Ted Cruz Renews Call to Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Group

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, September 12, 2018:

Amidst a highly visible reelection campaign, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) renewed a call last week for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated a terrorist organization.

This follows the Trump administration’s designation earlier this year of two affiliates of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood — Hasm and Liwa al-Thawra — as terrorist organizations:

Last year Cruz introduced S. 68, calling on the State Department to designate the group. The Senate bill is co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore and Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson:

The House companion bill, H.R. 377, is sponsored by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart and currently has 76 House co-sponsors.

Speaking at a Capitol Hill event last week, Cruz invoked the Obama administration’s efforts to purge terror watch lists of anyone connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, and also the Justice Department’s successful arguments during the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 that the Muslim Brotherhood established support networks in the U.S. to support the terrorist group Hamas.

Cruz called for the designation for the “clarity” of standing with our allies (comments begins ~12:30):

I would note, that that clarity is closely related to the bill we were talking about just a minute ago. The legislation that I’ve introduced to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. You know, we live in an era of political correctness. But during the Obama regime, it was beyond political correctness. It was an Orwellian double-speak.

I chaired a hearing on the willful blindness of the Obama administration to radical Islamic terrorism. What we’ve heard, among others, is a DHS whistleblower who explained the Department of Homeland Security had edited or deleted over 800 records to remove references to jihad or Muslim Brotherhood. Simply to delete them. And that it was a purge directed by the White House in writing and they used that word — purge — purge out any references. That blindness is dangerous and makes it vulnerable.

The men and women here know the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto is “Jihad is our way and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” This is who some in the press and some in the political world urge us to think of as a moderate group. Well, read the Brotherhood’s explanatory memorandum on the general strategic goal for the Brotherhood in North America. It says, “the process of settlement is a civilization jihad process. The Muslim Brotherhood must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believer.”

Muslim Brotherhood does not hide that they are a terrorist organization.

Here’s what the Department of Justice said about the Muslim Brotherhood during the Holy Land Foundation trial: “The government’s case includes testimony that in the early 1990’s, Hamas’ parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations within the U.S. to spread a militant Islamist message and to raise money for Hamas.”

Egypt has already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Perhaps because they have seen firsthand what that terror looks like, and the slaughter that it can produce. We need that same clarity. So, I thank you for urging Members of Congress to pass the legislation. I would note also, the administration can do this. We need to pass the legislation, but the administration can do so on its own as well.

I continue to urge the administration. Just as with the embassy and the Iran deal, the lines remain the same. The debate remains the same. And the reason remains the same. There is a virtue to clarity. To standing unshakably with our friends and to standing unshakably against our enemies.

Among other issues covered in Cruz’s speech was his support for the Trump administration’s move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. After that announcement, the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement declaring the U.S. the “enemy of the Arab world.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has bragged about heavily lobbying Congress to prevent any designation, as well as spending $5 million to derail designation efforts:

Just last year, an Arizona man Ahmed Mohammed el-Gammal was convicted of material support for terrorism for assisting a New York college student’s travel to Syria to join ISIS. El-Gammal admitted to being a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, and prosecutors claimed he used a fellow Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood contact living in Turkey to assist the NY student in crossing the border to Syria and joining an ISIS terror training camp.

Also last year, I reported details in my exclusive threepart interview in Cairo with Egyptian terrorism expert Khaled Okasha, the former head of counterterrorism in the Sinai. Okasha traces the origins of Hasm and Liwa al-Thawra to the efforts of Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau leader Mohamed Kamal. Kamal was killed in a shootout with police in October 2016. Okasha explained that the terror groups are still under the effective control of the Muslim Brotherhood after Kamal’s death.

As I’ve reported here at PJ Media previously, many of our Middle East allies, including Israel, have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization:

Following Israel’s designation of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Shin Bet announced that the group was behind a July 2017 terror attack on the Temple Mount that killed two Israeli police officers:

A number of Western governments have also expressed concerns about the hostile actions of the Muslim Brotherhood and corrosive effect the group has in Western society. In same cases, some countries are now denying citizenship to immigrants for their ties to the Muslim Brotherhood:

Given the few legislative days left in the current Congress, it’s unlikely either Cruz’s Senate bill or the companion House bill will be considered this year.

However, given evidence that the Trump administration already has in its possession about the Muslim Brotherhood’s terror support, the Treasury and/or State Department could designate the group at any time.

POTUS and Political Warfare aka Higgins Memo

Read May 2017 document: POTUS & Political Warfare (pdf) by Rich Higgins

Unconstrained Analytics, by Rich Higgins, Sept. 6, 2018:

BACKGROUND

The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the President.

Possibly confusing these attacks with an elevated interplay of otherwise normal D.C. partisan infighting and adversarial media relations, the White House response to these campaigns reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive and dangerously inadequate to the threat.

If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early departure from the White House.

This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle. It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken.

At its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural Marxist outcomes. The campaigns operate through narratives.

Because the hard left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local (ANTIFA working with Muslim Brotherhood doing business as MSA and CAIR), national (ACLU and BLM working with CAIR and MPAC) and international levels (OIC working with OSCE and the UN), recognition must given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate at the narrative level as well.

In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat to the “politically correct” enforcement narratives they’ve meticulously laid in over the past few decades.

In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.

INTRODUCTION

Responding to relentless personal assaults on his character, candidate Trump identified the players and the strategy:

 “The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.” – President Trump, Oct 2016

Culturally conditioned to limit responses to such attacks as yet another round in the on-going drone from diversity and multicultural malcontents, these broadsides are discounted as political correctness run amuck.

However, political correctness is a weapon against reason and critical thinking. This weapon functions as the enforcement mechanism of diversity narratives that seek to implement cultural Marxism.

Candidate Trump’s rhetoric in the campaign not only cut through the Marxist narrative, he did so in ways that were viscerally comprehensible to a voting bloc that then made candidate Trump the president; making that bloc self-aware in the process. President Trump is either the candidate he ran as, or he is nothing.

Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction.

For this cabal, Trump must be destroyed.

Far from politics as usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president.

Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions. For those engaged in the effort, especially those from within the “deep state” or permanent government apparatus, this raises clear Title 18 (legal) concerns.

DISCUSSION

The Opposition

While opposition to President Trump manifests itself through political warfare memes centered on cultural Marxist narratives, this hardly means that opposition is limited to Marxists as conventionally understood. Having become the dominant cultural meme, some benefit from it while others are captured by it; including “deep state” actors, globalists, bankers, lslamists, and establishment Republicans.

Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and is slipping away. Globalists and lslamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed.

Atomization of society must also occur at the individual level; with attacks directed against all levels of group and personal identity. Hence the sexism, racism and xenophobia memes.

As a Judea-Christian culture, forced inclusion of post-modern notions of tolerance is designed to induce nihilistic contradictions that reduce all thought, all faith, all loyalties to meaninglessness.

Group rights based on sex or ethnicity are a direct assault on the very idea of individual human rights and natural law around which the Constitution was framed.

“Transgender acceptance” memes attack at the most basic level by denying a person the right to declare the biological fact of one’s sex.

When a population has 2 + 2 = 5 imposed on it, there are many that benefit:

Mainstream Media 
The principle mechanism for implementing narratives.

The Academy –
Academia has served as a principle counter-state node for some time and remains a key conduit for creating future adherents to cultural Marxist narratives and their derivative worldview.

The Deep State –
The successful outcome of cultural Marxism is a bureaucratic state beholden to no one, certainly not the American people . With no rule of law considerations outside those that further deep state power, the deep state truly becomes, as Hegel advocated, god bestriding the earth.

Global Corporatists & Bankers –
Exploitation of populations, unfettered by national protections and notions of personal morality and piety.

Democratic Leadership –
The democratic leadership has been a counter-state enabler that executes, sustains, and protects cultural Marxist programs of action and facilitates the relentless expansion of the deep state.

Republican Leadership –
More afraid of being accused of being called a racist, sexist, homophobe or lslamophobe than of failing to enforce their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution,” the Republican Establishment accepts and enforces cultural Marxist memes within its own sphere of operations. In doing so, knowingly or not, it becomes an agent of that.

These “conservatives” become increasingly indistinguishable from their democratic counterparts save that they misrepresent themselves to their constituents. Lacking the discernment to recognize their situation, they will work with globalists, corporatists, and the international financial interests and will likewise service the deep state.

These establishment Republicans are the hard left’s designated defeat mechanism in the destruction of the old regime as well as the American ideal. (For more information on how influence operations of the former Soviet Union targeted leading conservative groups and individuals in order to bring them into line with cultural Marxist narratives. See Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=YzZhqeLRIMo).

Because candidate Trump publicly exposed them for their duplicitous activities, they are at risk as long as Trump can turn on them and are, therefore, bitter foes. Candidate Trump’s success remains an ongoing existential threat to establishment Republicans.

Islamists –
Islamists ally with cultural Marxist because, as far back as the 1980s, they properly assessed that the hard left has a strong chance of reducing Western civilization to its benefit.

Having co-opted post-modern narratives as critical points, Islamists deploy these narrative to strategically blind and then control US decision makers. This is by design and purposeful.

“By their own hands!” has been the declared strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood since 1991. This strategy seeks to divide American society against itself with the forced imposition of Islamist objectives on one half of American society by the other half.

Once a society has been effectively atomized, the population will have lost its faith in the old order, detest those who reduced it, and divide along the lines of narrative adherence.

This is the intended outcome of hostile information cum political warfare campaigns and today we see their effects on American society.

Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed. While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump’s insofar as he holds to the vision that made him president.

`

Political Warfare Attacks – A Primer

As used here, “political warfare” does not concern activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency model. (This discussion relies on Thomas A. Marks’ treatment of the Maoist model as discussed in Maoist People’s War in Post-Vietnam Asia (Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press, 2007), 1-14. Hereafter “Thomas A. Marks, Maoist People’s War.”)

Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency.

Maoist methodologies employ synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on mobilization of individuals and groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operational arts and tactics as elements of combat power.

In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile competing state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure.

Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.

Political warfare is warfare.

Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes. They principally operate through narratives.

Because the left is aligned with lslamist organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives.

Cultural Marxism – A Primer

While the attacks on President Trump arise out of political warfare considerations based on non-kinetic lines of effort (as discussed below), they operate in a battle-space prepared, informed and conditioned by cultural Marxist drivers.

In practical terms, the political warfare assault on President Trump cannot be separated from the cultural Marxist narratives that drive them. From an operational preparation of the environment perspective, President Trump is operating in a battle-space that reflects the left’s vision.

As used in this discussion, cultural Marxism relates to programs and activities that arise out of Gramsci Marxism, Fabian Socialism and most directly from the Frankfurt School.

The Frankfurt strategy deconstructs societies through attacks on culture by imposing a dialectic that forces unresolvable contradictions under the rubric of critical theory. The result is induced nihilism, a belief in everything that is actually the belief in nothing.

That post-modern (diversity/multiculturalism) narratives seeks to implement cultural Marxist objectives can be demonstrated by reference to founding Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse’s repurposing of the term tolerance.

In a 1965 paper Marcuse defined tolerance as intolerance; said it can be implemented through undemocratic means to stop chauvinism (xenophobia), racism, discrimination; and should be extended to the left while denied to the right:

  • “The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.”
  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.” (8-9)
  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.” (12)

It is through such post-modern constructs that interoperable narratives are established among various left-wing groups as well as between them and Islamist groups at all levels.

For example, from the 2001 Conference of Foreign Ministers at Bamako, Mali, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) declared its commitment to fight racism and xenophobia and then declared lslamophobia a “contemporary form of racism”:

  • In this context, the World Conference urges all states … take all necessary measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance particularly against Islam
  • Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which display an increasing trend, in their most subtle and contemporary forms, constitute a violation of human rights. 3. Contemporary forms of racism are based on discrimination and disparagement on a cultural, rather than biological basis. In this content, the increasing trend of lslamophobia, as a distinct form of xenophobia in non-Muslim societies is very alarming.

That the OIC made these claims as part of its planned inputs to the United Nation’s “Third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” further demonstrates the coordinated and interoperable nature of these narratives at international levels in international forums.

As cultural Marxist narratives intensify, they are to be further operationalized in the form of hate speech narratives. Hate speech narratives are non-random, coordinated, and fully interoperable escalations of cultural Marxist memes.

Key international players include the European Union, the UN, and the OSCE, the OIC and the International Muslim Brotherhood.

Hate speech memes are structured, coordinated, and implemented through these same international forums. They involve close coordination with media and social media and include the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narratives.

David Shipler’s book Freedom of Speech provides a road map for how hate speech narratives are to be structured, deployed and enforced.

Battlespace

These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum and institutionalized at all levels.

They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media, and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies and within the foreign policy establishment.

They inform the entertainment industry from late night monologues, to situation comedies, to television series memes, to movie themes.

The effort required to direct this capacity at President Trump is little more than a programming decision to do so. The cultural Marxist narrative is fully deployed, pervasive, full spectrum and ongoing. Regarding the president, attacks have become a relentless 24/7 effort.

While there is certainly a Marxist agenda and even lslamist motivations that must be seriously addressed in their own right, these motivations alone seem inadequate to explain the scope and magnitude of the effort directed against the president.

The economic drivers behind the Marxist and Islamist ideologues are enormously influential and seek to leverage these ideological movements for their own self interests.

While beyond the actual scope of this document, the benefactors of these political movements include;

  • Urban Real Estate who depend greatly on immigrant tenants,
  • International Banking who seeks to maintain US debtor status so as to control the application of American power, and
  • elements of the business sector that depend upon immigrant labor or government infrastructure.

The overall objective of these economic forces is the forced urbanization of the populace, thereby necessitating a larger, more powerful government.

In summary, this is a form of population control by certain business cartels in league with cultural Marxists/corporatists/lslamists who will leverage Islamic terrorism threats to justify the creation of a police state.

Adversary Campaign Plan

Political Warfare has been described as “propaganda in battledress.” (“Political Warfare Executive – The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare,” His Britannic Majesty’s Government, London, 1942, 5.)

The effort directed at President Trump is executed along one overt, as well as two covert, lines of effort:

The overt line of effort is PUBLICITY.

Publicity is the straightforward projection of a case that builds a picture in the audience’s mind designed to garner support.

It is facts without context and information the adversary wants the audience to possess that creates an impression and sets conditions.

It seeks to establish good will and receptiveness to additional inputs.

There are two covert lines of effort: PROPAGANDA and INFILTRATION/SUBVERSION.

—Propaganda is the deliberate direction, even manipulation, of information to secure a definite outcome. It is an attempt to direct the thinking of the recipient, without his conscious collaboration, into predetermined channels that are established in the Publicity line of effort. It is the unwitting conditioning of the recipient by devious methods with an ulterior motive that seeks to move them incrementally over time into greater belief and acceptance of message transmitted in the Publicity line of effort.

—Infiltration and subversion operate internal to the targeted organization in order to inform, target, coordinate, and amplify the effects of the publicity and propaganda. Both operate to gather intelligence, obstruct legitimate courses of action, provide inside information, and leak sensitive information that undermines the leadership and suppresses the morale of friendly elements.

—Infiltration of political and social groups within a target state is done for the purpose of extending counterstate influence and control. The endgame is concealed and may involve illicit activities.

—Subversion undermines or detaches the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the target state and transfers political and/or ideological loyalties to the counter-state. As the counter-state forms, a counter-elite of influential individual and key leaders within the target state will later facilitate the legitimacy and permanency of the new regime.

Political warfare employs both publicity and propaganda. It recognizes no intrinsic virtue in the news but rather envisions it as a mechanism to exploit and build up support.

From a political warfare perspective, control of the news cycle is the most potent means of attracting and building up a favorable audience.

As it relates to the news cycle, publicity and propaganda can be merged to form a “pseudo-publicity” that is presented as news in furtherance of sustaining pseudo-realities maintained by cultural Marxist memes.

Pseudo-publicity treatment of President Trump dominates the news cycle. The current campaign against President Trump operates in the following manner:

The Meta Narrative

Meta narratives seeks to delegitimize President Trump, his administration, and the vision of America he projected as a candidate.

With cultural Marxist memes serving as the backdrop, President Trump is to be relentlessly characterized as unfit through the use of supporting narratives acting to move unwitting populations to belief in the meta narrative. Hence:

  • “President Trump is illegitimate”
  • “President Trump is corrupt”
  • “President Trump is dishonest”

Note that the twitter accounts and mainstream media personalities pushing this narrative have seen their audience numbers rise greatly in the past 6 months. This is a direct result of the supporting and backdrop narratives channeling individuals to this meta-narrative.

Supporting Narratives

Meta-narratives are supported by an ongoing series supporting-narratives that can be swapped out as circumstances warrant.

It is important to recognize that these stories do not have to be true, valid or accurate to serve their purpose. Over time, deserved or not, the cumulative effect of these supporting narratives will result in a Trump fatigue.

From a political warfare perspective, President Trump’s inability to meet this challenge will cast him as a weak failed leader.

The current list of supporting narratives include:

  • “Russia hacked the election” – illegitimate
  • “Obstruction of Justice” – corrupt
  • “Hiding Collusion” – dishonest
  • “Putin Puppet” – treasonous

Backdrop Narratives

The backdrop to the meta and supporting narratives are cultural Marxist memes designed to sustain a general sense of loathing of President Trump and the America that elected him. Hence:

  • [meta] President Trump is illegitimate, [supporting] he was elected because of Russian hacking, [backdrop] and besides, he a racist, sexist xenophobe.”

Adversaries utilize these interlocking narratives as a defensive political and information warfare screen that silences critics and smears supporters of President Trump.

When people in the media question the behavior, actions and decisions of the Trump Administration’s opponents, they are immediately said to be “working for the Russians” or “supporting Russian propaganda.” Individual Americans who support the President are deemed “deplorable” and “racist.”

End State

Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election.

Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president.

Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.

CONCLUSION

The recent turn of events give rise to the observation that the defense of President Trump is the defense of America.

In the same way President Lincoln was surrounded by political opposition both inside and outside of his wire, in both overt and covert forms, so too is President Trump.

Had Lincoln failed, so too would have the Republic.

The administration has been maneuvered into a constant backpedal by relentless political warfare attacks structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses.

The president can either drive or be driven by events; it’s time for him to drive them.

U.S. Socialists Back Islamist-Linked Muslim Candidates In Michigan Primaries

Despite these candidates’ less than stellar polling results, there’s reason for concern that efforts to legitimize Islamist politicians will continue.

The Federalist, by Kyle Shideler, August 13, 2018:

The Michigan Democratic primaries on Wednesday proved a mixed bag for Muslim candidates who were endorsed by a mixture of Islamist organizations and members of left-most elements of progressive politics. Yet despite the less than stellar polling results, there’s reason for concern that efforts to legitimize Islamist politicians will continue.

Abdul El-Sayed, a dark-horse gubernatorial candidate who has been compared favorably to former President Barack Obama, surged in the last few days of the campaign, following endorsements from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialist and Democrat Party nominee for New York’s 14th Congressional District, and from former Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders. But El-Sayed couldn’t pull out a win against more traditional Democratic candidate Gretchen Whitmer.

Also supported by Ocasio-Cortez, Fayrouz Saad placed fourth out of the five candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for Michigan’s 11th District. The one outlier was a Democratic primary victory for Rashida Tlaib in Michigan’s 13th district. Tlaib faces no Republican challenger in the general election, virtually guaranteeing she will serve as the first Muslim American woman in Congress.

The three candidates were the beneficiaries of campaign stops by Ocasio-Cortez, who attended a “Muslim Vote Matters” rally organized by Muslim political organizations Emgage and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Michigan chapter on July 31. Comparisons between Ocasio-Cortez and El-Sayed, Saad, and Tlaib were a repeated theme in media coverage.

Ocasio-Cortez was accompanied by Linda Sarsour, a New York-based Islamist activist and Democratic Socialists of America Party member, who painted the potential election of three Muslim candidates as a blow to the Trump administration, which she said has fascist policies.

“There are people that are saying no way, there is no way that a state like Michigan will elect the first Muslim governor in these United States of America. There are people saying there is no way that they are going to send two Muslim women to Congress,” Sarsour told the audience at the rally. “I believe that Michigan is going to sweep the nation. You are going to inspire people who are hurting, whose hearts are broken based on the fascist policies of this administration.”

In the past Sarsour has drawn ire from both sides of the political spectrum after she called for a “jihad” against President Trump. She also faced criticism in The New York Times for her role leading the “Women’s March,” because she has a documented history of anti-Israel statements.

The ties between the organizations named as supporting the rally, and their ties to the Muslim candidates lauded there, are substantial. Emgage was originally co-founded by CAIR alum and Florida lawyer Khurrim Wahid, under the name EmergeUSA. EmergeUSA got its political start raising campaign funds for former Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, a long time CAIR favorite. Even before then, Wahid has a history of associating with Islamists.

Wahid served as a consultant in the case of convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad organizer Sami Al-Arian, according to an interview with Wahhid published by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Wahid was once reportedly placed on a terrorism watchlist.

Emgage’s Michigan chapter is led by Nada Al-Hanooti, who was field coordinator for Tlaib’s 2012 Michigan state House campaign. Al-Hanooti comes from a family of active Islamists. She is the daughter of former CAIR-Michigan executive director Muthanna Al-Hanooti, who was sentenced to a year in prison after being convicted of sanctions violations amid accusations of serving as an agent of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Muthanna’s father, the late Mohammad Al-Hanooti, was an early co-founder of multiple Islamist organizations, and was suspected by the FBI of providing more than $6 millionto the terrorist group Hamas.

Candidate Saad served as board chair of Emgage-Michigan. Tlaib received an award from CAIR Michigan, appeared at a CAIR-MI protestand headlined a CAIR Los Angeles fundraiser. El-Sayed’s father-in-law’s relationship with CAIR-Michigan became a source of tension during the campaign, when a Republican challenger highlighted it, together with CAIR’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist organization Hamas—documented by the U.S. government in the Holy Land Foundation Trial.

It’s not particularly surprising Ocasio-Cortez found common electoral cause with candidates who share common views on issues like U.S. relations with Israel. Ocasio-Cortez struggled in a recent interview after saying Israel “occupied” Palestine, and drew attention for condemning the death of 60 Palestinian protesters in recent border riots, the majority of whom were Hamas activists, according to the terror group, not innocent civilians.

Last year at their annual convention, Democratic Socialists of America chanted the Israel-eliminationist slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which is commonly heard at pro-Hamas rallies. They also passed a motion endorsing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign.

In addition to shared views on Israel, Islamists and the Democratic Socialists share a common challenge in seeking to mainstream their issues and rhetoric. The less-than-impressive outcome of the recent primaries—Politico Magazine titled its article discussing El-Sayed’s loss “Down Goes Socialism”—may warm the hearts both of establishment Democrats and Republicans alike.

But irrespective of their immediate electoral fortunes, outreach by the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party risks legitimizing Islamist candidates, not just in this election cycle but in the future. American Muslims deserve every opportunity to participate in the American political landscape, without being treated as a singular voting bloc that can be delivered by Islamist organizations all too willing to insinuate they alone speak for the Muslim American voter.

Judging the electoral future of Islamists in the United States from a handful of national-level candidates is bound to prove misleading. Ultimately, understanding the prospects of Islamists achieving political influence in America requires understanding how they mobilize at the local level. While Islamists may seek political power through the democratic process, and in alliance with other constituencies, the core of their ideology remains profoundly anti-democratic.

Kyle Shideler is the director of the Counter-Islamist Grid (CIG), which identifies, documents, and exposes Islamist networks operating in local communities.

Exposé – Abdul El-Sayed – Marxist Jihad in Michigan – MUST WATCH!

Investigatve journalist Laura Loomer and Tom Trento expose the troubling background of Michigan’s candidate for Governor, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed. The election is tomorrow! Much more at Loomer’s YouTube channel.

Democrat candidate for Governor of Michigan, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed has a proven history and background with Muslim Brotherhood alignment and associations. His Marxist Jihad interactions in support of Mohamed Morsi during the Arab Spring, the supporters of his campaign – Linda Sarsour, Bernie Sanders, ISNA, and CAIR, and his Sharia compliant Islamic practices all relate the real plan he has for Michigan. WATCH THIS AND LEARN WHO THE REAL ABDUL EL-SAYED IS, HOW HE WILL GOVERN MICHIGAN, AND WHAT EVERY CITIZEN OF MICHIGAN SHOULD KNOW AS THEY VOTE ON AUGUST 7TH!

THIS CANDIDATE HAS PLANS TO “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM” MICHIGAN! 

Remember those words and what that meant to America?  It was NOT good!  And, it will NOT be good for Michigan!

Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed has played his hand very well to the constituents of Michigan!  Many have fallen under his spell and many are just part of the plan, working very hard for his final solution.

  • He has core Muslims siding with him only because he is Muslim, no other qualification!
  • He has the millennials jumping up & down on his every word!  Smiling, hoping he will pick them to stand with in front of the camera!
  • He has the Marxist/Socialist liberal left just waiting for every opportunity to show support!
  • He has known unindicted co-conspirators in clearly defined court cases, standing with him in support and in some cases are identified as his “de-facto” campaign manager.
  • His platform and his Sharia compliant beliefs collide, but when pressed for an answer, he has none!
  • His anti-Israel stand and support of Gaza, yet this topic is never asked during the campaign.
  • His hard cored Muslim Brotherhood history and background are NEVER questioned by any of the Michigan media.  Yet, when one opposing candidate does (Patrick Colbeck), Abdul’s reply is: “You may not hate Muslims, but Muslims definitely hate you!”

When will they learn that Abdul’s plan has played out before, in many cities, towns, and countries!   Look through history and it’s clear the end results are NOT pretty!

Michigan will make the decision on Tuesday, August 7th!    We can only hope they choose wisely!   Constitution or Marxist Jihad for Michigan?

***

WATCH: Founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers Says ‘Sharia Law Is In Michigan’

Big League Politics contributor Laura Loomer to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist. El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law.

Richard Manasseri is the co-founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers, an organization focused on training local law enforcement to understand the criminal behavior sanctioned under Sharia Law and what officers could encounter on the streets of America.

Loomer sat down with Manasseri and asked him about why it is important to know about Sharia and what people need to know about El-Sayed. Is El-Sayed practicing Taqiyya in order to become the next Governor of Michigan and advance Islam in the United States?

“There are 140 mosques in the state of Michigan…each of the Imams at these mosques is supreme,” according to Manasseri. “The mosque itself is a seed of government. Sharia law is in Michigan. We have had leaders of organizations like CAIR Michigan say that it is.”

Manasseri has three daughters and two grand daughters. For him, his biggest concern with Sharia Law is how it deems women as property. Like many, Manasseri worries that if El-Sayed is elected as Governor of Michigan, women in the state will begin to experience less rights under a Governor who practices a completely different legal code than the United States Constitution.

“We are concerned about the personal safety of individual people, and as we’ve said, that would primarily be women, who would be less safe under Abdul El-Sayed,” Manasseri said.

WATCH:

While Democrats in Michigan will deny the negative impact Islamic immigration has had on the state, and while they vehemently deny that Sharia Law exists in Michigan communities, Dawud Walid, the Executive Director of CAIR Michigan, is on the record happily admitting that Sharia Law is alive and well in Michigan.

El-Sayed is not only a Sharia compliant Muslim, but he is a Democrat socialist running on a Marxist political platform as a self-proclaimed “justice Democrat”. Some of the campaign talking points El –Sayed is campaigning on include socialized healthcare, legalization of Marijuana, free college tuition, abortion, opposition to fossil fuels, pro-illegal immigration, and anti-Israel foreign policy. If elected Governor, El-Sayed has vowed to abolish ICE and make Michigan a Sanctuary state where illegal immigrants are protected from deportation and immune to the actions of law enforcement agencies.

El-Sayed, who is running on the Democrat ticket as a “Justice Democrat”, refused to answer questions about his personal practice of Sharia and how Islamic law contradicts key platform stances in the Democrat Party when he was confronted at a campaign event in Michigan last week.

El-Sayed practices Sharia law in his personal life, and has stated that his “head touches the floor 34 times a day” during his Islamic prayers. His true colors as a Muslim were revealed in May of 2018 while he was speaking to the Michigan Press Association at the Kellogg Center in East Lansing, Michigan. While speaking, El-Sayed yelled at Senator Patrick Colbeck and said, “You may not hate Muslims, but ALL Muslims hate you.”

Colbeck is a Republican member of the Michigan Senate, and he is currently a Republican candidate running to become the next Governor of Michigan.

On Sunday, self proclaimed socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in Michigan campaigning for El-Sayed, who has openly declared his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and has been endorsed by CAIR, both of which are designated terrorist organizations.

Also see:

Congressional Muslim Brotherhood Hearing Reveals Danger of Not Speaking Truth About Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 12, 2018:

This is, as UTT has made clear in the past, an important line of operation in this war and one which should be pursued with great vigor.

However, statements made during the hearing raise serious concerns of a continued gross lack of understanding of the threat by drawing broad distinctions between Muslim Brotherhood doctrine and “true Islam.”

Since the “true Islam” referred to during the hearings does not exist, and in fact the “version” of Islam articulated by the International Muslim Brotherhood – as well as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others – is core Islamic doctrine, the difference between the two is a fantasy and is no place to try to build strategies for victory.

Testimonies Raising Concern

The testimony of Dr. Hillel Fradkin from the Hudson Institute agreed the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to establish an Islamic State, yet placed the root of this idea at the feet of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, and did not acknowledge Muslim Brotherhood doctrine is core Islamic doctrine.

Fradkin went on to say that “This approach entailed the gradual transformation of society to Brotherhood principles before the seizure of political power, in Egypt and elsewhere.”  Dr. Fradkin attributed this “gradualist” approach as an invention of al Banna.

In reality this “approach” comes from core Islamic doctrine.  It is progressive revelation, and simply reaffirms the exact same methods used by Islam’s perfect man, Islam’s prophet Mohammad, to implement Islam in society.

In his testimony,  Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated, “Many Muslim Brotherhood branches subject their members to rigid indoctrination processes and vet their
members for their commitment to the organization’s ultimate goal, which is to empower the Brotherhood’s politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam.”

The question must be asked, since this comment was made in testimony on Capital Hill, how is the “Brotherhood’s politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam” different from what 12 year old muslims are taught in U.S. Islamic schools?  How does it differ from what the highest authority in Islamic jurisprudence – Al Azhar – teaches Islamic scholars?

It does not.

Mr. Schanzer went on to say, “Factions of the Brotherhood without a history of violence or terrorism finance do not warrant scrutiny,” and recommended the U.S. should “Designate the violent actors while keeping a close eye on non-violent ones.”

Since the global Islamic Movement’s primary  road to victory is in the non-violent realm, to focus primarily on the violence – as the enemy wants us to do – is to lose the war.

Zuhdi Jasser, a muslim doctor from Arizona identified himself as a “devout muslim” in his testimony.

In his statement, Dr. Jasser said, “Neither Islam nor Muslims are monolithic and should not be treated as such by anyone.”

The problem with this statement is two-fold.  First, it is untrue.  The thing that binds the Islamic world together is the obligation, under penalty of death, for muslims to obey sharia and work to impose it on the world.  There is no “version” of Islam that does not require this.

Secondly, the statement that Islam is not monolithic and very hard to understand, is something UTT teaches its students to repel with the truth.  It is on UTT’s radar because it has been a talking point for the Islamic Movement for over 20 years.

Dr. Jasser also asserted, “For us (muslims) it is a very personal mission to leave our American Muslim children a legacy that their faith is based in the unalienable right to liberty and to teach them that the principles that founded America do not contradict their faith but strengthen it.”

In fact, there is no book of Islamic law or any Islamic school text used in the United States – or elsewhere for that matter – which teaches muslims to adhere to America’s founding principles.  In fact, the most widely used text book in U.S. Islamic schools, What Islam is All About, reads:  “The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

In the end, Dr. Jasser recommends the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood gradually beginning with a few Islamic nations overseas, but NOT in the United States.

The testimony of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin denied the clarity of the International Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives and their controlling doctrine (sharia) when he testified, “There is no singular, monolithic Muslim Brotherhood…there is no central administration linking these disparate groups.  In character and matters of doctrine, they vary greatly…Does the Muslim Brotherhood constitute a global threat?  Here too, I would answer that it does not.  Most of the groups that are said to be Muslim Brotherhood affiliates or franchises support democracy and abjure violence.”

Setting aside the fact the leadership of the International Muslim Brotherhood hosts regular meetings to discuss strategy and assess their progress, these comments leave listeners/readers with the idea that different levels of sharia implementation in different Islamic nations by the Muslim Brotherhood is synonymous with a lack of unified doctrine or modus operandi, which is demonstrably untrue.

To say the MB rejects violence is to be wrong.  See their by-laws here.

The Brotherhood calls for the implementation of sharia on the planet.

It is all about sharia.  That is what links the entire global Islamic Movement together.

Notable are the comments by Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts during the hearing which reveal a continued lack of understanding of the Islamic threat by major components of the U.S. government.  After listing examples of violence advocated and perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Lynch said, in part, “Meanwhile, democratically elected political parties that also fall within the Muslims Brotherhood umbrella represent a significant voting block in the Parliaments and government coalitions of some of our key counterterrorism allies in the middle east and north Africa…the State department lists Tunisia along with Jordan and Morocco as our committed partners in the coalition to defeat the Islamic State.”

And therein lies the problem.  Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco are all parties to the OIC which served the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” to the United Nations in 1993 which states how all 57 Islamic states on the planet view the rest of the world and how non-muslims are to be treated – through the lens of sharia.

The Enemy’s Unified Objective

The enemy in this war unambiguously and unanimously identifies itself as “muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State under sharia.”

Different elements of the enemy’s army have different roles and different methods to get to the same end – an Islamic State under sharia.

Every Islamic nation on earth is a party to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which calls for sharia on the earth.

Al Qaeda, ISIS, and thousands of violent jihadi organizations on the earth state their objective is an Islamic State under sharia.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws state their purpose is to establish an Islamic State under sharia.

All Islamic doctrine (sharia) requires muslims to wage war against non-muslims, in accordance with sharia, until an Islamic State is established under sharia.

Enemy’s Main Line of Operation:  Non-Violent Action

The idea the U.S. should only focus on groups or individuals engaged in violence is the same failed idea bringing the U.S. closer to defeat in this war.

The enemy’s line of operation that continues to be wildly successful against the non-muslim world is their ability to create the optical illusion that one part of their forces is pitted against another part and, therefore, friendly to us.

For instance, when suit-wearing jihadis from Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stepped in front of television cameras and condemned the killings in San Bernardino, they appeared reasonable and “moderate” relative to the two jihadis and the dead bodies they left behind.

As the Islamic Movement moves forward and gains ground, they are increasingly willing to hold out the Muslim Brotherhood as the problem so long as it keep U.S. leaders from ever identifying Islam as the problem.

The concern UTT continues to voice is this:  time is growing short.

Leaders in the Islamic Movement know they need to keep us off target just a little bit longer.  So the closer American’s get to the truth, the more finely Islamic leaders parse the truth.

U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders have kept this administration from designating the MB terrorists for over a year and a half.  As there is a growing consensus to designate them, the calls now come for a partial designation because – we are told – people who want to non-violently overthrow America’s Constitutional Republic and replace it with a barbaric system which enslaves human beings (sharia/Islam) – should not be the focus of U.S. efforts against the Brotherhood.

In focusing primarily on the violent elements of the Islamic Movement, the United States is in grave danger of losing a war it could easily win if it simply identified the threat – sharia adherent muslims.

Coda

Yesterday’s hearing did a good thing by moving the ball forward in America’s effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  As government officials move forward in their efforts to protect and defend this Republic, they will do well to remember that TRUTH is the standard to which national security professionals must cling if victory is still the objective.

Our objective, not the enemy’s.

Desantis Hearing Establishes the Muslim Brotherhood Must Be Designated as a Terrorist Organization – the Sooner, the Better

Center for Security Policy, 

NEWS RELEASE, July 11, 2018

For more information contact:

Deborah Hamilton, Media@HamiltonStrategies.com, 610.584.1096, ext. 102, or Patrick Benner, 610.584.1096, ext. 104.

DESANTIS HEARING ESTABLISHES THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD MUST BE DESIGNATED AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION – THE SOONER, THE BETTER 

Washington, DC:  It is no longer a question of whether the United States will designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. It is only a matter of when and how.

That’s the principal take-away from a congressional national security panel this morning that addressed “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat” and what the US should do about it.

“This hearing is an opportunity to discuss what the United States’ next step should be in combatting the Muslim Brotherhood’s threat,” said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the House oversight committee.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a militant Islamist organization with affiliates in over 70 countries,” DeSantis said. “There’s no question that the Muslim Brotherhood’s affiliates are involved in terrorism.”

The historic hearing follows a June 28 Center for Security Policy Decision Brief that called on the Trump Administration to declare the entire Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts and affiliates as terrorist organizations.

“Thankfully the Trump Administration has discarded the Obama-era policy of treating the Brotherhood as a potential ally,” DeSantis said. “Now, the questions are focused on how expansive to make the terror designation, and whether it should be done through the State Department or Treasury Department.” 

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a longtime associate of the Center for Security Policy, was one of the four witnesses who testified. He was the only Muslim witness, and made the case powerfully for Center-recommended policy of designating the entire Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts as terrorist entities.

In the course of his testimony, Dr. Jasser rebutted characterizations by the Brotherhood’s apologists and enablers of its critics as “haters” and “Islamophobes”:

Nothing would be more pro-Muslim than the marginalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and its direct affiliates. Making the Muslim Brotherhood radioactive would allow the light to shine upon their most potent antagonists in Muslim communities – those who reject political Islam and believe in liberty and the separation of mosque and state.

He also discussed national security risks associated with failing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates as terrorist entities. One of them is censorship of jihadist terminology in U.S. government agencies.  Dr. Jasser correctly observed that such censorship impedes analysts’ ability to protect the nation:

To think that these words and concepts, and others are off limits in the freest nation on earth, censored [in] our agencies, is just incredulous considering the growing threat we face today from violent Islamism.  It smacks of a bizarre invocation of blasphemy laws in America. It is groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have benefited from our refusal to discuss these elements of Islam and Islamism.

The three other witnesses – Hillel Fradkin of the Hudson Institute, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Daniel Benjamin of the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution – agreed to varying degrees that the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes a threat.  They recommended, however, more narrow terrorist designations of specific Muslim Brotherhood entities.

Chairman DeSantis observed: “It is clear that the Brotherhood constitutes a real threat to the national security interests of the United States.  We can debate the best way to counter this threat, but simply ignoring the threat is not an acceptable answer.”

The Center for Security Policy has submitted a statement for the hearing recordendorsing Rep. DeSantis’ assessment and laying out the factual basis for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

Center President Frank J. Gaffney urged legislators, executive branch officials, the media and the public at large to examine particularly compelling evidence of the threat the Brotherhood poses: Its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America– a secret plan for “destroying Western civilization from within” written by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Akram, and introduced by the federal government into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation et.al. v. United States terrorism financing trial.

Congress Renews Push to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Group

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood / Getty Images

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, July 11, 2018:

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are renewing a years-long push to designate the international Muslim Brotherhood organization as a terrorist organization due to its support for terror organizations that threaten U.S. security interests across the globe, according to conversations with U.S. officials spearheading the effort.

The congressional effort to target the Muslim Brotherhood will kick off early Wednesday, when lawmakers on the House’s Subcommittee on National Security gather for a hearing to “examine the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates pose to the United States and its interests and how to most effectively counter it, including potential next steps for U.S. policy,” according to the committee.

The hearing is expected to set the stage for Congress to follow through on efforts that begun in 2015to convince the Obama administration to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group following its violent, and eventually failed, takeover in Egypt.

The State Department has opposed formal designation of the Brotherhood for some time due to efforts by the Obama administration to make diplomatic overtures to the group, particularly during its coup in Egypt. Although the Trump administration has designated various offshoots of the Brotherhood as global terror groups, the organization as a whole has escaped U.S. scrutiny.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), the National Security Subcommittee’s chair, told the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. policy has failed to address the Brotherhood’s radical behavior and support for terror groups. Multiple countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, have already designated the Brotherhood as a terror group.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a malevolent force, and American policy needs to reflect this truth,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon. “Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization is overdue.”

Key U.S. allies such as Turkey and Qatar continue to work alongside the Muslim Brotherhood, sparking concern among lawmakers such as DeSantis who view these countries as working at a crossroads with the Trump administration as it works to eradicate radical forces in the Middle East.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Islamist organization that has generated a network of affiliates in over 70 countries,” the House committee notes on its website promoting the upcoming hearing.

In addition to hearing from Muslim Brotherhood experts on the group’s ongoing support for radical terror groups, lawmakers participating in the hearing will keep a close eye on exposing the roles that both Qatar and Turkey play in bolstering the group’s radical ideology, according to those briefed on the hearing.

While the Trump administration, as early as January 2017, indicated that it was considering a terror designation for the entire Muslim Brotherhood, little action has been taken, motivating Congress to lead the charge.

Past efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood failed to gain traction during the Obama administration due to its explicit policy of working with the group in Egypt, a policy that was met with much protest in the region.

U.S. Muslim advocacy organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, have galvanized their supporters to oppose a Muslim Brotherhood designation.

In early 2017, groups affiliated with CAIR and its supporters launched a series of attacks on Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who, at the time, was pushing his own effort to formally designate the Brotherhood as a terror entity.