Noman), a member of the MB’s Board of Directors and the “Masul” (Leader) of the MB’s Executive Office in the United States. Naman was speaking in the early-1980’s to a group of Muslim Brothers in the U.S. A recording of this speech was discovered in the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia residence of Hamas/MB official Ismail Elbarasse, where the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. were found. The English transcript of this speech was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial in Dallas 2008 – the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history. This speech is so powerful because this group of Muslim Brothers shared the history and strategy of the Brotherhood here in the U.S. with the expectation their comments would never see the light of day.

The second source is the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic document – An Explanatory Memorandum – dated 1991 and also seized during the Elbarasse raid in 2004. This document was written by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood official in the U.S. at the time, and approved by the MB’s Shura Council and Organizational Conference – the two governing bodies within the MB structure here. (The third part of the MB structure is the “General Masul” or Leader of the MB for the entire U.S.)

HLF doc

Unless otherwise noted, all quotes in this section are from Naman’s speech.

Naman acknowledges that after the formation of the MSA in the U.S. in the early 1960’s, there was not a lot of organization, and he describes this period as a “Gathering or a grouping for Islam activists without an organizational affiliation.” But the MSA was the center of the activity: “As for Recruitment in the ranks of this Movement, its main condition was that a brother…must be active in the general activism in the MSA.” As Muslim Brothers came from various countries, they settled in small groups or “usras” (families), sometimes hundreds of miles apart. They were called to recruit other arriving Muslims into the Brotherhood, and do what they could with what they had. The object was to grow these usras into large groups of Muslim Brothers so, eventually, the growing concentric circles of influence covered large areas.

As Naman puts it: “The first generation of Muslim Ikhwans in North America composed of a team which included he who was Ikhwan in his country or he who was a member of the Worshipers of the Merciful Group or he who doesn’t have a direction but who is active in Islamic activism. This was the first point or group which gave or planted the Muslim Brotherhood seed in America.” (emphasis added)

By the 1970’s, arriving Brotherhood members were upset with the lack of activism and recruitment in the U.S. by the MB already here. Saudi Muslim Brothers and others came to America and joined the ranks. They demanded clearer commitments and “Ikhwan formulas” of how to accept Muslims into the MB ranks of “this Dawa’a and to make work secret.”

The MB established 5-year plans, the first of which, from 1975-1980 was the period of “General work and dedication to general work organizations.” During this time the Brotherhood went through infighting and turmoil as it sought to organize and agree on strategies and tactics.

By 1980, the Brotherhood emerged with strong leadership and a more focused commitment to the long-term strategy. 1981-1985 was a period of “Regional Planning and Growth.” Over time, the Brotherhood organized regionally in the U.S. and formed “Coordination Councils” which had leadership and committees to begin better organizing their efforts. Plans were developed, and the Brotherhood came up with primary and secondary goals for the Movement at that time.

“The main goals which were approved by the executive office were five…First of all: Strengthening the internal structure; second, administrative discipline; third, recruitment and settlement of the Dawa’a; four, energizing the organizations’ work; five, energizing political work fronts. Also, it adopted eight of the secondary goals on top of which were: finance and investment; second, foreign relations; third, reviving women’s activities; four, political awareness to members of the Group; five, securing the Group; six, special activity; seven, media; eight, taking advantage of human potentials.” (emphasis added)

Later in the Q & A session, Naman is asked about the aforementioned statement. An unidentified Muslim Brother asks, “By ‘Securing the Group’ do you mean military securing?” Naman responds with: “No, Military Work is listed under ‘Special Work.’ Special work means military work. ‘Securing the Group’ is the groups security, the Group’s security against outside dangers. For instance, to monitor the suspicious movements…which exist on the American front such as Zionism and Masonry…etc. Monitoring the suspicious movements or the sides, the government bodies such as CIA, FBI, etc, so that we find out if they are monitoring us, are we not being monitored, how can we get rid of them. That’s what is meant by ‘Securing the Group.’”

The aforementioned comment needs little reinforcement, except to add that inherent to the MB structure is the “Special Section” which conducts “special activity” or activity more commonly known to us as “terrorism.” This includes assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, etc. And that’s what makes it “Special Work.”

Additionally, during the speech Naman mentions the differences between Muslim Brothers coming to the U.S. from various nations, and how difficult it is in those nations to partake in certain activities. He offers one pertinent example for us: “…if the asking brother is from Jordan, for instance, he would know that it is not possible to have military training in Jordan, for instance, while here in America, there is weapons training at many of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) camps…”

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

Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:

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

Putting It Into Practice 

The above paragraph IS the MB strategy. Civilization-Jihad “by their hands” – OUR hands. The Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for destroying the United States is to get us, specifically our leadership, to do the bidding of the MB for them. The Muslim Brotherhood intends to conduct Civilization Jihad by co-opting our leadership into believing a counterfactual understanding of Islam and the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, thereby coercing these leaders to enforce the MB narrative on their subordinates. Be assured they are doing this with great success.

Political, military, law enforcement, media, and religious leaders are being duped across America by the MB leadership. The approach tactics differ depending on the targeted organization – ie for media the approach may be a “civil rights” basis, while for Christian leaders it will be based on the Muslims’ claiming they are “also followers of Jesus” without the explanation that to the Muslims, Jesus was a Muslim prophet.

Here is how it works: a leader of an MB front, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for instance, who has been a Muslim Brother for 40 years, is a classically trained intelligence officer from a foreign nation, has been in the U.S. for 20+ years, and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, approaches a senior government official (usually with zero counterintelligence training). The Muslim Brother says he is from the largest and “most prominent Muslim organization in America” or words to that effect. He explains he has come to help the official discern fact from fiction about Islam and help deter “radicalization” as well as “Islamaphobia” in the local community. The Brother says he has experience in “building bridges” between the U.S. government and the Muslim community, and even produces photographs with other senior government officials and community leaders. The official, unaware ISNA is a MB and Hamas support entity, an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest successfully prosecuted Hamas case in U.S. history, and the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement here, begins working with this Muslim Brotherhood leader. They have discussions in the government office building where the senior official works, and the Muslim Brother tells the official ISNA is “moderate” (because he says so) but if he or any of the Muslims at ISNA hear of any “radicals” in the area, they will be sure to let the official know. They also talk about the Brother’s concern about how “aggressive” the U.S. government is perceived in the local Muslim community, and the “fear of backlash” against them. “We want to help you,” the Hamas/MB leader will say, “but we need assurances from you that you will not unnecessarily target Muslims for investigation or go into our Mosques unannounced. In exchage, we will besure to tell you if there is anything nefarious going on in the Muslim community.” The government official buys off on this and, in the interest ofdeepening the relationship with the Muslim and the community-at-large, the government official complies with the MB’s request and eases off. The two men have lunch weekly and develop a relationship – the government official thinks the Muslim Brother actually likes him. The Muslim Brother is actually quite likeable. He was trained to be “likeable” during his counterintelligence training in his home country, which he has perfected during his last 40 years of operating for many of those years in hostile countries before coming to the U.S.

Over time, the government official establishes policies and procedures based the advice given to him by the Muslim Brother, which the official has never backstopped to determine if it is factually accurate. A year later, evidence comes to light identifying the Muslim Brother and the true nature of his intentions. The government official must now make a choice. Does he cut off his relationship with his “Muslim friend” and, therefore, admit he was duped and created policies and procedures for his agency based on disinformation fed to him by a Muslim Brother? Or does he silence his subordinates who have brought facts forward clearly identifying the enemy? Sad to say, around the country today, the latter is occurring at a exponentially higher rate than the former.

This is Civilization-Jihad “by their hands,” and evidence of it can be seen in: our universities – many of which have MSA chapters and host Hamas and MB speakers on a regular basis with the support of university Presidents and Boards who silence students challenging the school or Hamas; our intelligence and national security apparatus where analysts and agents on the ground who understand the Muslim Brotherhood threat are disciplined, subject to internal investigations, and threatened with termination for doing their jobs, going after the MB, and speaking up about this threat; our war colleges – at which Muslim Brothers serve as Distinguished Professors or Chairs of Middle Eastern studies programs and pollute the dialogue and suppress any attempt to speak truth into the threats from the Islamic Movement; our financial institutions – many of which are “Shariah Compliant” per the MB’s request and atthe direction of the U.S. Treasury Department; our churches and synagogues – which only seem to outreach to Muslim Brotherhood front groups (note: ISNA is the certifying authority for all Muslim Chaplains in DoD and in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons) and which join the MB in protests against government investigations of anything “Muslim” or “Islamic” (e.g. Congressman King hearings); and the list goes on.

The MB Settled in America to subordinate the Constitution to Shariah. The “Process” by which they did it is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process.” Their methodology is to subvert the primary/foundational institutions in our nation and co-opt our leadership. At a quick glance it appears the score at halftime of this football game is 200-0 in their favor. Time for us to take off the baseball uniforms and engage the MB on the football field.

Read more at Breitbart

Part IV – Crossing the bridge: the implications of the Holy Land Foundation Trial (Published April 11. 2011)

On a seemingly normal day on the outskirts of Annapolis, Maryland, a singular event led to the revelation of a deep-rooted enemy with a massive infrastructure inside the United States well on its way to achieving its goal of overthrowing the United States Constitution.

It is August 20, 2004. A Friday in the summertime, and the feds, lobbyists and businessmen chained to their desks in Washington, D.C. can’t wait to bust out the doors and head to the beaches on the Eastern shore of Maryland and Delaware – Rehoboth, Bethany, Ocean City, and others. The traffic on Route 50 East on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (Maryland) is picking up after the lunch hour, and will be ugly in a couple hours.

Westbound lanes, however, are pretty clear. Traveling on 50 West is a Baltimore County (MD) Marine Police unit carrying two officers. They are slowly overtaking a silver Infiniti sport utility vehicle when they notice the passenger is fully covered in what they believe is traditional Islamic garb. Her attire is not what gets their attention though – she is filming the support structures of the Bridge with a video camera. As they come alongside the vehicle she pulls the camera down, and resumes the filming when the police have passed. The officers catch that move. They notify the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) who has jurisdiction of the bridge. The officers conduct a vehicle stop at just about the time the MTA unit arrives on scene.

One of the three children in the vehicle, a daughter, will later tell how the police treated her family like animals, and she will complain that it was all so scary and….more propaganda.

The way this was handled was a fair reaction from law enforcement officers when we understand the driver of the vehicle was identified as Ismail Elbarasse – a Hamas operative (and, therefore, a Muslim Brother), wanted on a Material Witness warrant in a Hamas case out of Chicago. As more officers and the FBI are notified, the cops on scene realize there is something big going on. Why is a Hamas guy filming the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge? Investigators will later suggest that because of Al Qaeda’s reduced ability to operate in the U.S. after 9/11, it was using other groups, like Hamas, to conduct pre-operational surveillance of its targets. What is most historically earth-shattering is what follows the car stop.

The FBI executes a search warrant of Elbarasse’s home and vehicle in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of the residence is a sub-basement. In the sub-basement, the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood are discovered. Historical documents, financial documents, strategic documents, organizational documents, and all kinds of other items are found among this incredible discovery.

Many of these documents will be entered into evidence at the largest successfully prosecuted terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history – US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (or “HLF” for short). These documents were stipulated to by the defense counsel, meaning there is no legal basis to contest their validity as being what they purport to be.

These documents, in conjunction with testimony, recorded conversations, financial records, and other evidence entered at the HLF trial, as well as evidence revealed at other terrorism trials revealed a few key facts:

  1. Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic non-profit in the United States and it was a Hamas entity.
  2. The leaders of HLF were senior Hamas leaders.
  3. Hamas was created out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood.
  4. There is a significant Muslim Brotherhood Movement in the United States which began in the 1950’s.
  5. The first national Islamic organization, the Muslim Students Association, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood.
  6. The MB seeks to subordinate existing U.S. law to Shariah (Islamic Law) and re-establish the global Islamic State (Caliphate).
  7. The most prominent Islamic organizations in North America are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement to include, but not limited to: Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Students Association (MSA), International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which was demonstrated to be a Hamas entity in the United States.
  8. ISNA and NAIT are Hamas support entities.
  9. ICNA is partnered with the Muslim American Society (MAS), and their training program to Muslims across North America includes the call to “wage war” against all systems of government not under Islamic rule, and calls Muslims to “hate and despise” all un-Islamic governments, among other things.
  10. “Islamic Societies” and “Islamic Centers” across North America are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, meaning along with the mosques, non-profit organizations, lobbying groups, for-profit businesses, and the covert organizations controlled by the MB, the Muslim Brotherhood has thousands of entities in the U.S. at all levels of society working daily to bring Islamic law and Islamic rule to the United States.

What is most disturbing from this factual information is that federal agencies charged with the security of the United States, as well as state and local law enforcement organizations, have primarily worked with ISNA, CAIR, MSA, MAS or other hostile organization over the years – and continue to do so today. This creates a significant legal and practical danger to American citizens when the very agencies sworn to “protect and defend” are taking their advice from an enemy – the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas / Al Qaeda – who has made their violent objectives crystal clear to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

Even if someone chooses to believe the Muslim Brotherhood will never achieve its stated goals, what is clear is that the MB is well-organized, well led, well trained, well funded (primarily by Saudi Arabia), and has strategic objectives guided by tactical milestones to get them there. Across the United States, our state and federal officials are not even aware of the MB Movement here. While the MB might not achieve their objectives, the odds are heavily in their favor.

John Guandolo, Former FBI Special Agent and counter-terrorism expert is the Founder of Understanding the Threat, an organization dedicated to providing threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, education, and training for Federal, State and local agencies.

Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and took a commission as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served with 2d Battalion 2d Marines as an Infantry Platoon Commander in combat Operations Desert Shield/Storm. From 1991–1996, he served in 2d Force Reconnaissance Company as a Platoon Commander, Assistant Operations Officer, and the unit’s Airborne and Diving Officer. During this time, he also deployed to the Adriatic/Bosnia. He served for one year as the Unit Leader for the CINC’s In–Extremis Force, directly reporting to a Combatant Commander in a classified mission profile. Mr. Guandolo a graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger School, a combat diver, and a military freefall parachutist.
In 1996, Mr. Guandolo resigned his commission in the Marine Corps and joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), serving at the Washington Field Office. From 1996–2000, he primarily conducted narcotics investigations domestically and overseas. In 2001, he served for one year as the FBI Liaison to the U.S. Capitol Police investigating threats on the President, Vice President, Members of Congress and other high–level government officials. Shortly after 9/11, Mr. Guandolo began an assignment to the Counter-terrorism Division of the FBI’s Washington Field Office developing an expertise in the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Doctrine, the global Islamic Movement, and a myriad of terrorist organizations to include Hamas, Al Qaeda, and others.

In 2006, Mr. Guandolo created and implemented the FBI’s first Counterterrorism Training/Education Program focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood and their subversive movement in the United States, Islamic Doctrine, and the global Islamic Movement. He was designated a “Subject Matter Expert” by FBI Headquarters. This course was hailed as “groundbreaking” by the FBI’s Executive Assistant Director in a brief to the Vice President’s National Security Staff. For his efforts, in 2007 Mr. Guandolo was presented the “Defender of the Homeland” Award, by U.S. Senators John Kyl and Joseph Lieberman, on behalf of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. While at the FBI, Mr. Guandolo received two (2) United States Attorney’s Awards for Investigative Excellence.

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

More from John Guandolo:

 

 

Call to Purge Muslim Brotherhood Influence from US Government & Civic Life

images (71)

The Brotherhood’s creed: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

By Carol Washington:

I call upon the federal government and each elected representative to now, finally, recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as detrimental to human liberty and representative democracy and to remove its influence from our shores. Whether in Egypt or in America, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan), is ultimately a movement toward a global totalitarian sharia government and must be treated as such.

Confirmation of its objective is found in “The Muslim Brotherhood “Project””* (1982), wherein a 12-point strategy is outlined to “establish an Islamic government on earth.“ And in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America”** (1991 Memorandum), wherein the MB defines its subversive agenda in the United States as:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion (Islam) is made victorious over all other religions.”

I also call on the federal government to rescind dubious non-profit status for any entities and their leadership that are shown to have affiliation with the MB. In addition, where appropriate, to have these organizations and their leadership to register with the US government as foreign agents in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) which requires anyone “acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities” (see www.fara.gov).

The 1991 Memorandum lists 29 MB affiliated organizations including Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), and Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP, linked as a predecessor to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR). Some of these organizations and/or their leadership have been exposed as supporters of jihad terror. In a gleeful bracketed note the MB author of the list of states “Imagine if they all march according to one plan!!!” (exclamation points in the original).

“The Muslim Brotherhood “Project“” lists as a key point: “To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to “cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement”.” Just imagine if they really were to march according to one plan.

Further characterization of the MB is found in their creed: “Allah is our objective. Koran is our law. The prophet is our leader. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.” How far can this be from al-Qaeda’s desires?

However, jihad in the way of Allah to establish Islam and sharia law does not just mean violent, armed insurrection; it also means achieving ideological objectives by means of infiltration into positions of influence within government or as advisors, costly lawsuits claiming discrimination, threats designed to squelch speech, demands for public accommodation, ownership or intimidation of the media and an ever increasing burden on public assistance systems. Foreign funding of university-level Middle Eastern programs comes with strings, with historical and ideological viewpoints that may lean toward indoctrination and not scholarly investigation. Funding, text book modifications and ideological pressure is now also being felt in elementary schools.

Sharia law must not be seen as just a religious law for Muslims, for it is a totalitarian theo-political construct under which Muslims and non-Muslims are oppressed. In addition to its hostility to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and representative governance, at a minimum, sharia law conflicts with the US Constitution at Article IV Section 4 (republican form of government); 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion); 4th, 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments (personal security, due process); 8th Amendment (by allowing cruel and unusual punishments); and 10th Amendment (by prohibiting states’ rights). Ignorance and misplaced toleration of Islamic intolerance simply enables the advance of sharia and the retreat of open inquiry and the rule of Constitutional law.

One might reexamine the cogent letters Rep. Michele Bachmann and associates sent on June 13, 2012 to the Inspectors General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the Department of State requesting a multi-department investigation into potential MB infiltration into the US government. In addition, Rep. Bachmann’s July 13, 2012 letter to Rep. Keith Ellison is particularly illuminating and includes 59 relevant footnotes to aid the reader in exploring the concerns raised. Rep. Bachmann found these letters to be both necessary and “beyond timely”—given what is going on in Egypt, this cannot be overstated.

That Islam has not yet achieved its objective or that it seems unachievable is immaterial, the global and domestic efforts to do so are in themselves destructive of our nation and free society. Egypt is demonstrating its resolve and its tilt toward freedom by once again containing the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brothers; I think it is time for us to consider the same.

The bombs of Boston, the massacre at Fort Hood and the infiltration of our nation are each dots of jihad to be connected and used in defense of self. It is moral and right that we do so; it is unconscionable that we have delayed self-defense for so long.

“The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history.” ~ Serge Trifkovic

Signed,
Concerned Citizen

*”The Muslim Brotherhood “Project”” found here:http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/687

**”An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America” found here: http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20
July 6, 2013

335x503xExplanatory_Cover-web2.png.pagespeed.ic.qmLSHy1ZZH

Gaffney at Dallas Eagle Forum: Shariah and Civilization Jihad in America

Frank Gaffney spoke to the Dallas Eagle Forum on September 27, 2012, giving a short course on Shariah Law and Civilization Jihad in America.

 

 

Video: Glenn Beck Interviews a panel of experts on the Muslim Brotherhood influence in the U.S.

GBTV: Muslim Brotherhood Influence

Muslim Brotherhood Part One:

Muslim Brotherhood Part Two:

The Silent Terrorists: Muslim Brotherhood’s Political Terrorism Strategy

by Mudar Zahran at Gatestone Institute:

“The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” from: An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.

While the world has been occupied with Islamist terrorism for over a decade, it has been overlooking the silent terrorists who execute their agenda through politics rather than bombs.

These silent terrorists have, it seems, been taking over the “Arab Spring” countries one by one while the world has done little even to try to stop them, lest such attempts be seen as obstructions of democracy.

Has the Muslim Brotherhood outwitted all of us? It has been quietly putting into place the same expansionist agenda as the militant terrorists — to establish an fundamentalist Islamic realm — except with plans to accomplish this by means of politics rather than explosives and machine guns.

Since Sheikh Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928, it has been the embodiment of the Islamists’ movements, and transparent about its mission: “God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

Its goal, as stated by al-Banna is to establish a Muslim empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia. [Source: Davidson, Lawrence (1998) Islamic Fundamentalism Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn., ISBN 0-313-29978-1 pp. 97–98;]

Regrettably, these objectives entail destroying the Western Civilizations. As the Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” openly states: “The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The Brotherhood’s mid-course correction seeks to achieve its means by befriending people — by means of lavish invitations, or payments to lobbyists or promises of opulent permanent employment or of significant donations — to be introduced among in the topmost circles of influence in the nations being groomed for hollowing out. From there it is simple enough over smiles and good food, to proceed, as favors are granted by new friends. Meanwhile, the motto and mission statement never change; enemies are confused with friends, and attempts to silence of free speech — such as Yale University’s refusal to show the Mohammed Cartoons in a book on them by Jytte Klausen it published, possibly lest their appearance jeopardize a donation of millions being dangled before them; or the US and European legitimization of the “Istanbul Process.” a serious of conferences requested the by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation which has been seeking to have the United Nations internationally criminalize discussion of Islam — are confused with charming cultural quirks.

The US would do well to wake up to the truth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s real agenda; its strategy seems to be paying off.


Video: Progressive Islam

A connect the dots video which exposes the stealth Jihadist movement in America.This video has been fact checked for accuracy by top level security analysts.

Washington’s Secret History with the Muslim Brotherhood

Please note the date of this article. I am posting it to shed light on the fact that the United States foreign policy of courting the Muslim Brotherhood goes back as far as the Eisenhower administration in the 1950’s. The attitude that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” does not help you if that enemy plans to conquer you in the end! This demonstrates a profound ignorance of the ideology of Muslim Brotherhood. Dupes then, dupes now. Even this author, Ian Johnson, seems to think the Muslim Brotherhood can be trusted to be moderate! Why is nobody taking the Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum of Understanding or The Project seriously?

By Ian Johnson Feb. 5, 2011 at NYR blog:

As US-backed strongmen around North Africa and the Middle East are being toppled or shaken by popular protests, Washington is grappling with a crucial foreign-policy issue: how to deal with the powerful but opaque Muslim Brotherhood. In Egypt, the Brotherhood has taken an increasingly forceful part in the protests, issuing a statement Thursday calling for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. And though it is far from clear what role the Brotherhood would have should Mubarak step down, the Egyptian president has been claiming it will take over. In any case, the movement is likely to be a major player in any transitional government.

Journalists and pundits are already weighing in with advice on the strengths and dangers of this 83-year-old Islamist movement, whose various national branches are the most potent opposition force in virtually all of these countries. Some wonder how the Brotherhood will treat Israel, or if it really has renounced violence. Most—including the Obama administration —seem to think that it is a movement the West can do business with, even if the White House denies formal contacts.

If this discussion evokes a sense of déjà vu, this is because over the past sixty years we have had it many times before, with almost identical outcomes. Since the 1950s, the United States has secretly struck up alliances with the Brotherhood or its offshoots on issues as diverse as fighting communism and calming tensions among European Muslims. And if we look to history, we can see a familiar pattern: each time, US leaders have decided that the Brotherhood could be useful and tried to bend it to America’s goals, and each time, maybe not surprisingly, the only party that clearly has benefited has been the Brotherhood.

How can Americans be unaware of this history? Credit a mixture of wishful thinking and a national obsession with secrecy, which has shrouded the US government’s extensive dealings with the Brotherhood.

Consider President Eisenhower. In 1953, the year before the Brotherhood was outlawed by Nasser, a covert US propaganda program headed by the US Information Agency brought over three dozen Islamic scholars and civic leaders mostly from Muslim countries for what officially was an academic conference at Princeton University. The real reason behind the meeting was an effort to impress the visitors with America’s spiritual and moral strength, since it was thought that they could influence Muslims’ popular opinion better than their ossified rulers. The ultimate goal was to promote an anti-Communist agenda in these newly independent countries, many of which had Muslim majorities.

One of the leaders, according to Eisenhower’s appointment book, was “The Honorable Saeed Ramahdan, Delegate of the Muslim Brothers.”* The person in question (in more standard romanization, Said Ramadan), was the son-in-law of the Brotherhood’s founder and at the time widely described as the group’s “foreign minister.” (He was also the father of the controversial Swiss scholar of Islam, Tariq Ramadan.)

Eisenhower officials knew what they were doing. In the battle against communism, they figured that religion was a force that US could make use of—the Soviet Union was atheist, while the United States supported religious freedom. Central Intelligence Agency analyses of Said Ramadan were quite blunt, calling him a “Phalangist” and a “fascist interested in the grouping of individuals for power.” But the White House went ahead and invited him anyway.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Oval Office with a group of Muslim delegates, 1953. Said Ramadan is second from the right.

By the end of the decade, the CIA was overtly backing Ramadan. While it’s too simple to call him a US agent, in the 1950s and 1960s the United States supported him as he took over a mosque in Munich, kicking out local Muslims to build what would become one of the Brotherhood’s most important centers—a refuge for the beleaguered group during its decades in the wilderness. In the end, the US didn’t reap much for its efforts, as Ramadan was more interested in spreading his Islamist agenda than fighting communism. In later years, he supported the Iranian revolution and likely aided the flight of a pro-Teheran activist who murdered one of the Shah’s diplomats in Washington.

Cooperation ebbed and flowed. During the Vietnam War, US attention was focused elsewhere but with the start of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, interest in cultivating Islamists picked up again. That period of backing the mujahedeen— some of whom morphed into al-Qaeda—is well-known, but Washington continued to flirt with Islamists, and especially the Brotherhood.

In the years after the September 11 attacks, the United States initially went after the Brotherhood, declaring many of its key members to be backers of terrorism. But by Bush’s second term, the US was losing two wars in the Muslim world and facing hostile Muslim minorities in Germany, France, and other European countries, where the Brotherhood had established an influential presence. The US quietly changed its position.

The Bush administration devised a strategy to establish close relations with Muslim groups in Europe that were ideologically close to the Brotherhood, figuring that it could be an interlocutor in dealing with more radical groups, such as the home-grown extremists in Paris, London and Hamburg. And, as in the 1950s, government officials wanted to project an image to the Muslim world that Washington was close to western-based Islamists. So starting in 2005, the State Department launched an effort to woo the Brotherhood. In 2006, for example, it organized a conference in Brussels between these European Muslim Brothers and American Muslims, such as the Islamic Society of North America, who are considered close to the Brotherhood. All of this was backed by CIA analyses, with one from 2006 saying the Brotherhood featured “impressive internal dynamism, organization, and media savvy.” Despite the concerns of western allies that supporting the Brotherhood in Europe was too risky, the CIA pushed for cooperation. As for the Obama administration, it carried over some of the people on the Bush team who had helped devise this strategy.

Why the enduring interest in the Brotherhood? Since its founding in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher and imam Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood has managed to voice the aspirations of the Muslim world’s downtrodden and often confused middle class. It explained their backwardness in an interesting mixture of fundamentalism and fascism (or reactionary politics and xenophobia): today’s Muslims aren’t good enough Muslims and must return to the true spirit of the Koran. Foreigners, especially Jews, are part of a vast conspiracy to oppress Muslims. This message was—and still is—delivered through a modern, political party-like structure, that includes women’s groups, youth clubs, publications and electronic media, and, at times, paramilitary wings. It has also given birth to many of the more violent strains of radical Islamism, from Hamas to al-Qaeda, although many of such groups now find the Brotherhood too conventional. Little wonder that the Brotherhood, for all its troubling aspects, is interesting to western policy makers eager to gain influence in this strategic part of the world.

But the Brotherhood has been a tricky partner. In countries where it aspires to join the political mainstream, it renounces the use of violence locally. Hence the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says it no longer seeks to overthrow the regime violently—although its members there think nothing of calling for Israel’s destruction. In Egypt, the Brotherhood also says it wants religious courts to enforce shariah, but at times has also said that secular courts could have final say. This isn’t to suggest that its moderation is just for show, but it’s fair to say that the Brotherhood has only partially embraced the values of democracy and pluralism.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi

The group’s most powerful cleric, the Qatar-based Youssef Qaradawi, epitomizes this bifurcated worldview. He says women should be allowed to work and that in some countries, Muslims may hold mortgages (which are based on interest, a taboo for fundamentalists). But Qaradawi advocates the stoning of homosexuals and the murder of Israeli children—because they will grow up and could serve as soldiers.

Qaradawi is hardly an outlier. In past years, he has often been mentioned as a candidate to be the Egyptian branch’s top leader. He is very likely the most influential cleric in the Muslim world—on Friday, for example, thousands of Egyptian protesters in Tahrir Square listened to a broadcast of his sermon. He has also declared those demonstrators who have died defying the government to be martyrs.

That is an indication of the Brotherhood’s growing influence in the wave of protests around the region. In Egypt, the Brotherhood, after a slow start, has become a key player in the anti-government coalition; on Thursday, the new vice president, Omar Suleiman, invited the Brotherhood for talks. In Jordan, where the group is legal, King Abdullah met with the Brotherhood for the first time in a decade. And in Tunis, the Islamist opposition leader Rachid Ghanouchi, who has been a pillar of the Brotherhood’s European network, recently returned home from his London exile.

All of this points to the biggest difference between then and now. Half a century ago, the West chose to make use of the Brotherhood for short-term tactical gain, later backing many of the authoritarian governments that were also trying to wipe out the group. Now, with those governments tottering, the West has little choice; after decades of oppression, it is the Brotherhood, with its mixture of age-old fundamentalism and modern political methods, that is left standing.

* The appointment book and details of Ramadan’s visit are in the Eisenhower presidential archives in Abilene, Kansas. See my book A Mosque in Munich, pp. 116-119, for details of the visit. On the use of the Brotherhood post-9/11, see pp 222-228.

See also by Ian Johnson:

 

Five Questions for the Mainstream Media on Islam and Jihad

Erick Stakelbeck:

I’m currently wrapping up a report that will air on tomorrow’s CBN’s “The 700 Club” program about the recent string of successful pressure campaigns orchestrated by the notorious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in silencing critics of the Muslim Brotherhood.

You won’t want to miss this one, featuring Gen. Jerry Boykin, former Islamic terrorist Kamal Saleem, and others. I’ll be posting the video here on the blog tomorrow.

In the meantime, however, working on this story and observing the furor over the accidental Afghan Koran burning–and the mainstream media’s choice to scold the American military while soft-pedaling–even excusing–the deadly Islamic riots that followed–has raised a few questions in my mind that I’d like to pose to our leftist, “tolerant” and ever-faithful multi-culti chums at The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, NBC, etc. Here goes (in no particular order):

1) Why do you regularly seek out CAIR officials for quotes and soundbites in news reports as if they represent a legitimate, mainstream and moderate Muslim organization without mentioning the following facts? A) In 2007, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. B) In 2009, a federal judge ruled that “ample evidence” existed linking CAIR to the terrorist group Hamas.

2) How many of you have summoned up the intellectual curiosity to actually read the Koran and hadiths and study Islamic history? Shouldn’t you have at least a passing knowledge of the subject matter before making the knee-jerk, uneducated, wishful conclusion that Islam is, at its core, a “religion of peace?”

3) How many of you have read the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum that was uncovered by the FBI in 2004 in the home of a top Brotherhood operative living in northern Virginia? Talk about a huge story that the public should know about! It lays out the MB’s plan to destroy America from within and identifies several of the groups you and the U.S. government are so fond of–including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Public Affairs Council (MPAC)–as Brotherhood-connected entities. This document literally represents the enemy’s battle plan to take down the United States. And you are playing right into their hands. Do you even care?

4) In your rush to warn against military action against Iran’s nuclear facilites and assure us that Iran is a rational actor that can be contained, have any of you taken the time to research the apocalyptic, expansionist, Mahdi-and-martyrdom obsessed ideology of Iran’s regime? Here is a good place to start.

5) When will you admit that the so-called “Arab Spring” that you were so thrilled about has devolved into a long, dark Islamist Winter that has empowered Islamic fanatics across the Middle East and North Africa and seriously endangered the security of America and Israel?

Any MSMers who can answer these questions with a semblance of rationality, clarity and intellectual honesty will receive an American flag lapel pin that they can easily bury in their office drawers.