New Extremist Foxes Welcomed into U.S. Chicken Coop

by Douglas Murray:

Say hello again to two of the most over-promoted and sinister figures involved with the current U.S. government: Mohamed Elibiary and Dalia Mogahed. If you were one of those Christian Copts standing in the ruins of your village or church, what message would you take from all this?

Imagine that in recent weeks alone, dozens of Muslims around the world had been murdered by Christian extremists armed with suicide belts and similar paraphernalia.

Imagine that at the same time, around other parts of the world, Christian mobs had set fire to, and burned to the ground, the holy places of some of the oldest and most established Muslim communities in the world.

Do you think there would be a reaction to such events? Probably yes.

Would that reaction be wholly negative and unceasing in its condemnation? Probably yes.

Would it be remotely conceivable that a senior U.S. government official or advisor would have used the opportunity to claim that Muslims who had been targeted had brought it upon themselves? Probably no.

Welcome then to the mirror-image of the real-world persecution of Christians that is going on across the globe today.

And say hello again to two of the most appallingly over-promoted and sinister figures involved with the current U.S. government: Mohamed Elibiary and Dalia Mogahed.

Of course, you may not want to: as the terror goes on worldwide, and the situation around the globe slips continuously in the Islamists’ general direction, there is a growing and terrific ennui among much of the West. Among much of the Western world, terrorists’ marauding is another case of, “Oh, just that Islamism again.” You say a person is not good? Well, we can’t be bothered to find out. The very condition that so few people can raise themselves to be bothered is part of the problem: “The trouble with all the nice people I knew in Germany,” the British author Stephen Spender wrote in his Berlin diary in the 1930s, “is that they were either tired or weak.”

Thankfully there are a number of people who can still rouse themselves to point out how outrageous Western governments’ hiring policies are these days  as when Mohamed Elibiary was promoted to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council. Yet despite these heroic individuals pointing out Elibiary’s track record of support for Islamists worldwide, the appointment held — and so it was that the U.S. government welcomed another fox into its chicken coop.

Now an American official can not only fail to stand by America’s friends – he can actually blame them for the persecution they are suffering.

Over recent days, one of the effects of this has already been felt: in September, when violence against Egypt’s Copts had reached another peak, the new Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security Advisor, Elibiary, used his twitter account to blame American Coptic activists for the murder of their co-religionists by Muslim Brotherhood extremists of the type Elibiary has a track record of supporting.

On September 15, he wrote, “For decade since 9/11 attack extremist American Coptic activists have nurtured anti Islam and anti Muslim sentiments among AM RT wing.” A day earlier, Elibiary blamed American Copts for protesting against attacks on their relatives in Egypt, and recommended an article “on need to reform #Coptic activism in #US including stop promoting #Islamophobia.”

So while Copts were actually being targeted and killed in Egypt, Mr. Elbiary chose to try to switch attention onto the fictional persecution of Muslims in the U.S. There is nothing quite like someone excusing one crime-in-progress by citing a non-existent other crime — except for, of course, a U.S. government official doing the same.

Unfortunately, thanks to our enthusiastic, politically-correct attitudes and radical Islamist ideologies, Elibiary is not alone in the U.S. administration.

It was Dalia Mogahed, you will recall, who helped President Obama draft the 2009 Cairo Speech — a “reset” speech, regarded as seminal across several rooms in the White House. It was Mogahed who helped draft the address which apologized for America’s past actions while giving the benefit of the doubt to most of its self-stated enemies.

 

Dalia Mogahed, advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Mogahed is not only one of the geniuses credited with that speech; her record also includes other glowing occasions. Such as the time, that same year, in which she cropped up on a U.K. television program, which aired on the most notorious satellite Islamist channel. Mogahed took part in a discussion about the empowerment of women through Sharia. She participated, seemingly happily, in the program hosted — and introduced as such — by a member of the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Mogahed also seemed unfazed when, for instance, passionate fellow participants called for the restoration of the Caliphate (a key pipedream of Hizb-ut-Tahrir).

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

The FBI and the Muslim Brotherhood

ijg3D_mo9KB8-450x333 By :

A recent report in Mother Jones magazine has given the lie to FBI Director Robert Mueller’s defense of his agency’s failure to take any action against Nidal Hasan, despite intercepting a series of emails between the mass murderer and terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, beginning as early as 2008. Appearing on CBS News last Thursday, Mueller was asked if his agency “dropped the ball.” ”No, I think, given the context of the discussions and the situation that the agents and the analysts were looking at, they took appropriate steps,” he responded.

Mueller’s statements are shocking in light of the mountain of evidence showing FBI dereliction of duty, which is now finally getting the media attention it deserves. On the other hand, Mueller’s remarks make perfect sense given the Obama administration’s long and disturbing track record of allowing Islamists to shape U.S. national security policy, including at the FBI. Mueller himself has been Obama’s point man in that effort.

Recall that in 2012, the FBI eliminated 876 pages and 392 presentations from its counterterrorism training manuals. At the time, FBI spokesman Christopher Allen said that the Bureau found some of the material to be inaccurate, too broad or, in some cases, offensive, because it allegedly characterized Muslims as prone to violence and/or terrorism. Four criteria were used in the purge, including the politically incorrect metrics of “poor taste” and “stereotyping.” Former Congressman Allen West (R-FL) made a stir at the time for characterizing the purge as “cultural suicide” that was influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and its associated groups.

Unfortunately, West was exactly right. On February 16, 2012 the Washington Post revealed that the FBI met with a coalition of Muslim groups eight days earlier to consider a proposal that “a coalition of Muslim and interfaith groups … establish a committee of experts to review materials used in FBI anti-terrorism training.” Those meeting with Mueller included the Muslim Brotherhood front groups the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), despite its listing by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-funding trial, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC’s president, Salam al-Marayati, had previously written an LA Times column threatening the FBI with non-cooperation from the Muslim community if the FBI didn’t apologize to Americans Muslims and establish a proper vetting process along with an inter-agency task force to conduct an independent review of the training material.

Despite these revelations, the Obama administration has stonewalled investigation into FBI “guidelines” on Islam curricula, forcing the government watchdog group Judicial Watch to sue both the FBI and the DOJ for their failure to honor Freedom of Information Act requests. But remarkably, the FBI has continued to push the envelope. In late 2012, the Bureau released a new document online called “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training.” The document contains a disturbing clause instructing agents that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).” In other words, even those who may be involved with a terrorist group’s “charity arm,” which many groups have as a funding mechanism and as a means of cover, cannot be assumed to be supporting terrorism and must be given the benefit of the doubt.

In June of 2013, investigative journalist Patrick Poole revealed how far the Obama administration has taken its warped philosophy. In “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” Poole extensively chronicles the administration’s effort to take some of the same groups it has called terrorists in federal court and turn them into “outreach partners.”  Poole further cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who later transitioned into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts.

Even many people under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy (long before the Foot Hood massacre took place). According to Poole, this was part of “a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the [FBI] and throughout the U.S. government … against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.”

Read more at Front Page

National Defense vs. the Ideology of Jihad

MBUSASealsby Clare M. Lopez:

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the deliberate blinding of our homeland security defense capabilities, perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in close cooperation with the witting, willing assistance of our own national security agency leadership , is propelling the U.S. towards catastrophe.

Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole has compiled a meticulously-documented record of disastrous U.S. policy behavior that is as chilling as it is comprehensive. In “Blind Terror: The U.S. Government’s Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy,” published 4 June 2013 in the MERIA Journal, Poole describes the aggressive efforts of successive U.S. administrations dating back at least to the Clinton years to forge conciliatory relationships with American Muslim individuals and groups that are legally, openly on record as known supporters of jihadi terrorism and Islamic shariah law.

While Poole’s superb analysis focuses on the catastrophic results of such policies for U.S. national security and that of our regional friends and allies – policies still unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region — an equally catastrophic potential attends to these policies domestically, in the homeland. The methodical blinding of the intelligence community, its seventeen aggregated agencies, and security and law enforcement units across the country is the unavoidable result of this kind of “outreach” to jihadists, who are determined to outlaw consideration of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor for terror attacks. At some point, if allowed to continue, such blinding must necessarily result in the effective neutralization of these front line defenses such that they are incapable of responding in a timely manner to prevent high-casualty terrorist attacks.

U.S. capitulation to the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah was set, perhaps irrevocably, by President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Speaking at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2001, where he was flanked by some of the top Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the country, Bush declared: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace”.

But as Poole’s careful research chronicles, during the Obama administration, the Muslim Brotherhood’s decades-long infiltration campaign of targeting senior policy-making levels of the U.S. government not only accelerated, but arguably reached critical mass. In a stunning sequence of events beginning in late 2011, and at the urging of identifiable affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, all U.S. government training curriculum that explained the irrefragable connection between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism was literally purged of such content. Additionally, subject matter experts identified as “enemies” by the administration’s Muslim advisors henceforth were summarily banned from providing truthful training about Islam to U.S. government employees or for U.S. government-funded classes. At the same time, a critical Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) policy based on the so-called “Touchstone” document went into effect that says mere membership in a violent (that is, terrorist) organization that also demonstrates “legitimate (advocacy)…objectives” should not result in a conclusion that members endorse the “illicit objective(s)” of that organization. The Touchstone policy clearly was meant to place the administration’s Muslim Brotherhood advisors beyond the reach of criticism, even when such criticism is based on public court records such as the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial documents and unindicted co-conspirators list. Touchstone effectively immunizes these advisors, these agents of influence for a power openly hostile to this country, Constitution, and society, from the legal and security scrutiny and suspicion to which they otherwise rightly would be subject.

The inescapable effect of this policy is to permit a growing vulnerability to terrorist attack in the American homeland. And not just permit: the Touchstone policy literally ensures circumstances that make such attacks inevitable. National, regional, and local security forces that are not permitted to know the enemy, or understand what motivates that enemy to move from hostile belief to terrorist action, have a diminished chance to pre-empt Islamic terror attacks and are relegated to reliance on hit-or-miss sting and surveillance operations — or post-attack law enforcement investigations in the aftermath of another Boston Marathon bombing. To the extent that the insinuation of the Touchstone policy into U.S. national security strategy was the calculated effort of this country’s jihadist enemies — undetected by those responsible for U.S. counterintelligence — the safety and security of American citizens slip inescapably under the threat of more attacks.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Why Expanded Government Spying Doesn’t Mean Better Security Against Terrorism

images (61)By Barry Rubin:

What is most important to understand about the revelations of massive message interception by the U.S. government is this: in counterterrorist terms, it is a farce.

There is a fallacy behind the current intelligence strategy of the United States, behind this collection of up to three billion phone calls a day, of emails, and even of credit card expenditures, not to mention the government spying on the mass media. It is this:

The more quantity of intelligence, the better it is for preventing terrorism.

In the real, practical world this is untrue, though it might seem counterintuitive. You don’t need — to put it in an exaggerated way — an atomic bomb against a flea.  Basically the NSA, as one of my readers suggested, is the digital equivalent of the TSA strip-searching an 80 year-old Minnesota grandmothers rather than profiling and focusing on the likely terrorists.

Isn’t it absurd that the United States — which can’t finish a simple border fence to keep out potential terrorists; can’t stop a would-be terrorist in the U.S. Army who gives a PowerPoint presentation on why he is about to shoot people (Major Nidal Hasan); can’t follow up on Russian intelligence warnings about Chechen terrorist contacts (the Boston bombing); or a dozen similar incidents — must now collect every telephone call in the country?

Isn’t it absurd that under this system, a photo-shop clerk has to stop an attack on Fort Dix by overcoming his fear of appearing “racist” to report a cell of terrorists?

That it was left to brave passengers to jump a would-be “underpants bomber” from Nigeria, because his own father’s warning that he was a terrorist was insufficient?

Isn’t it absurd that terrorists and terrorist supporters visit the White House, hang out with the FBI, and advise the U.S. government on counter-terrorist policy, even while — as CAIR does — advising Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement? And that they are admiringly quoted in the media?

Meanwhile, a documented, detailed revelation of this behavior in MERIA Journal by Patrick Poole – ”Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy” — a report which rationally should bring down the governmentdoes not get covered by a single mass media outlet?

Imagine this scene:

“Sir, we have a telephone call about a potential terrorist attack!”

“Not now, Smithers, I’m giving a tour of our facility to some supporters of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

How about the time when the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem had a (previously jailed) Hamas agent working in their motor pool with direct access to the vehicles and itineraries of all visiting U.S. dignitaries and senior officials?

Instead of this kind of nonsense, the two key elements of counterterrorism are as follows:

First, it is not the quantity of material that counts, but the need to locate and correctly understand the most vital material. This requires your security forces to understand the ideological, psychological, and organizational nature of the threat. Second, it is necessary to be ready to act on this information not only in strategic terms but in political terms.

For example: suppose the U.S. ambassador to Libya warns that the American compound there may be attacked. No response.

Then he tells the deputy chief of mission that he is under attack. No response.

Then, the U.S. military is not allowed to respond.

Then, the president goes to sleep without making a decision about doing anything because of a communications breakdown between the secretaries of Defense and State, and the president goes to sleep because he has a very important fundraiser the next day.

But don’t worry — because three billion telephone calls by Americans are daily being intercepted and supposedly analyzed.

In other words, you have a massive counterterrorist project costing $1 trillion, but when it comes down to it, the thing repeatedly fails.

To quote the former secretary of State: “What difference does it  make?”

If one looks at the great intelligence failures of the past, these two points quickly become obvious. Take for example the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941: U.S. naval intelligence had broken Japanese codes — they had the information needed to conclude the attack would take place. Yet a focus on the key to the problem was not achieved. The important messages were not read and interpreted; the strategic mindset of the leadership was not in place.

Or, in another situation: the plans of Nazi Germany to invade the USSR in 1941, and the time and place of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944, were not assessed properly, with devastating results. Of course the techniques were more primitive then, but so were the means of concealment. For instance, the Czech intelligence services — using railroad workers as informants — knew about a big build-up for a German offensive against the USSR. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin overrode the warnings. Soviet analysts predicting a Nazi invasion were punished.

Nothing would have changed if more material was collected.

So what needs to be in place, again, is a focus on the highest-priority material, on analyzing correctly what is available, on having leaders accept it and act upon it. If the U.S. government can’t even figure out what the Muslim Brotherhood is like, or the dangers of supporting Islamists to take over Syria, or the fact that the Turkish regime is an American enemy, or if they can’t even teach military officers who the enemy is … what’s it going to do with scores of billions of telephone calls?

Read more at PJ Media

 

Aid or Jizya?

011By Mark Durie:

In sharia law, jizya refers either to tribute paid by non-Muslim nations to ward off jihad attack, or to a head tax paid by conquered non-Muslim adult males living under Islamic conditions.

Muhammad instructed his followers:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.
Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war …
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.
If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm.
Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ….
If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya.
If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands.
If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.
(Sahih Muslim. The Book of Jihad and Expedition. (Kitab al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar). 3:27:4294.)

Consistent with this message, the renowned Andalusian jurist Averroes (Ibn Rushdi) wrote:

Why wage war? The Muslim jurists agree that the purpose of fighting the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either for the conversion to Islam or the payment of the jizya. The payment of the jizya is because of the words of the Exalted, ‘Fight against such as those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah or the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah and His Messenger hath forbidden, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily being brought low.’
[The Qur'an, Sura 9:29]. (Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtsid, The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer).

The Arabic word jizya means ‘compensation’ or ‘reparations’. The  root j-z-y refers to something provided as a compensation or satisfaction, instead of something else.  Muslim lexicographers defined jizya as a tax taken from non-Muslims ‘that ensures their protection, as though it were a compensation for their not being slain’. (E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon).

Paying jizya is a long-standing US tradition.  As soon as it won independence from Britain, and recognizing that its ships were no longer protected by British naval power, the US began to send tribute to the Barbary states.  The first appropriation by Congress was made in 1784 was for $80,000, and in 1795 the US government paid a million dollars in cash, naval stores and a frigate to ransom 115 kidnapped soldiers from Algiers (America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe by Gerard W. Gawalt).  In that year, total US government revenue was six million dollars.

There was a period at the start of the 19th century when the US government was consistently paying over 10% of US revenue in jizya to the Barbary states to prevent further jihad attacks against US ships.  An equivalent proportion of US Government revenue today would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars, or more than the annual cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.  The US Navy was created in 1794 to address this challenge.  Gerard W. Gawalt writes:

In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

In The Third Choice  (pp.212-213) I questioned whether aid given by Western states today might  be considered by some Muslims to be ‘jizya’.  I meant by this that aid would not be received as a generous gift from a friend, but something taken as a right, a payment compensating a potentially violent aggressor:

Aid or Jizya?
One can also ask some troubling questions about the flow of funds from Western governments to organizations and nations which are committed to Islamization. This includes what is known as ‘international aid’, but might just as easily be called tribute. Some of the largest aid grants from the USA and the European Union have been going to Islamic communities which are producing large numbers of radicals, such as Egypt and Pakistan. Professor Moshe Sharon, emeritus Professor of Islam at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has written:

… the billions of dollars which stream from the EU to Muslim terror groups under various disguises are nothing less than Jizyah money paid by the dhimmisof Europe to the Muslim rulers. … European money is the collective Jizyah paid by the Europeans in the (false) hope that it will secure for them the protected status of the dhimmi.

It is an irony that clerics funded by the Palestinian Authority, who live off European and US aid, have denounced Western governments on Palestinian Television, declaring the inevitable victory of Islam over the whole world. For example, Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim al-Madhi, a Palestinian authority employee,preached a sermon broadcast on PA Television on April 12, 2002, in which he prophesied the defeat of every nation on the earth:

Oh beloved, look to the East of the earth, find Japan and the ocean; look to the West of the earth, find [some] country and the ocean. Be assured that these will be owned by the Muslim nation, as the Hadithsays … from the ocean to the ocean’…

Raymond Ibrahim has drawn our attention to a Salafist cleric’s recent pronouncement on Egyptian television that US aid to Egypt should indeed be considered as jizya:

According to the sheikh, Egypt must be less cooperative with the U.S. and at the same time insist for more monetary aid.  If so, the sheikh believes that “America will accept; it will kiss our hands; and it will also increase its aid.  And we will consider its aid asjizya, not as aid.  But first we must make impositions on it.”

When the host asked the sheikh “Do the Americans owe us jizya?” he responded, “Yes,” adding that it is the price Americans have to pay “so we can leave them alone!”  When the host asked the sheikh if he was proclaiming a fatwa, the latter exclaimed, “By Allah of course!”  The sheikh added that, to become a truly Islamic state, Egypt must “impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to.”

While the Egyptian cleric was focused on “international jizya”—that is, money paid by one non-Muslim nation to a Muslim nation, U.S money to Egypt—other Muslims have been receiving and enjoying individual “jizya” from Western, infidel governments, in the form of welfare aid.

Just last February, for example, Anjem Choudary, an Islamic cleric and popular preacher in the United Kingdom, was secretly taped telling a Muslim audience to follow his example and get “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance” from the government—a pun on “Job Seeker’s Allowance.” The father of four, who receives more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits, referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” adding, “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money. Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this.”

This issue – of Western aid being interpreted as tribute and a rightful due – is part of a broader problem of interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims.  In The Third Choice I discussed this in the context of Christian-Muslim interactions, but the issue affect non-Muslims in general:

In submitting to the requirement of grateful service to Islam, Christians may well interpret their own submissiveness in gospel categories of forgiveness and service, but from the Islamic side this can just look like the program of Islam as ‘submission’ is working. Muslims can often interpret such submissiveness as Islam’s rightful due, not an expression of grace, and even allow themselves to feel generous in accepting this service. For this reason, Christians involved in partnering with Muslims should make every effort to understand the theological grid which dhimmitude would seek to impose upon the relationship, and while continuing to be gracious, back up the grace with a strong admonition to reciprocity.

The issue here is not so much whether Muslims will misinterpret the motives of Christians. It is rather the danger of a politico-theological framework being imposed upon the Christian-Muslim relationship, to conform it to the requirements of dhimmitude…  (The Third Choice, p.223)

The Egyptian Salafist Sheikh was giving voice to a mindset which is real and widely held.  Western donors  to the Muslim world to be alert to the potential for aid to be regarded as a ‘right’ from the Muslim side.  According to this mindset, recipients of modern-day ‘jizya’ could respond with more belligerence – and not friendship – to extract even more resources from the infidels.

Aid or jizya – the difference is crucial.  Aid is a gift to friends.  Jizya is an act of surrender .  Western donors should be most wary of making military donations to sharia-compliant states.  In 2013 US aid to Egypt will amount to c. 1.5 billion dollars, most of which will be military hardware.  One of the traditional uses of jizya by Islamic states is to fund further jihad, so belligerence can extract more jizya.  It is completely understandable that US lawmakers are seeking to restructure US Aid to Egypt.

Given that Egypt is now governed by the Muslim Brotherhood, US should not be sending a single item of military hardware Egypt’s way.  Instead it should start forwarding desperately needed food aid (and see here), with ‘US AID’ stamped in large letters on the parcels.

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, author of The Third Choice, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

US government funding radical Israeli NGOs’ information operations

pro-Israel%20demo%20embassy%20Tel%20Aviv-thumb-470x293-3087By Caroline Glick:

Earlier this month NGO Monitor released its report on foreign government funding of radical political Israeli NGOs which work to undermine Israel’s international standing and subvert Israeli society. Along with the usual European suspects who give millions of shekels (or Euros or pounds) to Israeli groups like this, it works out that the US government is also funding extremely radical organizations, courtesy of American taxpayers. Notably, the three groups that reported receiving funding from the US are all in the business of waging political warfare campaigns directed at the Israeli public.

According to the report, in accordance with the NGO Transparency Law which requires NGOs to report on donations received from foreign governments, three Israeli NGOs received funding from the US.
Keshev, a radical leftist “media watchdog” group run by some of Israel’s most outspoken, and radical journalists and writers received NIS 492,452 in direct aid from the US government. To understand how subversive Keshev is, it suffices to note that they criticized the Israeli media for rushing to judgment about Fatah’s unity deal with Hamas. That is, the group the US supports believes we should not criticize Fatah for joining forces with a genocidal jihadist movement committed to the obliteration of Israel that is in cahoots with the Iranians.
Through Catholic Relief Services,the US also gave NIS 220,304 to the anti-Israel pressure group B’Tselem. The money was used to fund B’Tselem’s video project. B’tselem’s video project involves the distribution of video cameras to Palestinians to film snuff films that portry Israelis as aggressive bullies who seek to harm the Palestinians for no reason.
Numerous examples have already been reported of how those film clips have falsely portrayed events.
Finally, the US government donated NIS 15,474 through the Foundation for Middle East Peace to the far left internet outlet Social TV. To a certain degree, Social TV can be — and has been — portrayed as the anti-Zionist answer to Latma, the Hebrew-language media criticism site that I run. But Latma is wholly funded by private contributors and foundations.

Über-Stealth Jihad in America

imagesCATXSCA4By Janet Levy

In June 2012, the “National Security 5″ — five members of Congress led by Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) — called attention to U.S. government infiltration by Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives.  Based on disturbing information from court evidence and documents,   correspondence, media reports, congressional briefings, and public statements, they found that individuals with questionable loyalty to the United States held high-level security clearances and worked in key national security positions.  Tragically for the security of the United States and the safety of its citizens, these five earnest members of Congress, armed with ample evidence, were roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, and their request for investigations were ignored.

The five — Bachmann, Trent Franks (R-Arizona), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Tom Rooney (R-Florida), and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia) — had sent letters to the inspectors general of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, and to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  They identified specific individuals, organizational affiliations, and activities of concern conducted by Muslim Brotherhood operatives employed in various capacities in the U.S. government.  They cited links to the much-publicized Muslim Brotherhood mission statement that has called its work in America “a kind of grand Jihad to eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within.”

All was ignored, despite the release five years earlier by the U.S. government itself of a list of several Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and their members across the United States, 300 in all, named as “unindicted co-conspirators” uncovered during the terrorism financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest such trial in U.S. history.  The inside influence operation in America is extensive and goes far beyond the federal government to include Islamists posing as patriots and becoming part of the Tea Party movement, Islamists infiltrating the 9/11 Truther Movement, and Islamists becoming part of the fight for “civil liberties” through organizations like the ACLU, to name just a few.

Muslim Brotherhood in America

Established in 1928, four years after Kemal Ataturk dismantled the Ottoman Caliphate, the Muslim Brotherhood today has grown into the world’s oldest and largest Islamist movement.  Its goal: to establish a global Islamic caliphate or government under sharia, or Islamic doctrine.  It seeks to dismantle all non-Islamic governments on earth and supports terrorism against the West and Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood has spawned al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and various worldwide terrorist groups.  In the 1950s, it established a beachhead in the United States and today has over 5,000 front organizations from coast to coast, according to a former FBI agent and designated “Subject Matter Expert” on the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic doctrine.

“The Project,” written in 1982 and discovered during a raid of the home of one of the organization’s international leaders by Swiss authorities following 9/11, is a multi-phased, long-term master plan for the cultural invasion of the West.  The discovery of two documents in 2001 and 2004 provided, respectively, evidence of an actual MB plot for the cultural invasion and Islamic domination of the West and a general strategy for the takeover of America.

The Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007 provided for release of the incriminating and significant document “An Explanatory Memorandum for the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America.”  Written by a senior Hamas leader in the United States in 1987, it was discovered during a 2004 FBI raid of a Virginia house.  It outlines a plan of stealth jihad and gradual takeover and imposition of sharia.  It also cites explicit strategies, including but not limited to subversion of American organizations, shutting down of free speech, control of the language to exclude accurate descriptions of jihadist activities, ensuring that non-Muslims don’t study Islamic doctrine, forcing sharia compliance, and claiming victimization.

Read more at American Thinker

Another Important Victory: The Holy Land Foundation Trial Redux

Shariah Finance Watch:

Observers who follow such things know how important the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial has been in uncovering the spread of both violent and civilizational jihad in the USA.

For those who may not be familiar with the Holy Land Foundation trial, here is a very brief synopsis:

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. It was headquartered in Richardson, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. In 2007, federal prosecutors brought charges against the organization for funding Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations. The Holy Land Foundation’s assets were frozen by the European Union and U.S., and the charity was shut down by the U.S. government following the discovery that it was funding Hamas. The 2008 trial of the charity leaders was the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history. In 2009, the founders of the organization were given life sentences for funneling $12 million to Hamas.

Much was uncovered during the investigation associated with the prosecution, including the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated America and controlled all of the major Muslim organizations in America, to include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Several such organizations and individuals were named as unindicted co-conspirators in the trial and it was the reported intention of the Dallas US attorney’s office to prosecute at least some of those co-conspirators before Barack Obama ascended to the presidency and Eric Holder became attorney general and shut the whole operation down.

Nevertheless, Holder was too late to save the Holy Land Foundation and the folks who started it.

Not surprisingly, however, the convicted defendants appealed their convictions and became somewhat of a cause celebre among the hard Left in America and the Islamic community, many of whom are members of the organizations listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the first place:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/holy-land-5-appeal-begins-palestinians-gaza-praise-charity-closed-bush/11807

It seems the Islamists wanted us to believe that all the Holy Land Foundation was involved in was good works and sending poor Palestinian Muslims to school. They went to great lengths to highlight these activities.

The problem of course is that this is simply a smokescreen and just because a charity does some “good” work doesn’t mean it doesn’t also take part in nefarious activity as well. Think of the Mafia as another example. Mafia run districts were usually very clean and free of petty crime, but that came at a brutal price.

In terms of Islamic charities, we have proof positive in Shariah that they are instructed to support a variety of activities with money. The money comes from zakat donations, the form of tithing that we have posted about so often on SFW. There are 8 destinations for zakat under Shariah. Seven of them are benign for the most part.

But number 7, as we have pointed out so often, is downright hostile and violent: “those fighting in the way of allah,” defined as those engaged in Islamic military operations who are not part of an army roster. Sounds an awful lot like irregular combatants doesn’t it? That’s because that is exactly what it is.

And that’s why the Holy Land Foundation sent at least $12 million to HAMAS and other Jihadist organizations–they were following Islamic law. As a result, the charity was shut down and its leaders deposited in jail for life.

Anyway, the appeal has gotten all the way up to the Supreme Court level. In the process, a US government bureaucrat testified on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation, with the rather disturbing revelation that one of our US government funded programs was probably guilty of the same offense as the Holy Land Foundation, since it funneled money to organizations that have been deemed to be tied to HAMAS. Of course that disgraceful government employee, Edward Abington, provided that testimony as a means of justifying the Holy Land Foundation’s activity.

We rather think that Abington’s testimony should produce an invasive, hostile audit of just where our tax dollars are going. Clearly we do not benefit from creeps like Abington directing those dollars.

http://vinienco.com/2012/10/29/holy-land-foundation-trial-continues/

In closing we are pleased to report that the Supreme Court has in fact refused the Holy Land Foundation appeal.

Chalk one up for the good guys.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F11-1390.htm

Obama’s Jihad Alliance

The flag of Ansar al-Sharia, which reportedly led the Benghazi attack

 The flag of Libya Shield, which reportedly provided security to US Marines in
Benghazi.

By Diana West:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column addressing the national scandal that investigation into the security failures and lies surrounding Benghazi-gate must also expose. This even larger scandal concerns the fact that throughout the revolutionary cycle known as Arab Spring, the Obama administration threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with the bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy and Shariah-ruling crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. In so doing, Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.”

We are continuing this same treacherous policy in Syria, something I hope Mitt Romney (as president, I also hope) comes to understand quickly. In Libya, Obama’s Arab Spring policy – supported by U.N.-niks, Republicans and media alike – meant making common cause with al-Qaida forces and other jihadists, including Libyan veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq who fought and killed Americans. It was if the whole world had gone mad.

Take the Libya Shield Brigade, an eastern Libyan militia aligned with the Libyan government. Libya Shield members met the eight U.S. Marines who arrived in Benghazi from Tripoli in the wee hours of Sept. 12, 2012. Libya Shield escorted our Marines to the secret annex – relying on GPS coordinates the Marines brought with them – where the survivors of the consulate attack had successfully taken cover. This annex did not come under mortar attack until soon after Libya Shield and the Marines arrived. Coincidence? It was in this barrage, by the way, that ex-SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.

John Rosenthal has reported at WND.com that the Libya Shield Brigade fought in the anti-Gadhafi revolution – which Uncle Sam, of course, supported – under the black flag of al-Qaida. Rosenthal further notes that in October 2011, Libya Shield’s leader, Wissam Bin Hamid, issued a statement to Arabic jihadist websites stating: “The Islamic Shariah is a red line, we will not cede one rule of it, and Islam is the only law-giver and not (merely) the foundation (of the law).”

Bin Hamid, not at all incidentally, is also described on an online jihadist forum as a veteran of jihad in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is what I mean by Libyan “allies” who have fought and killed Americans from the other side. Now, they’re escorting Marines to secret American annexes, and doing so as a matter of Obama administration policy.

This is a crucial piece of the Benghazi story. The U.S. wasn’t relying on Libya Shield and, as I’ve written before, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade in some ad hoc security arrangement. This is all part of continuing Arab Spring policy.

A U.S. embassy cable made public by congressional investigators makes this patently clear. While requesting more security on March 28, 2012, Eric Nordstrom, then U.S. regional security officer in Libya, notes that “rebuilding and expanding” the “local” guard force is one of his “core objectives.” This objective directly relates to what he describes as the State Department’s recommendation for “developing plans to transition our security staffing … to (a model) that incorporates more locally based and nonemergency assets.”

Naturally, these “plans” weren’t working. Hence, Nordstrom’s request for more American security. And hence the denial from State for reasons, Nordstrom told Congress this month, that came down to the fact “there was going to be too much political cost.” It is these “politics” – this Obama policy of outreach to jihadists – that must be exposed and stopped.

The final diplomatic cable to go out under the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ name is dated Sept. 11, 2012. It recounts events of the previous week in Benghazi, including a Sept. 9 meeting between an unnamed U.S. diplomat and, whaddya know, Wissam Bin Hamid, commander of Libya Shield. A second Libya Shield commander, Muhammad al-Gharabi, was also present. During a fractious-sounding meeting, the Libyans declared their support for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate then running to become Libyan prime minister and threatened to withdraw security from the U.S. in Benghazi if another candidate won in upcoming elections.

Read more

Diana West is the author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested  Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization” and blogs at dianawest.net.

Related articles

ANALYSIS: Will The US Government Condemn Muslim Brotherhood Anti-Semitism?

GlobalMB @ September 18, 2012

It may be instructive to examine some excerpts from recent remarks by US Government officials concerning the film at the center of recent violence in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world. The first excerpt is from remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a recent Eid (end of Ramadan) dinner at the State Department:

There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack. Think about it. When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. The same goes for all faiths, including Islam. When all of us who are people of faith – and I am one – feel the pain of insults, of misunderstanding, of denigration to what we cherish, we must expect ourselves and others not to resort to violence. That is a universal standard and expectation, and it is everyone’s obligation to meet that, so that we make no differences, we expect no less of ourselves than we expect of others. You cannot respond to offensive speech with violence without begetting more violence. And I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one’s faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one’s faith is unshakable.

In addition, Special US Envoy to Muslim Communities Rashad Hussain told Pajhwok Afghan News in an interview:

“It is a disgusting and reprehensible video. It is important to remember that the United States government has nothing to do with its production,” ……Not only the US government, but also communities of all faiths, including Christians, had condemned the production of the video, he said. ‘As a Muslim myself, I would understand why it would cause people to get upset. I understand the place of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Islam, but at the same time, I also know that violence as a way of reacting to this offensive video is not consistent with anything.’ Rashid said he had read the description of the video, but he decided against watching it. It was clear from experience that attempts to stop people from posting this type of offensive content in the modern world did not always succeed, he added. ’We also have as a value in the United Stated freedom of expression, which is important and allows people to speak their mind, allows people like me to practice my religion freely as Muslim,’ the diplomat remarked. The envoy, who has been to Afghanistan several times and has travelled extensively in the Middle East and North African countries, said basically a small group of minority extremists was using the video as a catalyst for anti-US propaganda. ’Unfortunately, there are people in the world, still in minority, who use these types of videos to try to provoke outrage and violence. Because that is something that is rejected by all faiths, it is important that people do not fall victim to that,’ Rashid argued. ’The more and more people are able to discuss these issues in an intelligent way, the more and more people are able to learn about various religious faiths through dialogue; the more they would understand that those who would use violence are totally wrong,’ said the official.

Notably absent from Ms. Clinton’s list of faiths that have been under attack is Judaism. Since June 2007, the GMBD has cataloged a near constant stream of anti-Semitic invective emanating from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood as well as the global Brotherhood organizations. Recent examples include an Egyptian cleric who has given two recent sermons on Al-Aqsa TV in which he said he has met people all over the world who “thirst for the blood of the Jews” and that Jews have entered Egypt in order to commit crimes including deliberately infecting Egyptian girls with AIDS,  an article posted on the  Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood  website titled ”We can make peace with Israel, if you can make peace with cancer”  and articles recently posted on the Egyptian Brotherhood site with antisemitic motifs, including Holocaust denial and descriptions of the “Jewish character” as covetous, exploitative, and a source of evil in human society. Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi, recently appointed to an Egyptian national board of senior Islamic scholars, is a noted anti-Semite who has called for the death of all Jews. It does not appear that any official of the U.S. government has ever publicly held the Brotherhood accountable for this vitriol, described it as “disgusting and reprehensible”, or condemned it in any pubic forum.

Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration envoy to the OIC, was for a short time embroiled in controversy after the GMBDR reported both his associations with the US Muslim Brotherhood and remarks that he had made in 2004 about the prosecution of convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian that were later deleted from the publication that reported them.

Jihad’s Willing Executioners

by: Clare Lopez:

Quietly, behind the scenes, the Muslim Brotherhood is enforcing censorship of all U.S. government training about Islam and the forces of Islamic jihad. Under the co-opted direction of National Security Council official, Quintan Wiktorowicz, key Cabinet Departments, including Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State are purging their curriculum materials of any references about Islam that their Muslim Brotherhood advisors find objectionable. In effect, the national security policy of the U.S. government is being brought into compliance with Islamic law on slander.

Under Islamic law (sharia), “slander” means “to mention anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” Telling the whole truth about Islamic doctrine, law and scriptures—especially the Muslim obligation to conduct warfare against non-Muslims, subjugate them and force them to live under Islamic law—would reveal the very essence of sharia Islam. For obvious reasons, it’s not the part of Islam that its Brotherhood vanguard wants Americans to know about.

It’s much easier to conquer an adversary who’s been anesthetized, cowed, infiltrated and lulled into ignorant passivity than one who’s alert and on the defensive. That, in a nutshell, is why there is a campaign called “Islamophobia,” designed and promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence those who would speak truth about Islam. And it is why the Brotherhood coup that has just achieved the capitulation of the top levels of the U.S. government is so dangerous to the future of the Republic and America’s Constitutional rights.

Farah Pandith

Farah Pandith is the Special Representative to Muslim Communities for the U.S. Department of State. In that official capacity, she repeatedly has associated with groups and individuals that are known affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood and its equally jihadist off-shoot, HAMAS. In an interview with the Gulf Times at the conclusion of the May 2012 9thU.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar, Pandith confirmed that it has been the policy of the Obama administration since its inception “to put the priority of engaging with one fourth of humanity [Islam] front and centre.”

“What is very clear,” she said, “is that President Obama, from the very beginning, on the steps of the Capitol, spoke very clearly in his inauguration address to Muslims and said that he wanted to begin again … to create a new opportunity to build relationships. That’s historic, that’s never happened before, that a president would use that moment to do that.”

She’s right: There’s never before been an American president who so unashamedly and deliberately has sought to empower those who’ve openly and repeatedly declared themselves the sworn enemies of this country. It will be recalled that Muhammad Badi, the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, effectively declared war on the U.S. in October 2010, about nine months before the Obama administration granted formal diplomatic recognition to the jihadist group.

What is now unfolding across the vast bureaucracy of the U.S. government has been planned carefully over a period of years. But it is only with the Obama presidency that the deep Brotherhood penetration of U.S. national security leadership is moving unafraid into the open, at last confident of its acceptance and backing. The Brotherhood putsch to gain control over U.S. policy and training about America’s jihadist adversaries began to come into clear view with a September 2011 series of hit pieces on an obscure blog named “Danger Room” that belongs to “Wired Magazine.

The previously unremarkable young writer, Spencer Ackerman, claimed breathlessly that the FBI was teaching material offensive to jihadis, something he (just like the Muslim Brotherhood) apparently thought was inappropriate.

Salam al-Marayati

The following month, on October 19, 2011, an op-ed piece, written Salam al-Marayati by Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) President Salam al-Marayati, was published in the Los Angeles Times and threatened the FBI that the Muslim community would withhold cooperation against terrorism if the Justice Department (DoJ) didn’t purge its training materials “immediately.”

Justice must have gotten the message very quickly, immediately in fact, because that very afternoon, Thomas E. Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, represented the Department at a George Washington University summit in Washington, D.C. to confirm its capitulation to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In attendance to accept the surrender was Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Imam at the ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society) Center; DoJ earlier named ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

In fact, FBI Director Robert Mueller appeared to anticipate the al-Marayati blackmail piece when he appeared before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence earlier on October 6, 2011, to offer his mea culpa for FBI training material that, among other things, taught accurately that “Jihad is motivated by the strategic themes and drivers in Islam.”

By February 15, 2012, the FBI was announcing that it would be taking its curriculum purge and revision advice from a panel that apparently includes Muslim Brotherhood associates ISNA and MPAC (although the FBI refuses to say for sure). Under the watchful eyes of its jihadist mentors, the FBI subsequently pulled over 700 documents and 300 presentations from its training materials.

Also in October 2011, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published its Training Guidance & Best Practices for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), a term that deliberately erases any hint that Islamic terrorism derives its motivation from the doctrine, law and scriptures of Islam.

It’s no surprise that DHS Secretary Napolitano’s CVE Working Group includes the Obama administration’s favorite Imam, Mohamed Magid (of ISNA and Muslim Brotherhood association), plus Dalia Mogahed, who sports her own jihadist leanings, and one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s all-time favorite law enforcement officials, the LAPD’s Deputy Chief, Michael Downing.

Read more at Stop Radical Islam