Watch Webinar: ‘Hitler’s Islamist Allies and the War Today”


Haj Iman al Husseini and Adolf Hitler

Haj Iman al Husseini and Adolf Hitler‘s latest live webinar, “Hitler’s Islamist Allies and the War Today: The History Lesson That Wasn’t in Your School Textbook,” is now available on the above video.

The webinar’s presenter is‘s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro, who delves into the past and present history of the Muslim Brotherhood to prepare us to confront this alarmingly powerful and growing movement today.

The Brotherhood is dedicated to the establishment of a worlwide Islamic caliphate, which will subjugate every nation to Sharia (Islamic) law. The Brotherhood is a brutal movement, which hides it’s ideology in the guise of “moderation” in order to infiltrate Western society in a non-threatening way, as explicited stated by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum on their strategic goals.

In the U.S., the Brotherhood has set up a series front organizations which present themselves as Muslim rights groups dedicated to fighting so-called “Islamophobia.” But their stated goal “to wage a grand jihad” to bring America down from within.

The Jihad On Free Speech


Islamofascism: Islamists have launched a hostile takeover of American  language through an increasingly aggressive and organized censorship campaign  that threatens free speech.

Over the past few weeks, there have been an alarming number of cases of  Muslim pressure groups trying to force Americans to conform to a pro-Islamic  speech code.

They’ve insisted on censoring any speech or expression that offends them,  including TV ads, Christian symbols, speeches and even parts of speech.

In some cases, the targets of their wrath have caved in to their demands.

•  Last week, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester, Mass., canceled a talk  on Islam by author Robert Spencer after local Muslim groups, egged on by  Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, enlisted a sympathetic  Boston Globe reporter to smear Spencer as a “bigot.”

“We applaud the diocese’s decision,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper  gloated.

•  Last month, Hooper penned a column demanding the Associated Press drop  from its new Stylebook the word “Islamist” to describe militant Muslims who  support jihad and Islamizing the West, such as members of the Muslim Brotherhood  and CAIR itself. He doesn’t like the “pejorative” ring to it, accurate as it  is.

CAIR already got the U.S. government to scrub the term. Now it’s bullying the  press not to use it.

•  CAIR at the same time is running ads on buses in Chicago and San Francisco  redefining the term jihad. The whitewash campaign, dubbed “MyJihad,” aims to  convince Americans that jihad merely means “to struggle,” not wage war.

•  Speaking of ads, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the  Muslim Institute for Interfaith Studies joined forces last week to condemn as  “racist” a light-hearted Super Bowl commercial featuring an Arab walking through  a desert with a camel. Coca-Cola dropped everything and consulted with the  groups on bended knee.

“We did express regret that the ad had been misunderstood,” Coke said.

•  Islamist groups like CAIR are feverishly trying to insert their own word  “Islamophobia” — into the popular lexicon. They use this term, ad nauseam, to  describe anyone who speaks critically of the violent nature of Islam.

•  Recently they petitioned the United Nations to take action to limit free  speech when it’s deemed offensive to Muslims, citing a “striking increase in  Islamophobia.” They hope to one day criminalize it, and they’re inching closer  and closer to that goal.

•  Swayed by such international pressure, the Pentagon last month ordered  crosses and other Christian symbols removed from military chapels where our  soldiers pray in Afghanistan. Why? They insult the local Muslims.

Crescent moons and other Islamic symbols are perfectly fine, however, and  will remain at the mosques the U.S. has erected on those same bases for Afghan  interpreters and security trainees.

Here’s what’s really outrageous about this trend: In many cases, the Muslims  demanding greater respect for Islam are the very reason it gets such a bad  rap.

Some of the same Islamic groups arguing that their religious rights supercede  everyone else’s free-speech rights have actually been read their rights as  terrorist suspects.

Several former officials of CAIR, for example, now sit in prison on  terror-related convictions.

And the Justice Department has ID’d its founder and the entire organization  itself as unindicted terrorist co-conspirators, after linking them to both the  terrorist group Hamas and the radical Brotherhood in the largest terror-finance  case in U.S. history.

Unless Americans want to live under de facto blasphemy laws, they’d better  start standing up to these Islamofascists.


Inside the Muslim Brotherhood’s Torture Chambers

photo_aspx_By Daniel Greenfield

Does the Muslim Brotherhood have its own torture chambers? Well it wouldn’t be a proper totalitarian movement if it didn’t. In the Middle East having your torture chambers is like an American politician getting his own handicapped parking sticker, it’s a sign that you have real power now.

Al-Masry Al-Youm spent three hours Wednesday night in a Muslim Brotherhood torture chamber at the presidential palace. The central chamber was located at the gate of the palace in front of Omar bin Abdel Aziz Mosque on Merghany Street. The chamber was cordoned by iron barriers and Central Security Forces, who only allowed this reporter access after a colleague from Misr 25 satellite channel, owned by the Brotherhood, intervened.

Police officials in uniform were present inside the chamber, as were plainclothes officers from the Nozha police station. Fifteen Brotherhood members were also present, supervised by three bearded men who decided who should be there. They could order anyone out of the room.

Opposing protesters were brought to the chambers after being detained by Brotherhood members, who beat them and tore their clothes.

The kidnappers would take the detained person’s ID card, mobile phone and money before beginning “investigations,” which included intervals of beating to force the confession that he or she is a “thug.”

The interrogators would then ask their captive why they had taken to the street, if they had received any money for protesting, and if they belonged to Mohamed ElBaradei’s Constitution Party, Hamdeen Sabbahi’s Popular Current or the dissolved National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak.

If the detainee denied affiliation, the torturers would intensify beatings and verbal abuse. They also documented the interrogations on a mobile phone camera and contacted the Misr 25 TV channel to name the detainees as thugs.

After a while, a captive would be transferred to a central chamber, where a Brotherhood lawyer would hand his or her ID card and personal belongings to a senior police officer, who was the head of the “investigations department” in the chamber. Some Brotherhood members claimed that they found weapons on the detainees and had handed them over to Nozha police officers.

This reporter heard detainees screaming inside the chamber. One pleaded, “I’m a bearded sheikh… It’s Safwat Hegazy who will restore my rights. I’m a friend of all sheikhs.” A bleeding man cried, “I’m an educated person. I have a car. Do I look like a thug?” A severely beaten detainee, who said he was from Sayeda Zeinab, was accused of being affiliated with former Parliament Speaker Fathi Sorour.

Some of the detainees were not able to respond to the questions the Brotherhood interrogators screamed at them because of their physical state. Some were bleeding profusely and severely fatigued, but were not given medical assistance, only offered bottles of water to drink.

There was blood visible on the pavement outside the chambers. Some Brothers covered it with dust to try to hide it, but some of it remained visible.

Maybe Morsi can call in his good friend Obama to help him spread some of the dust over the blood.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Part III – Hitler’s Imam

Haj Amin al-Husayni – Bosnian-SS

by Peter Farmer:

After escaping Iraq ahead of pursuing British security forces and making his  way to fascist Italy, Amin al-Husseini arrived in Germany in November 1941. Upon  reaching Berlin, al-Husseini was treated as visiting royalty; a head of state in  exile. The Nazi Party supplied him with several luxurious homes staffed with  servants, a chauffeured Mercedes limousine, a monthly stipend equivalent to  $10,000, and suites in two of Berlin’s most-prestigious hotels. He was also  allocated a generous entertainment allowance, intended for his use in  influencing the substantial Arab expatriate community then in Berlin.

Seeking support for Arab pan-nationalism and Muslim causes, al-Husseini had  been in contact with members of the Nazi regime as early as 1933.  He  presented the Nazi leadership with a draft proposal of German-Arab cooperation,  under which Germany would recognize the legitimacy of an Arab state encompassing  Palestine, Syria, Trans-Jordan and Iraq, in return for Arab support of the Axis  Powers in the Middle East. These views found favor in the highest reaches of the  Nazi Party. On November 28, 1941, after meeting with Foreign Minister Joachim  von Ribbentrop, al-Husseini was granted an audience with Führer Adolf  Hitler.

In Hitler, al-Husseini found a soul mate. Although Hitler had written years  before in Mein Kampf of the “racial inferiority” of Muslims, the  Führer’s views had modified considerably since that time. Indeed, in the  blond-haired, blue-eyed and light-complexioned al-Husseini, Hitler found a  fellow Aryan. The Mufti and he shared a passionate hatred of the Jews and the  British. Thus united, they formed a new strategic partnership.

In the months following his successful meeting with Hitler, al-Husseini  formed a number of close relationships with members of the Nazi inner circle,  including friendships with Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler, the head  of the Schutzstaffel (SS), Hitler’s elite body guard and the chief  paramilitary force of the Reich; and SS-Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) Adolf Eichmann. The  Grand Mufti remained close with Reichsminister von Ribbentrop. Soon,  al-Husseini and these men discovered a shared passion for the extermination of  Jews.

At al-Husseini’s request, Von Ribbentrop ordered that no Jews within  German-controlled territory be allowed to leave Europe to enter Palestine. He  also directed the formation of a special bureau within the Foreign Ministry  devoted to extermination of Jewry abroad, called the “Anti-Jewish Action  Abroad.”

With the assistance of Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels, al-Husseini  began pro-Axis Arabic-language radio broadcasts from Berlin to the Middle  East  as early as December, 1941. In these broadcasts, he called upon his Arab  brethren to commit acts of sabotage against the British and to kill Jews and  other infidels at every opportunity. Assisted by Iraqi fellow exile Rashid Ali  al-Gaylani, the Mufti called upon Muslims worldwide to wage jihad against the Allies. In one such broadcast on March 1, 1944, al-Husseini  urged his listeners, “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God,  history and religion.”

The Grand Mufti collaborated actively with Himmler and Eichmann in the  conduct of the “Final Solution” to exterminate the Jews of Europe. He toured  Auschwitz concentration camp with Eichmann, and according to later testimony at  the Nuremburg Trials by top Eichmann aide and SS-Hauptsturmführer  Dieter Wisliceny, al-Husseini constantly urged greater haste in the killing of  the Jews.

In 1943, Himmler asked for al-Husseini’s assistance in recruiting Muslims  into the SS for use in the Balkans; under the Mufti’s enthusiastic direction,  the notorious 13th Mountain Division “Handschar” of the Waffen-SS was formed  from some 20,000 Croatian Muslim volunteers. It later saw action against  Yugoslav partisans under Marshall Tito, and participated in ethnic cleansing  operations against Jews and other “undesirables” in the region. Over 800,000  Yugoslav Serbs, Jews and Roma (gypsies) were exterminated, many by the cruel  members of the Handschar division.

Read more: Family Security Matters

In the next installment of this series, we will examine the life of Muslim  Brotherhood commentator and theorist Sayyid Qutb.

Peter  Farmer is a historian and commentator on national security,  geopolitics and  public policy issues. He has done original research on wartime  resistance  movements in WWII Europe, and has delivered seminars on such  subjects as  political violence and terrorism, the evolution of conflict, combat  medicine,  and related subjects. Mr. Farmer is also a scientist and a  medic.


Andrew McCarthy and “Patriotic” Muslims


Earlier this month author and former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy gave  a terrific, informative, and comprehensive address  at The Center for Security Policy at the National Press Club. It was principally  an answer and a rebuttal to the criticisms of a group of five House  representatives who called for a multi-agency investigation into the backgrounds  of numerous Muslims now employed in various capacities in those agencies. One of  those letters went to deputy inspector general of the State Department, and one  of the persons named in the letter was Huma  Abedin, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s deputy  chief of staff.

McCarthy was the point man in the prosecution of  Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik,” over the 1993 World Trade  Center  bombing. He is a Republican conservative with a libertarian bent who writes for  National Review.

Abedin, it seems, has very close family ties to the Muslim  Brotherhood, an Islamist supremacist  organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the  United States (if not its destruction, as well). The Mainstream  Media and its allies on the Left immediately  charged Michele Bachmann, representative from Minnesota, with alleging that  Abedin is an operative or spy for the Brotherhood. McCarthy and others have  countered with the facts: that Bachmann, based on knowledge that Abedin  especially has had family connections with the Brotherhood, suggested that  perhaps she had not been as thoroughly vetted as a possible security risk.  Bachmann and her colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee were requesting  an investigation of the vetting of Abedin and other individuals. And nothing  more.

The ensuing attack  on Bachmann gave Senator John  McCain of Arizona a chance to grandstand in Congress in Abedin’s defense.  Abedin and McCain, apparently, are friends. However, he committed the same error  as the mainstream media made, and interpreted Bachmann’s request for an  investigation as an allegation of “guilt by association.”

McCarthy not  only deflated such a charge in his Center for Security Policy speech, but  provided ample evidence that the Brotherhood has indeed infiltrated the highest  ranks of government for the purpose of influencing American foreign policy.  During his speech, he said he could not now say how many Muslims were in  positions of influence or even had access to security-sensitive documents.
However, there was a reservation in McCarthy’s depiction of the Islamic  peril. That reservation compromises and qualifies everything else he had to say.  These are the troubling paragraphs. The non-bolded Italics are  mine:

Now, let me be clear about what I said and what I didn’t say. I said Islamist influences, I did not say Muslims. I don’t know  how many Muslims work in the U.S. government, but I feel pretty safe saying  there are thousands. As a federal prosecutor on terrorism cases, I had the  privilege of working with several of them. These were patriotic American  Muslims, and a number of Muslims who may not be Americans but who have embraced  America and the West. Without them, we could not have infiltrated jihadist cells  in New York and stopped terrorists from killing thousands of people.   Without them, we could not have translated, understood and processed our  evidence so it could be presented to a jury as a compelling narrative.  Pro-American Muslims serve honorably in government,  in our military, in our intelligence services, and in our major  institutions. We are lucky to have them because they have embraced  the culture of individual liberty that is the beating heart of Western  civilization. They have accepted the premise of our society that everyone  has a right to freedom of conscience and equality before the law. They have  accepted our foundational principle that free people are at liberty to make law  for themselves, irrespective of the rules of any belief system or ideology. They  construe Islam’s spiritual elements and its laws as a matter of private  conscience, not as a mandatory framework for society. (Italics  mine.) Those Muslims are not Islamists.

What is troubling is that this is a common sentiment among virtually all  well-read, knowledgeable, and actively out-spoken anti- and  counter-jihadist writers and observers. The only Muslims I would  completely trust with my life would be apostates: Ayaan  Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Wafa  Sultan, and a handful of others. These individuals have repudiated Islam in  its entirety, discarded it as moral code, and warned that there can be no such  thing as a moderate Islam. They have acknowledged that there is no such thing as  a “moderate,” peace-loving Muslim, either, that there is no halfway point  between obeying Allah’s commands and the laws of man-made governments, which  Allah decreed, through Mohammad, were an “abomination.”

Parenthetically, the concept of a conscience is strictly religious in  nature, by which one’s explicitly held moral principles are at variance with the  more pragmatic or “practical” actions one must take to pursue one’s ends. As  such a dichotomy, a conscience serves more as a leash rather than as a  guide to moral action.

Let us for the moment take McCarthy’s statement  as true – that these “patriotic” Muslims are not security risks and who  sincerely do not wish harm on the United States – and pose some important  questions:

Which parts of the Islamic doctrine do “moderate,”  peace-loving, “patriotic” Muslims reject, or object to, or claim have been  misinterpreted by “extremists” and “radicals”? To my knowledge, this question  has never been answered, neither by any “moderate” Muslims, nor by any  non-Muslims such as Andrew McCarthy or Robert Spencer or Daniel Pipes. It would  be interesting to know which parts of that doctrine do not call for death,  destruction, enslavement or conquest – that is, the later, abrogating Koranic verses.

And if one could identify those parts, and  segregate them from the belligerent, violent parts, could the remainder be  justly called “Islamic”? Could a Muslim who adhered to those non-violent parts,  and eschewed the violent ones, still be called a “true Muslim”? Would he be any  kind of “Muslim”? Would “conservative” or “extremist” Muslims regard him as one,  or label him a slacker, or an apostate?

If one has serious  reservations about one’s beliefs, yet steadfastly holds onto them in the face of  the choices of rejecting them, compromising them, or of being consistent with  them, is this a matter of faith, or of a congenital psychological or  epistemological disorder? If a private conscience is a personal matter,  characterized by a belief in an all-knowing, omnipotent deity who commands one  to be moral (without any demonstrable, perception-based, reality-grounded  proofs), where would one’s strongest loyalty lay? With the belief, or with  secular law? In a crisis, would a Muslim’s personal ‘belief system” trump his  purported belief in the “foundational principle that free people are at liberty  to make law for themselves”?

Islam’s basic tenets reject any kind of  individualism. Islam is inherently hostile to such concepts of individualism and  political liberty. Islamic ideology seeks to extinguish those things. To wit, as  cited in the Journal  Huma Abedin worked on for twelve years:

The Western habit of reducing religion to the function of a residual force,  separating it from the state and relegating it to personal and individual  affairs, places a deep gulf between the West and other traditions,  especially the Islamic. (p. 6) The Islamic world sees the West as  arrogant, materialistic, repressive, brutal, and decadent with a lack of human  moral values. The domains of Islam perceive Western culture as threatening  because of its materialism, imperialism and its championing of unfettered  individualism at the expense of the common social good. These hallmarks of  Western culture are seen as the source of all troubles. (p. 9) Muslim  intellectuals believe that Western modernity is based on a metaphysical  foundation of immanence that denies transcendence. Sayyid Husayn Nasr describes,  “The embodiment of the Divine Will, as a transcendent reality which is eternal  and immutable, as a model by which the perfections and shortcomings of human  society and the conduct of the individual are judged….”   Sayyid QuÏb described it [modern Islam] as “a disastrous combination of avid  materialism and egoistic individualism.” (p. 9) The war that  has been declared against Western modernity now seeks a new modernity, and,  unlike Western modernity, it is not based on a revolution of rising expectations  and infinite progress, but, rather, on the idea of a human mind at peace with  itself, committed to the sanctity of man and of nature. The search for this new  modernity in the Islamic world gives a high priority to the ideal of justice and  the balancing of individual human rights with the rights of the human  community as a whole. (p. 11) The most common notion of freedom in the  West today is to do, be or say whatever one wishes without  intervention. A substantial range of actions by individuals or groups  cannot be questioned. But in the Islamic notion of freedom, an individual’s or group’s freedom is restricted if fellow human beings  complain of sentimental or sensual feelings as a result of those actions. (p.  11)

All Italics are mine. Need I point out the inherent hostility  of Islam to individualism? Islam requires the unquestioning submission  of the individual to Islamic authority.

All non-Islamist or  non-supremacist Muslims are faced with such a contradiction and the attending  problematic conflict of conscience. If they refuse or are unable to question  their faith, what then? If one could demonstrate to them that their faith is  incompatible with their purported patriotism and loyalty, what would they do  about it? Repudiate Islam, or continue to profess double and irreconcilable  commitments?

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.

Advice for Paul Ryan: stay away from Grover Norquist

Grover Norquist

By Walid Shoebat:

Grover Norquist has, for years, sidled up to Republican establishment leadership. As the president of a group known as Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), he hits many a resonant note with conservatives. There is another, far more disconcerting side to Norquist, however, that sidles up to individuals with ties to Muslim Brotherhood groups, according to Discover the Networks.

Today, in an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Times, Norquist is clearly attempting to win favor with Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, by employing the charm offensive. Says Norquist:

Mitt Romney defined and took command of the 2012 presidential election by selecting Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate.

The November election will focus like a laser on Barack Obama’s accumulation of 5 trillion dollars of debt, his massive “stimulus” spending, the 20 tax increases to pay for his budget-breaking new entitlement program, Obamacare’s growing costs, and the unemployment and slow growth that Mr. Obama’s failed economic policies have wrought.

Adding Paul Ryan to the ticket highlights all the painful failures of the Obama administration and adds one final rebuke: The Republicans have a real plan — a written plan — to reform entitlement spending, reform all welfare programs and enact a Ronald Reagan-style tax reform that lowers tax rates for all Americans.

Regular readers to our site – especially lately – are familiar with the name Abdurahman Alamoudi. Norquist is quite familiar with him too. Here is an excerpt from DTN about a relationship the two had:

In 1998, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a self-described “supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah,” took an interest in Norquist, whom he knew to be one of the Republican Party’s most influential networkers. For years prior, Alamoudi had cultivated ties with the Democratic Party and had contributed significant amounts of money to its candidates. These donations had given Alamoudi access to the Clinton White House and enabled him and his associates to secure the right to select, train and certify Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military. Eager to retain this influential role even if the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, were to lose the upcoming election, Alamoudi wrote two personal checks (a $10,000 loan and what appears to have been a $10,000 gift) that enabled Norquist to establish, and to become the founding chairman of, the Islamic Free Market Institute. Better known as the Islamic Institute, this entity’s stated purpose was to cultivate political support (for Republicans) from Muslim and Arab Americans who embraced conservative family values and free-market economics. In addition, Alamoudi in 2000 and 2001 made payments totaling $50,000 to Janus-Merritt Strategies, a lobbying firm with which Norquist was associated at the time.

In the days after 9/11, Norquist helped a man named Suhail Khan usher Muslim Brotherhood leaders into the White House. The former also helped the latter, Khan, gain increased visibility with the Bush administration.

At CPAC in 2011, David Horowitz called out both Norquist and Khan. Fast forward and watch from 6:40 – 9:00 to see Horowitz talk about Suhail Khan’s father, Mahboob Khan, who co-founded the Muslim Students Association:

In 2006, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) had been in Congress for seven years. He penned an op-ed entitled, “Defining the Threat We Face”. He did so after George W. Bush used the term, “Islamic fascists” for the first (and last) time publicly.


What will Ryan do?

Will he learn from recent history? Will he learn from the mistakes of Bush, Cheney, and Rove, that their cozying up to Muslim Brotherhood front groups has taken the United States to a much more dangerous place? Grover Norquist aided the Bush administration in furthering those ill-advised relationships when he embraced Suhail Khan, who gave the red carpet treatment to Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Norquist appears to be attempting to implement a similar strategy with Paul Ryan.

Mr. Ryan, take our advice (we give it freely and with unadulterated conviction):

Reject Grover Norquist’s influence or your legacy will be less than what it should be.