Trump Continues Obama DHS Policy of Engaging CAIR

IPT, by John Rossomando  •  May 17, 2017:

Donald Trump might be the president of the United States, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to treat the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a credible outreach partner.

Its officials participated in DHS town hall discussions in Miami and Tampa, CAIR-Florida announced Thursday.

A discussion at Miami-Dade College included Veronica Venture, the outgoing DHS acting officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Kareem Shora, section chief of the DHS Community Engagement Section.

Venture and Shora are both holdovers from the Obama administration.

Shora enjoys close relations with CAIR-FL, organizing multiple events with the group on DHS’s behalf. He helped organize a December training event for visiting French police officials with CAIR-FL in conjunction with the State Department.

This marks the latest example of DHS’s partnering with CAIR as a Muslim community liaison partner despite its well-documented connection to Hamas – a tie that caused the FBI to sever similar outreach in 2008. CAIR officials have worked to discourage Muslims from cooperating with the FBI.

Both Shora and CAIR oppose to President Trump’s vocal support for Israel and desire to counter Islamic terrorism.

Shora urged the U.S. to stop shipping weapons to Israel during its 2006 war with Hizballah because Lebanese civilians we “getting bombed.” As executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Shora claimed in 2009 that Muslim charities fell victim to “undue scrutiny” from law enforcement in the effort to cut off funding terrorist groups. He also called the portrayal of Muslims as more “vulnerable” to terrorist recruitment an “unfortunate reality.”

The two Florida DHS programs indicate that the Trump administration has yet to change course on the Obama administration’s controversial Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program. The government has no way of telling whether these outreach programs work, the General Accountability Office (GAO) noted in an April report.

In Tampa, DHS allowed CAIR-FL Executive Director Hassan Shibly to participate in a roundtable with local law enforcement. Shibly played a key role in the December outreach event with the French police along with Shora. He also has made his share of radical statements.

He accuses FBI agents of unjustly killing a Muslim suspect who attacked them after questioning. After independent investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing, Shibly repeated the accusation and is helping the family sue the FBI.

He also opposes FBI sting operations as an “entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” and a form of tyranny that strayed away from the “great ideals of liberty, equality and justice.”

CAIR ‘terrified’ jury will learn of its radical ties

‘Muslim Mafia’ asking judge to block damning evidence

WND, by Art Moore, May 14, 2017:

Eight years ago, the Council on American-Islamic Relations sued the investigators behind a daring, undercover operation that turned up evidence confirming the organization’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and violent Islamic supremacism.

Now, as its case finally heads to trial, CAIR is trying to block the defendants from presenting that evidence and other damaging information to a jury.

Last Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., delayed a pretrial hearing scheduled for May 15 to allow more time to address a motion by CAIR to disallow evidence it describes as “anti-Muslim bias.”

“CAIR is terrified that a jury will learn the truth about its pro-Hamas founding and leaders,” said attorney Daniel Horowitz.

He represents David Gaubatz, a co-author of the book that published the evidence, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” and his son, Chris Gaubatz, who conducted the investigation as a CAIR intern.

During his internship, Chris Gaubatz wore a recorder on his clothing to capture video and audio of his activities. He gathered some 12,000 pages of documents, headed for a shredder, that held evidence of crimes committed by CAIR, including violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, giving material support to terrorist organizations and providing fraudulent legal services.

But CAIR filed suit alleging, among other claims, violations of the federal and District of Columbia Wiretap Acts and the Stored Communications Act. In the complaint, however, CAIR has never defended itself against the actual claims of the book, which documents the organization’s founding as a front group in the United States for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Horowitz told WND the evidence of CAIR’s origin and character is “at the very core of our defense.”

“You can’t violate the rights of a criminal organization by exposing their violent underbelly,” he said, noting that Hamas is a recognized terror organization throughout the world.

“We are now going to have the opportunity to show the judge that our allegations against CAIR are based upon hard, proven facts,” Horowitz said. “Up until now we’ve had to endure CAIR’s constant cries of bigotry every time we have opposed them on this case.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the D.C. Circuit Court said in her order Wednesday that additional briefings are necessary to resolve the matter of whether the evidence regarding CAIR’s background and character can be admitted.

Horowitz noted he has a recording of a CAIR founder saying he prefers Hamas to the PLO.

“When the jury hears that, they’re not going to find wrongdoing by our clients who exposed them,” he said.

After naming the Gaubatzes in the lawsuit, CAIR added the Washington, D.C., think tank Center for Security Policy and three of its employees for their part in commissioning a documentary about CAIR. Also added was attorney David Yerushalmi and his non-profit group SANE, which campaigns against the advance of Islamic law, or Shariah.

Anti-Muslim bias?

A legal brief responding to CAIR’s motion to disallow evidence of its origin and character noted the group “has made numerous accusations of anti-Muslim bias on the part of the Gaubatz defendants and their counsel.”

CAIR’s motion stated: “For years, Defendants have promulgated and endorsed the mistaken belief that CAIR is a terrorist organization and Muslim Brotherhood front group. These allegations are blatant conspiracy theories intended to push Defendants’ anti-Muslim agendas.”

The reply brief says the defendants “agree that anti-Muslim bias should not be part of a defense and that persons of all religions should have equal access to fair treatment and justice in the courts.”

“However,” it argues, “fact-based evidence that is relevant to contested issues, should not be excluded simply because CAIR labels such criticism ‘anti-Muslim.’”

The brief notes that the criticisms raised by the defendants have been raised by others, including prominent news sources, a Democratic senator and federal judges.

It cites a 2007 New York Times story about CAIR that states in the opening paragraph: “With violence across the Middle East fixing Islam smack at the center of the American political debate, an organization partly financed by donors closely identified with wealthy Persian Gulf governments has emerged as the most vocal advocate for American Muslims — and an object of wide suspicion.”

The article describes how Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., canceled an award she intended to present to CAIR and canceled a meeting set with the organization.

Boxer commented: “There are things there I don’t want to be associated with.”

Also entered as an exhibit by the defense is a 2014 Washington Post article on the designation of CAIR as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country.

It cites, in addition, the FBI’s suspension of contact with CAIR after the group was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of a sister Muslim Brotherhood organization that funded Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation in Texas. The case demonstrated CAIR and its founders were part of a group set up by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas.

Documented meetings with extremists include a 2009 visit by CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, with Muammar Gadhafi to solicit funds from Gadhafi for CAIR.

CAIR’s ‘true nature’

CAIR contends Chris Gaubatz had a “fiduciary duty” — a relationship of trust to manage or protect property — as an intern not to publish the CAIR documents.

But the Gaubatzes’ legal counsel argues “the relationship between a genuine civil rights organization and a person purporting to share its ideals is more likely to establish a fiduciary relationship than if CAIR is a criminal organization which used its intern program as part of its fake civil rights persona.”

CAIR also argues for an “expectation of privacy,” but the defendants reason that “if CAIR was regularly engaged in unlawful conduct it is logical for a jury to conclude that it would conduct its criminal activities in an area that was not easily accessible to an intern.”

“The quasi public office is likely not where illicit activities were planned.”

Entering evidence of criminal activity by CAIR, the defendants argue, also is relevant for determining the credibility of witnesses “who personally established the ‘civil rights facade’ and who personally engage in activity that is unlawful.”

FBI wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case showed CAIR chief Awad was at an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in Philadelphia. CAIR, according to the evidence, was born out of a need to give a “media twinkle” to the Muslim leaders’ agenda of supporting violent jihad abroad while slowly institutionalizing Islamic law in the U.S.

YOU CAN HELP finally expose CAIR’s subversive and dangerous agenda, once and for all, by contributing to the legal defense of WND’s “Muslim Mafia” author.

CAIR Flyer Spread: Does CAIR Oppose Law Enforcement Efforts to Counter Jihad Terrorism?

Jihad Watch, by Johanna Markind, May 12, 2017:

Imagine if Italian-American organizations had responded to mob violence, as exemplified by the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, by claiming that police efforts to fight mob violence unfairly harassed Italians, and that the violence resulted from discrimination like law enforcement investigation of the Italian community. Imagine further that such organizations urged Italians not to cooperate with law enforcement but to call them for legal representation if the FBI asked for information.

Would anyone who heard that response have believed the organizations offering it were trying to help curb violence? Or would they have believed these groups were in the pocket of the Italian mafia and using any and every excuse possible to do nothing to oppose it?

Incredibly, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) does exactly this sort of thing to combat law enforcement efforts aimed at preventing and fighting Islamist violence. The organization seems never to have found counter-extremism steps it likes. CAIR has not come out and said it opposes law enforcement. Instead, it offers nothing but criticism of government efforts to detect and counter radicalization. “The government’s CVE [countering violent extremism] initiative raises many issues” is a common CAIR refrain. Instead of trying to help prevent radicalization within the Muslim community, CAIR accuses the non-Muslim community of stirring up hostility against Muslims and reiterates the trope of Muslims-as-victims. For instance, CAIR-MN has consistently opposed a federal pilot counter-terrorism program focusing on Somali-Americans in Minneapolis, labeling it discriminatory.

On May 9, 2017, CAIR issued its most recent salvo, “Civil Rights Report 2017: The Empowerment of Hate.” Among other things, CAIR identifies FBI information/intelligence-gathering efforts as a type of “anti-Muslim bias incident.” As the picture spread below shows, this is no outlier, but typifies CAIR’s obstructionism toward counter-terrorism. What makes CAIR’s attitude so hypocritical is that in the same document, CAIR repeatedly complains about what it says is a toxic atmosphere fostered by President Trump and others who are supposedly inciting violence against Muslims. Yet, when the FBI or others seek to uncover information about toxic environments possibly inciting American Muslims to jihadi violence (incitement which, Freedom House has documented, has existed in some US mosques), CAIR consistently opposed such conduct as “fishing expeditions” that harass and discriminate against Muslims.

From page 21 of CAIR’s “Civil Rights Report 2017: The Empowerment of Hate,” released May 9, 2017. CAIR considers FBI questioning of Muslims seeking information about Islamist terrorists to be a form of harassment.

“What to Do If You Are Approached by Law Enforcement or the FBI

“[Step out of your home or workspace] Call or e-mail CAIR-MN for free legal assistance: 612-206-3360 info@mn.cair.com. Then politely say: ‘I want to remain silent. My attorney will contact you.’”

CAIR-Minnesota posted this image on its website. Members of Minneapolis’ Muslim community previously reported that CAIR-MN openly discouraged community members from cooperating with an FBI probe into the disappearance of several Somali-Americans youths. The youths were eventually found to have joined al-Shabaab, an Islamist terrorist group overseas.

Read more

Muslim Brotherhood an ‘incubator’ for U.S. terror

A CAIR ad strikes a decidedly peaceful tone, but its real agenda is to influence American society in favor of Islamism. The federal government identified CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a secret body set up to advance Hamas’ agenda.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, May 1, 2017:

An Islamist is an Islamist is an Islamist – and just because movements like the Muslim Brotherhood preach non-violence does not mean they are entirely peaceful, because they just may be poisoning the minds of the next generation of jihadists.

That’s the finding of a new study that traces the development of 100 prominent jihadists within the global Islamic movement.

Half of the jihadists profiled by Centre on Religion & Geopolitics had ties to supposedly non-violent Islamists, but they easily made the transition to the dark side in which they targeted innocent civilians with bombs, bullets or blades.

The term “Islamist” is used to describe supporters of fundamentalist Islam who are working toward the implementation of Shariah law, whether by peaceful or violent means.

But the study’s authors – in exploring “pathways to militancy” among 100 prominent Islamic terrorists – found there is often a fine line that separates the two sides of the Islamist coin.

The 100 men studied all have their ethnic roots in the Middle East and Africa but span multiple generations. The authors found that ties to non-violent Islamist organizations can often influence a person’s trajectory toward terrorism.

This is where individuals get schooled in the ideological principles of Shariah and jihad before “graduating” to the next level of actually carrying out attacks, according to the study.

A majority, 51 percent, of the terrorists under study were previously connected to Islamist groups that claim to be non-violent, including “bodies that are not necessarily political activist organizations but form a functioning arm of existing Islamist groups, such as youth wings, student associations, and other societies.”

Senior al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, Anwar al-Awlaki and current head man Ayman al-Zawihiri were all involved with or direct members of the Muslim Brotherhood before they became terrorist kingpins.

The Trump administration, after first signaling it would declare the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization, backed off once Trump took office. A report last month by the Washington Times said Trump has decided to heed the advice of the U.S. State Department and the King of Jordan to not go after the Brotherhood.

One in four of the jihadists examined had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or one of its front groups.

“Our data links the leaders of Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS today to the forefathers of the movement through people they met in prison, at university, and on the battlefield,” write the authors.

Steven Emerson, publisher of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the findings support the theory that non-violent Islamist groups “not only serve as potential incubators for radicalization and violence.”

They also continue to engage in violent incitement, encouraging others to carry out terrorist attacks, Emerson said.

It is the failure to recognize the role of non-violent jihadists that causes the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to lose the battle against terrorists, contends John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist.

John Guandolo

One lesson from the recent debacle in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in which former Saudi resident Ehab Jaber was allowed to threaten a Christian conference while brandishing five guns and 1,200 rounds of ammo, brought to center stage is that many leaders cannot discern friend from foe in the war against an energized Islamic movement, Guandolo said.

“This exposes Americans to greater danger each day,” he said on his blog, Understanding the Threat.

Here are a few examples Guandolo cites:

  • Abdurabman Alamoudi was the most prominent Islamic leader in the United States in the 1990s. He founded or led major Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Student Association. He created the Muslim chaplain program for the Department of Defense, was a “Goodwill Ambassador” for the State Department and was the Islamic adviser to President Clinton. The Washington Post called him the “pillar” of the Islamic community in Washington, D.C. In 2003, Alamoudi was arrested at Heathrow Airport in London with $340,000 cash he received from the Libyan government for the global jihad. As the U.S. government later admitted, Alamoudi was a financier for al-Qaida. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. The sentence was reduced under President Obama’s administration by six years. He will be released in three years. None of the men or women working directly with Alamoudi have been prosecuted.
  • Mohamed Magid holds a secret clearance and, until recently, sat on the Homeland Security Advisory Committee. He worked directly with the last several secretaries of state, receiving awards from the FBI and lectures at CIA headquarters. He worked with the Obama administration and was publicly lauded by the president’s deputy national security adviser, Denis McDonough. Until 2014, Magid was the president of the largest Islamic organization in U.S., the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA – which also happens to be, according to the Department of Justice, a Muslim Brotherhood organization that directly funds the terrorist group Hamas. Magid was recently given another award by FBI Director James Comey.

Imam Mohamed Magid at National Prayer Service held at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21, 2017

  • Anwar al-Awlaki was called the “new face of moderate Islam” by some in the media, including NPR and PBS. He gave lectures inside the U.S. Capitol about Islam’s prophet Muhammad and spoke at the Pentagon while he was served as imam of the Dar al Hijra Islamic Center in Virginia. This “moderate” Muslim was killed in September 2011 by a U.S. drone strike because he was the leader of al-Qaida in Yemen.

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American-born imam of Yemeni descent who was ordered killed in a drone strike by President Obama.

  • Suhail Khan works for Microsoft and has been given access to inner circles of the Republican Party. On Sept. 11, 2001, he was working at the White House. His lead advocate is Republican strategist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. A number of Republicans have stepped up to defend Khan, including leaders of the American Conservative Union. Khan served for two successive secretaries of transportation under the Bush administration and held a secret clearance. Khan is the son of one of the most influential Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the U.S. ISNA has an annual award named after his father. Khan publicly lauds his deceased father and proudly proclaims the mantra that Muslims love death more than unbelievers love life.
  • Siraj Wahhaj was the first imam to offer prayers inside the U.S. House of Representatives. Wahhaj is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and was a character witness for the Blind Sheik, convicted for his part in a number of terrorist plots in the U.S.
  • On any given day, Nihad Awad can be found walking the halls of Congress, on CNN or Fox News programs, or meeting with Christian or Jewish leaders around the nation as a part of “outreach.” Local and national media promote Awad’s organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, as a “civil rights organization,” and they go to great lengths to defend the group. The Justice Department identifies CAIR as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas. Awad is the leader of Hamas in the U.S. and – in UTT’s opinion – is also the guide/leader of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.CAIR has sued the authors of a WND Books exposé, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which documented the group’s radical ties. A trial in the case is expected to commence this fall.

“American citizens, your leaders across the board, of both political parties, have proven they are incapable of discerning friend from foe,” Guandolo concludes. “This war will be won at the local level or it will be lost. Local sheriffs and pastors are the key.”

***

Also see:

Threat Assessment in the Domestic War

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 24, 2017:

An objective review of the activities of the Islamic Movement in the United States, the response from US law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and the actions of local, state and federal leaders reveals the U.S. is closer to losing the war domestically than at any point in time since 9/11/2001.

Enemy Forces

The leading Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States and the “mother ship” of their jihadi Movement – the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) – hosted their second annual “Advocacy Day” on Capitol Hill on April 18, 2017 continuing it’s overwhelming information operation against the U.S. perpetrating the lie that Islam is here to peacefully coexist with our Constitutional Republic.  This hostile effort continues to produce elected officials willing to help promote the enemy’s agenda instead of doing their legal duty of identifying enemies and defending the Constitution against them.

The Diyanet Center of America, a massive Islamic Center/Mosque complex in Maryland, operates as a base for the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood’s operations with the support of local and state officials there.  The Turkish MB’s influence in the US rivals the Palestinian MB’s (Hamas) presence here.

The Diyanet Turkish Islamic Center of America in Maryland

The Turkish MB is continuing its info op on state legislators by paying for trips to Turkey to show the lawmakers it is a moderate” nation.  Groups like “The Holy Dove Foundation” and the “Turquoise Foundation” propagate this dangerous operation.

The most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network whose stated objective is to wage “civilization jihad” to establish an Islamic state under sharia (Islamic law).  Many of these organizations currently work with the U.S. government, including the USCMO, Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Legal Fund of America (MFLA), Muslim Advocates, Muslim Students Association (MSA), Hamas (doing business as CAIR), and many others.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s logistics and support network here is significant and they have penetrated all national agencies, have a broad plan and activities inside key U.S. infrastructure nodes, and control the U.S. national security decision-making process as it relates to Islamic jihad.

Anti-American hate groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and much of the media provide direct and aggressive support for these jihadi (“terrorist”) organizations.  Much of the media has demonstrated no interest in doing investigative journalism on these matters, and simply regurgitates whatever information the suit-wearing jihadi groups give them.

Preparations for War:  The USCMO is over-seeing the national coalescing of Islamic forces from individual mosques through regional councils to the USCMO leadership.  The USCMO is solidifying communications and logistics coordination as well as assisting in preparations for confrontation.  Mosques/Islamic Centers are organizing for armed confrontation with law enforcement, shoring up physical defenses where they see likely confrontation and increasing their pre-attack surveillances of churches and other targets.

Funding:  Nearly 16 years after 9/11, the U.S. government still views the government of Saudi Arabia as an ally in the war, despite the fact it has been implicated time and again in funding the global jihad against the West and, specifically, the United States.  Massive funding for Hamas and Hizbollah – both of which have a heavy presence in the U.S. – comes from Iran, and intelligence officials now believe the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, is being shielded by the Pakistani government in Karachi.  Pakistan is another U.S. “ally.”

Our leaders still believe they can use “moderate” muslim leaders to help America find it’s way to victory – a foolish and increasingly dangerous path.

“Friendly” Forces

The impact of the enemy’s information campaign (propaganda) is significant.  The recent jihadi incident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota sums up this entire war.

A sharia adherent jihadi – Ehab Jaber – went to a Christian event, filmed it live on Facebook, brandished weapons on video saying the crowd should be “terrified” and posted a number of other videos clearly indicating he had intent and desire to do harm to those who conflict with Islam.  Law enforcement officials and prosecutors refused to take any action and even publicly said the perpetrator broke no laws.  According to one state legislator, the Attorney General of South Dakota refused to push for a prosecution in this matter.

When massive public pressure came after the story gained international prominence last week, a SWAT team from Siuox Falls arrested Jaber last Friday (April 21).  The South Dakota Attorney General is now taking credit for this effort.

Updates on the Sioux Falls story can be followed HERE.

Our federal intelligence and law enforcement officials have little understanding of the jihadi movement, key players, intent, modus operandi, and Islamic doctrine (sharia) driving the movement.  The lack of basic knowledge of this information is staggering.  Local and state officials have relied on DHS and the FBI for their understanding of the threat which is why there is little understanding at the local level as well.

A Solution

UTT’s experience is that none of the law enforcement professionals, military, and intelligence analysts UTT trains have ever heard the information laid out in UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating the Jihadi Network” program, yet all of them state the information is “critical” to protecting their communities.

The enemy situation represents an insurgency in the United States.  Doctrinally, the response must be a counter-insurgency strategy.  In a counter-insurgency, the focus of effort is at the local level.  This is why the strategy for victory must be local police and citizens who understand the threat and have the courage to engage and defeat it.

This requires police be trained to understand and investigate the threat, and citizens be given the knowledge to support their police in aggressively taking care of the enemy in their communities.

UTT remains the only organization in America providing the training to do this and provide law enforcement with the tools they need to proactively find jihadis (“terrorists”), map out the jihadi network, and develop aggressive and innovative counter-strategies at the local and state level.

Citizens must move to get the attention of their sheriffs and pastors and organize to defend their communities.

***

Interview with John Guandolo from Nov 29, 2016: The Enemy is Inside the Gates

CAIR thinks the Muslim Brotherhood has triumphed. The Trump administration should prove them wrong

Belal Darder | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Benjamin Weingarten, Aprl 5, 2017:

Back in January, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson broke ranks with his predecessors in a fundamental and dramatic way during his confirmation hearings.

“The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran,” said Tillerson, who would be tasked with leading the historically progressive Foggy Bottom agency that had actively partnered with both the Muslim Brotherhood and mullah-controlled parties within Iran during the Obama years.

Calling the Muslim Brotherhood an “agent of radical Islam” and lumping it in with ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Shia jihadists in Iran during prepared remarks signaled the Trump administration’s commitment to defeating radical Islam.

For in spite of its portrayal by the Obama administration and its media allies as a “moderate” organization, the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Islamic supremacist spear.

Its credo, which it has never disavowed, reads: “Allah is our objective; the Koran 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.”

It engages in activities both “peaceful” and violent, covert and overt, geared toward the goal of spreading Sharia over all the world.

As summarized in a recent piece for the Gatestone Institute, legislation re-upped by Senator Ted Cruz provides a wealth of evidence for designating the group as a foreign terrorist organization, including:

  • The many countries that have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization or barred it from operating
  • The explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts
  • The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves
  • The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the … Holy Land Foundation case, whereby:

Department of Justice officials successfully argued in court that the international Muslim Brotherhood and its United States affiliates had engaged in a widespread conspiracy to raise money and materially support the terrorist group Hamas …

Developments large and small are testing the administration’s commitment to countering Islamic supremacist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood — essential tests to pass if the president is to carry out his stated agenda to defeat radical Islam.

Mere months after Secretary Tillerson put the Muslim Brotherhood on notice, followed by news that the administration was indeed evaluating designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, recent reports indicate that the administration has now shelved this plan.

What changed within the first hundred days of the Trump presidency?

The Muslim Brotherhood and much of the foreign policy establishment carried out a concerted campaign to protect the organization from terrorist organization designation, producing a loud echo chamber that would make Ben Rhodes blush.

As documented by the Middle East Media Research Institute, as early as November 2016, the Muslim Brotherhood undertook efforts to develop a lobby and execute an information operation geared towards dissuading the U.S. government from pursuing actions against it.

The Clarion Project revealed that a senior Muslim Brotherhood official let it be known through the Arab language press that the group was putting $5 million behind such a public relations effort.

According to the Washington Times, officials from Arab governments like Jordan allegedly advised U.S. government officials against such a designation.

Meanwhile, fixtures of the foreign policy establishment took to publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Foreign Policy, publishing and/or providing comments for a slew of pieces defending the Muslim Brotherhood, while arguing that terrorist designation was either wholly unmerited, impractical, or impracticable. The New York Times notably gave the Clinton Foundation-linked, Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad space on its editorial page to propagandize.

In early February, as these efforts were ramping up, Politico obtained a CIA memo signaling its aversion to Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation, on grounds that it could “fuel extremism.” National security analyst Patrick Poole suggests that this was no coincidence. According to Poole, “the CIA and the U.S. intelligence community were directly involved in funding the experts who pushed the bogus ‘moderate Muslim Brotherhood’ narrative beginning in the latter end of the Bush administration.” More importantly, Poole suggests that this report is dubious in that it contradicts the recent intelligence assessments of several European nations and the CIA’s own prior analyses on the Muslim Brotherhood, which indicate the group’s continued devotion to its Islamist creed.

The State Department also apparently produced a memo advising against foreign terrorist organization designation, which may have been the decisive effort that caused the administration to drop the executive order.

Of course, as readers know, Obama administration officials continue to populate key positions in the State Department. They are likely supportive of his pro-Muslim Brotherhood posture. This leads to several questions. Among them: Who produced the Muslim Brotherhood memo at State? If it was not President Trump’s appointees, was the memo subjected to significant scrutiny?

Concurrent with the Muslim Brotherhood campaign, counter-jihadists in the Trump administration — and those most likely to support measures to neutralize the Brotherhood — such as Sebastian Gorka and Michael Anton were subjected to constant attacks. The targeting of these individuals came on the heels of the departures of counter-jihadists including Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and would-be Deputy National Security Advisor Monica Crowley, who themselves were in part victims of smear campaigns.

Last but not least, the president’s terror entry/immigration executive order, a lynchpin of his counter-jihadist policy, has fallen under siege, remaining mired in litigation.

In the face of this onslaught, did the president’s brain-trust deem an executive order aimed at designating the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization politically untenable?

Or was it that their philosophical view on the issue shifted?

These are critical questions demanding answers.

For what it’s worth, if the actions of its offshoots are any indication, it would appear that the Muslim Brotherhood believes it has won.

The Muslim Brotherhood-linked CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the aforementioned Holy Land Foundation case, continues audaciously attempting to discredit and ultimately claim the scalps of national security officials who understand the jihadists’ threat doctrine.

Readers will recall that at the urging of groups including CAIR, under its “countering violent extremism” paradigm, the Obama administration engaged in a purge of the very training materials that would have provided national security officials with an understanding of the jihadist threat based upon the theopolitical Islamic supremacist ideology at its core.

It also waged war on the officials best equipped to train national security officials in countering the jihadist threat.

Judicial Watch reports that one such expert, Patrick T. Dunleavy, is now being targeted by CAIR for removal from his role as counterterrorism instructor at the U.S. Air Force Special Operations School (USAFSOS) in Florida.

According to CAIR, Mr. Dunleavy is an “anti-Muslim propaganda mouthpiece…[who] has made a number of false statements betraying a personal prejudice against Islam and Muslims.”

These attacks are self-evidently baseless and outrageous.

Dunleavy’s real crime, apparently, is his willingness to confront the jihadist threat and dedicate his career to waking others up to it, as he has done through his book, The Fertile Soil of Jihad: Terrorism’s Prison Connection, congressional testimony, and roles briefing America’s national security officials at institutions like USAFSOS.

That CAIR would strive to bring down Dunleavy, a former New York State deputy inspector general for New York’s Department of Corrections who has investigated jihadist infiltration of our prison system, is telling.

It means it believes the status quo is going to be maintained and it can continue to act with impunity.

The status quo means continuing to seek to silence and thus chill anyone who speaks openly and honestly about the jihadist threat.

CAIR’s actions can be seen as a proxy for the Muslim Brotherhood’s view as to America’s willingness to counter it.

The Trump administration can send a clear signal that it remains dedicated to defeating radical Islam by standing with Mr. Dunleavy.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Zuckerberg-funded charity supports radical Islamic groups

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg

WND, by Art Moore, March 30, 2017:

America’s wealthiest community foundation, with more than $8 billion in assets, has donated a total of more than $330,000 to two U.S.-based Islamic groups determined by the United Arab Emirates to be terrorist organizations.

The donations by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Relief are the targets of a national campaign by the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum.

MEF, led by Daniel Pipes, a noted writer and commentator on Islamic supremacist movements, is calling for immediate termination of the foundation’s funding for the Muslim groups in a Change.org petition.

Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR (VOA Photo/M. Elshinnawi)

The Silicon Valley Community Foundation, or SVCF, is “the go-to charitable organization for some of America’s wealthiest philanthropists,” the petition notes.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a $500 million dollar donation to the foundation in 2013.

MEF said it privately contacted SVCF last month and presented evidence of CAIR’s and Islamic Relief’s extremist ties. SVCF leaders, however, “refused to discuss the matter” and “engaged in a flurry of ad hominem attacks on the Forum,” Israel National News reported.

MEF said it’s “unconscionable that such a leading institution as SVCF, which claims to support ‘understanding and tolerance,’ should help organizations that rely on ignorance and hatred.”

“To be precise, CAIR and Islamic Relief have a long history of providing platforms to speakers who denigrate and threaten women, Jews, Christians, the LGBTQ community, and Muslims belonging to minority sects,” MEF said.

CAIR has sued the authors of a WND Books expose, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which documented the group’s radical ties. A trial in the case is expected to commence this fall.

CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas, and both CAIR and Islamic Relief were designated as terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates in 2014, along with groups such as ISIS and al-Qaida.

According to evidence entered in the Justice Department’s Hamas-financing case, CAIR was founded by figures associated with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the worldwide movement that has stated its intent to transform the U.S. into an Islamic state. The case prompted the FBI to cut off its cooperative relationship with CAIR. More than a dozen CAIR leaders have been charged or convicted of terrorism-related crimes.

Commitment to diversity and tolerance?

In its petition, the Middle East Forum cites regular speakers at CAIR and Islamic Relief events who have rationalized honor killings and wife-beating and advocated the death penalty for homosexuals.

“It should not be politically divisive to state that these ideas are incompatible with SVCF’s self-proclaimed commitment to diversity and tolerance,” MEF says.

MEF also charges that through its funding, SVCF is “legitimizing Islamists as leaders of American Islam,” enabling them “to speak on behalf of ordinary Muslims.”

While CAIR has complained of the unindicted co-conspirator designation, as WND reported in 2010, a federal judge later determined that the Justice Department provided “ample evidence” to designate CAIR as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator, affirming the Muslim group has been involved in “a conspiracy to support Hamas.”

In the ongoing lawsuit CAIR filed against the WND authors in 2009, the group alleged its reputation was harmed, and it sought damages in court.

But a federal court in Washington determined CAIR failed to present a single fact showing it had been harmed, and the organization gave up that specific claim.