Tag Archives: Senate

Obama’s ‘Friends of Hamas’?

Posted on by
2

2096850925By Frank Gaffney:

Last week, twenty-five Republican Senators wrote a former member of their caucus and the man President Obama wants to lead the Defense Department a letter demanding full disclosure of his financial dealings.  To date, Sen. Chuck Hagel has demonstrated afresh his contempt for the legislature by declining to do so.

To their credit, the Senators, including the GOP leadership and every member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have thrown down the gauntlet.  They warned Mr. Hagel:  “Your refusal to respond to this reasonable request suggests either a lack of respect for the Senate’sresponsibility to advise and consent or that you are for some reason unwilling to allow this financial disclosure to come to light.”  The signers added:

“Until the Committee receives full and complete answers, it cannot in good faith determine wither you should be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.”

It may be that the Hagel appointment has now been effectively checkmated.  Should the nominee continue to stonewall, even Democrats – who are under immense pressure to hew to the party line, but were privately appalled by his performance during a confirmation hearing two weeks ago – get a face-saving way to disassociate themselves from this loser.

But Mr. Hagel may have, as a practical matter, no choice but to try to brazen it out.  Breitbart.com last week (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/07/Hagel-Friends-of-Hamas-WH) quoted Senate sources as saying that among the requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is one listing “a group purportedly called ‘Friends of Hamas.’”  At this writing and absent the requested disclosure, it cannot be determined whether Chuck Hagel is literally associated with the “friends” of a designated terrorist organization.  But the mere fact that it seems entirely plausible – given the nominee’s record of hostility towards Israel and his affinity for its enemies (including Hamas’ long-time sponsor, Iran), his refusal to make the sort of disclosure expected of all Cabinet appointees should be the last straw for Senate Republicans and Democrats, alike.

Incredibly, President Obama’s candidate to lead the Central Intelligence Agency could reasonably be considered a friend of Hamas, as well.  After all, he has been among the Obama appointees to engage with a group called the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  This despite the fact that no fewer than four federal judges have, in connection with the 2008 federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation on terrorism financing charges, concurred that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front.

Indeed, in the course of that prosecution, the government established that CAIR had been founded in 1993 for the purpose of providing political and fund-raising support for Hamas.  Yet, on John Brennan’s watch as counterterrorism czar for the first term of the Obama presidency, administration officials have, according to one, met “more than 100 times” with representatives of this terrorist organization’s U.S. influence operation.

Read more at Center for Security Policy

Please Call Your U.S. Senators: Register your Opposition To Chuck Hagel As Our Next Secretary Of Defense

Posted on by
Reply

*** ACT FOR AMERICA TIME-SENSITIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTION ALERT ***

Tomorrow, Thursday, January 31st, the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to consider the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as our next Secretary of Defense. If the Committee approves the nomination, the full Senate will then cast a vote on this matter.

ACT! for America opposes the nomination of Mr. Hagel to this highly important position within the U.S. Government.

We feel there are a host of reasons why his appointment would be dangerous to the
security of our nation. Our level of concern led us recently to express our
opposition directly to the leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee via
a formal letter.

Now, we need the voice of the American people—the Senate’s constituency—to be heard on this issue. Every U.S. Senator needs to understand the level of opposition that exists to Mr. Hagel’s nomination—and some compelling reasons for that opposition.

We offer below only some of Mr. Hagel’s actions and statements over the years that deeply concern us.

Soft on Iran –

Mr. Hagel consistently has been soft on the Iranian regime, repeatedly voting against Iran sanctions, and in 2005 even proposing that Iran play a role in the shaping of the new Iraqi government. At a time when the Iranian regime is blatantly flaunting its efforts to bolster its nuclear weapon capabilities, this approach by our nation’s Secretary of Defense is not only short-sighted, but also extremely dangerous.

Favors Dialogue with Terrorist Regimes and Groups –

In 2009, Mr. Hagel stated his belief that the U.S. should negotiate with the regime of Bashir Al Assad of Syria. He has said the same about our nation’s approach to Hezbollah and Hamas. Further, in 2009, Mr. Hagel sent a letter to the President stating that Israel must begin open negotiations with Hamas.

Hostile Toward Israel –

There are numerous examples of Mr. Hagel’s hostility toward Israel and the Jewish-American community. He has stated that the “Jewish Lobby” is a problem on Middle East issues, and in 1999 he was the only member of the U.S. Senate not to sign a letter condemning growing anti-Semitism in Russia. As yet another example of his views on Israel, in 2006, when Hezbollah entered Israel, killed two Israeli soldiers, and fired thousands of rockets on Northern Israel, only one Senator—Chuck Hagel—publicly admonished Israel for defending itself.

Supports Abolishment of Nuclear Weapons –

At a globally dangerous period, Mr. Hagel endorses Global Zero, a movement that seeks the abolition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a recent AP article by Robert Burns, Chuck Hagel “would be the first to enter the Pentagon as a public advocate for sharply reducing the number of U.S. nuclear weapons—possibly without equivalent cuts by Russia.”

These are but a few examples of his disconcerting approach to national security and defense-related issues, but even with these few examples—need we say more?

Our nation simply cannot afford an administration official who has this nonsensical
approach to our efforts around some of the most dangerous parts of the world.
The only way to have any chance of stopping it is to speak out.

** Important and Time-Sensitive Action Item **

Please take a moment today and tomorrow to call your two U.S. Senators.

Politely, but firmly, let them know that you are a constituent and that you are very
much opposed to the nomination of Chuck Hagel as our next Secretary of Defense.

NOTE: If you need help locating your legislators, visit our Contact Congress page by clicking HERE. Type in your zip code where indicated to locate your U.S. Senators. Once located, click on your Senator and you can then see his/her contact information, including the phone number of the Washington, DC office.

If you know the name of your U.S. Senators, you also can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be patched through to those particular offices.

Again, please make your calls NOW and forward this action request to everyone you know who shares your concern. As a constituent, your voice and opinion is tremendously powerful. You CAN make a difference.

See also:

Military leaders oppose Hagel nomination (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)

An Open Letter of Appeal to U.S. Senators: Chuck Hagel is a Global Security Risk! (facebook.com) Letter you can copy and email to your senators

A World Without America

Posted on by
1

flag distressCenter for Security Policy

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that “a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable.”  While that sentiment won’t be embraced in President Obama’s inaugural address next week, all other things being equal, it seems likely to be the practical effect of his second term.

Of course, Iran’s regime seeks a world literally without America.  More to the point, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Tehran are working tirelessly to secure the means by which to accomplish that goal.  Specifically, they have or are developing the ability to engage in devastating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, biological warfare and other asymmetric terrorist strikes.

For his part, Barack Obama seems to have in mind bringing about a world without America in a geo-strategic sense.  As Mark Steyn notes in a characteristically brilliant essay in National Review Online, that would be “Obamacare’s other shoe.” It would amount to a “fundamental transformation” of America’s place in the world, evidently intended to be the President’s second-act counterpart to the socialist transformation of this country that dominated his first term.

That agenda is strongly evident in Mr. Obama’s choices for key national security cabinet positions: John Kerry at the State Department, Chuck Hagel at Defense and John Brennan at the CIA.  The three are, like the President, imbued with a post-American, post-sovereignty, post-constitutional, transnationalist outlook.  In his administration, it would appear that their mission would be, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka puts it, to manage the United States’ decline.

Having addressed previously in this space the serious problems with the judgment, records and policy proclivities of Messrs. Hagel  and Kerry let’s consider those of John Brennan to further illustrate the syndrome.

Brennan is a textbook example of a U.S. official who has “gone native.”  He speaks Arabic and was formerly the top CIA officer in Saudi Arabia.  He has shown himself to be deeply sympathetic to Islamists — for example, excusing and dissembling about their commitment to jihad and the necessity of not offending them.

After President Obama himself, John Brennan is, arguably, the single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists’ agenda in government today. In his role as Homeland Security Advisor to the President — a position that does not require Senate confirmation and that he was given as a consolation prize when it became clear that he might not be confirmable as CIA director back in 2009 — Brennan has helped legitimate, empower, fund, arm and embolden them abroad, and embraced and appeased them here at home.

Of particular concern is the fact that John Brennan has presided over: the policy of engaging the Muslim Brotherhood, which has consequently been portrayed by a politicized intelligence community as “largely secular” and “eschewing violence”; the shredding of training briefings and the proscribing of trainers that might upset Muslims by telling the truth about shariah and the jihad it commands; the penetration of U.S. agencies by Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals as employees and/or senior advisors; and misrepresentations to Congress about the true, jihadist character of the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi last September 11th.

Of particular concern is the prospect that Team Obama’s second-term team will, if confirmed, be even more insistent than their predecessors on engaging Iran.  Make no mistake about it:  The practical effect will be to buy the regime in Tehran the last few months it evidently needs to achieve what it has sought for decades: the means to have the world not only bereft of America’s leadership and stabilizing force, but to neutralize and perhaps eliminate the United States as a 21st Century society.

Ordinarily, a president should be given wide latitude by the Senate to appoint those he wants to staff his administration.  This is no ordinary time, though, and this is no ordinary president or administration.  The circumstances are such that a Team Obama that is pursuing so dangerous a policy course must be challenged and impeded, not encouraged and abetted.

The Senate’s constitutional responsibility to confirm senior executive branch appointees is one of the few it hasn’t compromised, or allowed the president to expropriate.  It must exercise its authority to assure “quality control” with respect to his picks for top national security cabinet posts.

Indeed, the fact that President Obama seeks not one or two, but three individuals who share his determination to achieve the radical and dangerous national security transformation he seeks in his second term demands that Senators defy him.  After all, should the Senate fail to object to this trajectory by rigorously debating and defeating any — and preferably all — of these problematic choices, its members risk not only allowing, but becoming party to, the realization of a world without America.

Shoebat Exclusive: Michele Bachmann’s Critics are ‘Lions in Peace but Deer in Fight’

Posted on by
1

Walid Shoebat

While there are many chickens standing in line to peck at Rep. Michele Bachmann’s head while calling her shameful and demanding that she “fess up or shut up” perhaps its time to ask such ‘truth-phobic’ critics why they’ve chosen to indignantly point to “character assassination” when they, themselves are the actual practitioners of it. Senator John McCain, stated on the Senate floor:

“The letter (from Bachmann and four other Congressmen) alleges that three members of Huma’s family are ‘connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations…’ These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family”.

McCain’s statements above are demonstrably false. The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies / Islamic Trust Annual Reports of the Board of Trustees from the official government of Great Britain has Hassan Abedin – Huma’s brother – partnering with notorious Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the spiritual head and the international liaison of the Muslim Brotherhood, a known enemy of the United States and closely works with the notorious Al-Qaeda Godfather Omar Naseef whose signature is on the document that includes Huma’s brother Hassan Abedin on his board in 2004-2005 (see page 7), 2005-2006 (see page 7), and 2007-2008 (see page 12).

How can this organization (OCIS) be ‘Pro-West’ while Naseef and Qaradawi are both actively partnering with Huma Abedin’s brother?

The following statement made by McCain on the Senate floor not only defies logic but is completely irrelevant:

“Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago.”

Ah, the sympathy card… There’s a small problem for McCain here; emotion is devoid of logic. Using his formula, Osama Bin Laden’s children should be given a pass to work in the US Government in 2031 without being vetted.

Saleha Abedin (Huma’s mother) is a leader in the Muslim Sisterhood and a member of the terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood, which gave birth to al-Qaeda. Again, using McCain’s logic, shouldn’t we wait until 20 years after Huma’s mother croaks before Huma should be eligible to hold such a lofty position?

No one on earth can refute that Huma Abedin’s mother supports marital rape, under-age marriage, polygamy and her membership of the Muslim Brotherhood is circulated in the Arab media. These are facts that should be presented to the American people to see if they think this is all guilt by association but… facts are facts.

Siham al-Qaradawi, the daughter of Yusuf Qaradawi was awarded a scholarship in the Fulbright Academic Program in 2010-2011 in the US. If we use John McCain’s logic, we cannot reject her to work in the government as “guilt by association” just because her father, Sheikh Yousuf Qaradawi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, it was 18 years ago that he proclaimed:

“We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not by the sword but by our Dawa [proselytizing].”

In two years, those words will be two decades old. Can we ignore them then?

Applying McCain’s logic regarding Huma Abedin to Siham al-Qaradawi is the equivalent of a national suicide wish. McCain stated:

“…there is not one instance of an action, a decision, or a public position that Huma [Abedin] has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government.”

The same applies to Siham Qaradawi. Would McCain find it acceptable for her to work in our government? Of course not. So who has lost their mind here? John McCain, the liberal media, or Bachmann? Was Bachman insane to state that:

“Most recently, the State Department shockingly decided to give Hani Nour Eldin, a member of an Egyptian designed terrorist group, a visa to not only enter the country in violation of the federal laws …”?

Bachmann’s former campaign chief – Ed Rollins – wrote that as a “Christian”, Bachmann should “seek forgiveness” for what she has done to Huma Abedin.

Politicians who behave as deer in fight and lions in peace have never made history. Churchill made it, Chamberlin did not. With respect to this issue, the Senator from Arizona has positioned himself to become John McChamberlain and The congresswoman from Minnesota just got a wink from Sir Winston.

Then we have some Rabbi by the name of Saperstein, who stated:

“The Reform Movement, and I personally, have worked with Ms. Abedin, Imam Magid and ISNA for many years. All have worked on behalf of U.S. interests at home and abroad, built relationships across religious lines and affirmed U.S. constitutional values.”

Where is Saperstein’s similar outrage at Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) President Imam Magid? Why hasn’t he called on Magid to condemn ISNA’s Louay Safi, who wrote:

“The war against the apostates [Saperstein] is carried out not to force them to accept Islam, but to enforce the Islamic law and maintain order.”

 (Louay Safi, Religion and Politics pp.121)

Did Saperstein say or do anything when Safi was chosen by ISNA and approved by our government to lecture our troops at Ft. Hood after the Jew hating murderer of innocent Americans Nidal Malik Hassan committed the massacre? This would be like bringing a Nazi to speak to American Jews right after Auschwitz.

Then we have Keith Ellison, who told Anderson Cooper on CNN:

“U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s allegations of a Muslim Brotherhood “deep penetration” of the federal government is “untrue” and a “phantom”.

Dare Mr. Ellison deny that Barrack Obama’s Islamic envoy Rashad Hussein, who was appointed by the government, made comments to the Musim Student Association in 2004 supporting the convicted terrorist fundraiser Sami al-Arian? Can he or anyone deny that the Muslim Brotherhood founded the Muslim Student Association and intends to destroy the U.S.?

The “proof” can be viewed in this English translation of an Arabic website.

Read more

No Surprise Here: Useful Idiots at HSBC turned blind eye to terrorist money

Posted on by
1

SFW:

Regular readers of SFW know that we are no fans of HSBC.

After all, HSBC has been at the forefront of the financial jihad to facilitate Shariah-compliant finance on a global scale.

Moreover, HSBC employed the Jihadist monster Mufti Taqi Usmani as the chair of their Shariah Advisory Board. Then, when the heat over that relationship became too hot, they cynically replaced him…with his son. We detailed all of this over the past couple of years:

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2009/02/27/hsbcs-shariah-man/

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2010/03/09/mufti-taqi-usmani-no-longer-chief-of-hsbcs-shariah-advisory-board/

Given HSBC’s association with Jihadists like Usmani and their deep involvement with the promotion of Shariah, the fact that they have proven to be lax at compliance with counterterrorism money laundering laws and regulations should come as no surprise. That too is a topic that we have covered here on SFW:

Like the time that they were fined $1 billion for lax money laundering compliance:

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2011/05/24/hsbc-to-be-fined-1-billion-for-lax-money-laundering-compliance/

In fact, there is no doubt that HSBC is the Western world’s chief enabler of Jihad and Shariah:

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2012/05/04/hsbc-leading-western-enabler-of-financial-jihad/

On top of all this OLD news, we have fresh reports that HSBC has not learned its lesson at all. In fact, HSBC appears to have been hard at work doing the same things for which they have been fingered in the past. A report released yesterday by the US Senate details HSBC’s deplorable record when it comes to vigilance in the areas of terrorism and other nefarious activities. It almost seems as if HSBC was the bank of choice for evil when you read about their history and couple it with the Senate report.

The worst part and probably the biggest smoking gun that HSBC cannot dismiss these charges as simply a matter of carelessness? How about THOUSANDS of transactions involving the Islamic Republic of Iran in violation of sanctions!

Again, this should come as no surprise. After all, Iran is the world’s most active state sponsor of Jihadist terrorism and also dominates the world of Shariah-compliant finance. Seems like a natural fit for the useful idiots (and perhaps worse) at HSBC:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/16/news/companies/hsbc-money-laundering/index.htm