Son of Muslim Brotherhood Official Visits White House

In this March 9, 2015 photo, Mohammed Soltan is pushed by his father Salah during a court appearance in Cairo, Egypt / AP

In this March 9, 2015 photo, Mohammed Soltan is pushed by his father Salah during a court appearance in Cairo, Egypt / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, January 19, 2017:

The son of a Muslim Brotherhood official who was imprisoned in Egypt until mid-2015 visited the White House earlier this week, according to photos posted on social media.

Mohamed Soltan is an American citizen who served as the unofficial spokesperson for a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated protest movement that sought to reinstate Mohamed Morsi following his ouster in 2013. Soltan visited the White House just days before President Barack Obama is set to vacate the presidential home.

Soltan, the son of a senior Muslim Brotherhood official Salah Soltan, was sentenced to life in prison by Egyptian authorities for his role backing the Muslim Brotherhood as it carried out deadly protests following Morsi’s ouster.

The younger Soltan was released from prison after a lengthy hunger strike and efforts by the Obama administration to secure his freedom.

screen-shot-2017-01-19-at-9-14-33-am-3

Soltan, who has been critical of the Muslim Brotherhood in the past and claims to not be an official member of the organization, thanked the Obama administration in comments accompanying the photo of him in the White House, which was posted on Facebook.

The Obama administration has come under fire in the past for hosting official members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which some lawmakers in Congress have sought to designate as a terrorist organization.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported in 2015 that the State Department had lied to reporters about a meeting it held with Muslim Brotherhood members.

One member of that delegation, a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture in which he held up the Islamic group’s four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.

Where is Suit-Wearing Jihadi Suhail Khan Today?

khanUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, January 17, 2017:

Prolific suit-wearing jihadi Suhail Khan was in the White House on 9/11.  After officials discovered his father was a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader, he was moved out, but found himself back in the fold in a relatively short amount of time, serving two Secretaries of Transportation in the Bush administration. This gave Suhail Khan a security clearance, access to America’s infrastructure, and a great resume boost.

He continues his war against America as a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement here.

Mahboob Khan

Mahboob Khan

Khan’s father, Mahboob Khan, founded the Muslim Students Association as well as the Muslim Brotherhood’s largest organization in North America, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  ISNA has an annual award entitled the “Mahboob Khan Award,” which should give readers and idea of his influence in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

This would explain why- at the 1999 ISNA conference – Khan said, muslims love death more than non-muslims love life – a common statement heard out of the mouths of ISIS and Al Qaeda jihadis on the battlefield.

Al Qaeda Financier & Close Friend of Suhail Khan – Abdurahman Alamoudi

Al Qaeda Financier & Close Friend of Suhail Khan – Abdurahman Alamoudi

He also thanked an praised Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi, who also spoke fondly of Suhail’s father.

See the UTT video of Suhail Khan:

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-11-51-33-pm

Khan also serves with the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) where Muslim Brotherhood propaganda is supported, encouraged, and directed at a significant level in the United States.  IGE’s Board of Advisors includes Muslim Brotherhood stooge John Esposito of Georgetown University, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, President Bush’s Former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes, Ambassador Robert Seiple (Chairman Emeritus), and others.

Suhail Khan continues his work with Republican strategist Grover Norquist, and has been a guest at CPAC, where he is defended by Republicans against those who speak truth about his terrorist ties.

Jihadi Suhail Khan with Grover Norquist

Jihadi Suhail Khan with Grover Norquist

This penetration into our system continues.  Suhail Khan is still walking the streets welcome in Republican circles and wreaking havoc in a suit.

Khan is now the Director of External Affairs for Microsoft, which might explain the pro-Muslim add campaign from Microsoft in December 2016.

The Muslim Brotherhood Isn’t The Only Gang In Town

MA Senator Liz Warren and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh greet Al Qaeda terrorist supporter Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on December 11, 2016.

MA Senator Liz Warren and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh greet Al Qaeda terrorist supporter Imam Abdullah Faaruuq at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on December 11, 2016.

Daily Caller, by Sam Westrop and Charles Jacobs, January 16, 2017:

Americans for Peace and Tolerance, like so many other counter-extremist and moderate Muslim groups, has focused almost exclusively on the Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by its influence inside American civic institutions, media and the Muslim community.

But as we have found now in Massachusetts, this singular focus risks overlooking equally-dangerous threats posed by preachers and operatives from other Islamist networks and ultra-conservative Islamic groups.

Tomorrow, for example, after a series of events in Connecticut, the Indian Islamist cleric, Yusuf Islahi will be addressing crowds at the Islamic Society of Great Worcester, at an event organized by Helping Hand for Relief and Development – a prominent Islamic charity feted by U.S. government officials and media alike.

Yusuf Islahi is a prominent Islamist, not part of the Brotherhood but rather a leading member of Jamaat-e-Islami  (JeI), a South Asian Islamist organization that promotes terrorism and incite hatred against Jews, women, homosexuals and other minorities. Today, the Bangladeshi war crimes tribunal holds JeI responsible for mass-murder, abduction and torture during the 1971 War of Independence, and has convicted several Western JeI leaders for their complicity. The good people of Worcester surely don’t know this.

Read more

Republicans Propose Bills Designating Iranian Guard And Muslim Brotherhood As Terror Groups

irgc-e1484171929343

Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, January 12, 2017:

Two bills reintroduced in the Congress late Wednesday designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz re-proposed the two bills in the upper chamber while Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul and Florida Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart dropped companion bills in the House.

The bills, according to a press release, will direct the State Department to hold accountable both the IRGC and the Muslim Brotherhood “two foreign entities that espouse a violent Islamist ideology with a mission of destroying the West. Both bills require a report on whether these organizations meet the criteria to be designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and if so, will enable the U.S. to take action that could stifle the funding they receive to promote their terrorist activities.”

McCaul introduced the IRGC Terrorist Designation Act in the House, which asks the State Department to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization and Diaz-Balart filed legislation for the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, which urges State to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

The passage and adoption of such legislation would be very different from the Obama administration’s relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly in Egypt, where the administration supported the previous Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government headed up by Mohamed Morsi.

“I am proud to reintroduce these bills that would codify needed reforms in America’s war against radical Islamic terrorism,” Sen. Cruz said of the legislation. “This potent threat to our civilization has intensified under the Obama administration due to the willful blindness of politically-correct policies that hamper our safety and security.

Rep. Diaz-Balart agreed saying a statement, “I am proud to once again work with Senator Cruz to introduce this legislation in the 115th Congress. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to support terrorist organizations that are responsible for acts of violence around the world.” He added, “This bill would impose tough sanctions on a hateful group that has spread violence and spawned extremist movements throughout the Middle East. This designation is long overdue, and I look forward to working with the incoming administration and the appropriate committees to ensure that this bill becomes law. We have an incoming president who appreciates the threat of terrorism and has vowed to defeat it. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is an important step in defeating violent extremists.”

The IRGC terrorist designation bill comes on the heels of reports that the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran announced delivery of 116 metric tons of natural uranium to the Iranian regime on Monday.

Rep. McCaul said of the IRGC legislation that “If a foreign organization looks like a terror group, operates like a terror group, and supports terrorism, then it should be called for what it is – a foreign terrorist organization.” He added, “As obvious as that seems, for years the IRGC has been allowed to operate clandestinely using front companies and illicit networks to evade formal designation. The Obama Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to these activities for the sake of a flawed nuclear agreement which Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei stated publicly would not alter Iran’s behavior.”

House Homeland Security Chair Backs Brotherhood Ban

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Turkey (Photo: © ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Turkey (Photo: © ADEM ALTAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, January 3, 2017:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and two other congressmen have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. A total of 90 members of Congress have cosponsored or voted for the bill’s advancement, including two Democrats.

The other two new cosponsors are Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Glenn Grothman (R-WI).

The act passed the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year but was stalled when Republican leadership in the House did not schedule a vote. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), did not even schedule hearings. It was originally introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Click here to ask your representatives to support the legislation.

The legislation states that Congress’ assessment is that the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department. It gives the secretary of state 60 days to provide a detailed response as to whether the Brotherhood fits the criteria or not.

The legislation outlines the evidence linking the Brotherhood and Hamas to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) reiterated his comment to passing the legislation on November 15 and linked to a blog post based on the Clarion Project’s article.

Renewed momentum for the legislation would likely result in the Trump Administration’s State Department designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Trump has chosen several supporters of designating the Brotherhood for his Cabinet, including Rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director; Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general; General Michael Flynn as national security adviser and Steve Bannon as chief political strategist. Incoming Defense Secretary General James Mattis is also likely to be supportive.

Trump also chose Monica Crowley as the national security council’s director of strategic communications and Katharine Gorka as part of the “landing team” overseeing the transitions at the Department of Homeland Security. Both support designating the Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

We recently reported how a Muslim activist, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, wrote an op-ed asking President-elect Trump to designate the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. Four organizations representing persecuted Christians are also pushing for the bill. A prominent Kurdish Muslim activist is also supporting the bill.

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act must be careful not to squander an important opportunity.

While it is true that the new secretary of state may very well designate the Brotherhood, thus rendering the legislation irrelevant, that is not the best first step, as welcomed as it would be.

By having a vote on the legislation first, the American public gets a rare “red line” moment to find out where their representatives stand and compel them to become educated on the issue. All members of Congress sound tough when it comes to ISIS and Al-Qaeda, but only a minority speak with proficiency about the broader Islamist networks and ideology.

A quick move by the secretary of state would end this period of education for elected officials and for the American public. It would embolden wobbly politicians to say they privately disagreed with the designation when the Islamists raise the temperature. The American people deserve to know their representatives stood at this moment in time when their hands were forced.

Below is a list of those who have cosponsored the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act (HR3892 and S2230) or voted in favor of its advancement. Please review the list and click here to ask your representatives to take a stand if they are not on the list.

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Original introducer of legislation

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

James Inhofe (R-OK)

David Perdue (R-GA)

Foreign Relations Committee member

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

 

Mike Bishop (R-MI) Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO) Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH) Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL) Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA) Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN) Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX) J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ) Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX) Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA) Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH) David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA) Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA) John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS) Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX) Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL) John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC) Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX) Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI) Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX) Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH) Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL) Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN) Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA) Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX) Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Gene Green (D-TX) Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA) Doug Lamborn (R-C)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) Austin Scott (R-GA)
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
Dennis A. Ross (R-FL) Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Robert J. Dold (R-IL) Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Tom Marino (R-PA) Tim Walberg (R-MI)
John Moolenaar (R-MI) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Mo Brooks (R-AL) Sam Johnson (R-TX)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY) John Fleming (R-LA)
Lou Barletta (R-PA) Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Brad R. Wenstrup (R-OH)

Glenn Grothman (R-WI)

Also see:

Terror Experts ‘Very Concerned’ About Sen. Warren Aide and His Radical Mosque

warren-1

Warren staffer Hamza Abdelgany invited the senator to speak at a Boston Islamic Center linked to several major terrorism cases.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, December 12, 2016:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she made an ill-advised appearance at a Boston mosque linked to several major terrorism cases at the request of an office aide who attends the radical mosque.

The Massachusetts Democrat said she agreed to speak Sunday at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center at the urging of staffer Hamza Abdelgany, who is a member of the mosque, which has graduated no fewer than 13 terrorists and recently was caught on video defending many of the terrorists, even after they were convicted in federal court.

Warren spoke before the congregation for several minutes chiefly to complain about “anti-Muslim hate” allegedly inspired by the election of GOP President-elect Donald Trump.

Charles Jacobs, founder of Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance, told CJ that he is “very concerned” that a member of a mosque that supports and even raises money for the legal defense of known terrorists has such political clout. He said that Warren’s ill-considered visit bestowed undue legitimacy on ISB.

ISB operates two mosques: one in Roxbury, where the so-called “interfaith” event attended by Warren was held, and the other in Cambridge, where several terrorists and terrorist supporters have worshipped, including:

  • Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev;
  • Aafia Siddiqui, aka Lady al-Qaida, who raised money for the terror group in area mosques and is serving an 86-year federal sentence for trying to murder a US Army captain in Afghanistan, where she was captured with plans to carry out a chemical attack on New York City;
  • ISB imam Abdullah Faaruuq, who was heard on tape urging Boston Muslims to “pick up the gun and the sword” to defend Siddiqui during her 2010 trial.
  • Tarek Mehanna, who in 2012 got 17 years in federal prison for conspiring to use automatic weapons to murder shoppers in a suburban Boston mall, as well as for conspiring to aid Al Qaeda;
  • Ahmad Abousamra, an indicted terrorist co-conspirator of Mehanna who fled to Syria in 2006 where he resurfaced as a top ISIS propagandist and was added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list in 2013, where he remains today.
  • ISB congregant Rezwan Ferdaus, who in 2012 got 17 years in federal prison for plotting to attack the Pentagon and US Capitol with remote-controlled airplane bombs.
  • ISB major donor Oussama Ziade, who was indicted in 2009 for dealing with terrorist funds and is now a fugitive living in Lebanon.
  • ISB co-founder Abduraham Alamoudi, who was sentenced in 2004 to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism and identified by the US government as a top Muslim Brotherhood figure as well as a key al-Qaida fundraiser in America.
  • ISB founding trustee Yusuf Qaradawi, who was placed on the US terror watchlist after calling for violent jihad against US troops in Iraq and is currently the subject of an Interpol arrest warrant on charges of incitement to murder.
  • Jamal Badawi, another former trustee who in 2007 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian suicide bombers.

ISB leadership also includes Abdul-Malik Merchant, an associate imam who recently was forced to apologize to the Jewish community for posting anti-Semitic posts on social media.

ISB member Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was caught on surveillance videotape planting a bomb along the Boston Marathon route, became an angry jihadist after joining the mosque. According to his ex-girlfriend, “One minute he was a normal guy, the next minute he is watching these crazy Muslim videos.”

In 2011, ISB hosted an event in support of no fewer than 22 terrorists who were convicted of providing material support for al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Jihad and Pakistani terrorist groups — including Siddiqui, Alamoudi and Mehanna. During the event, which was caught on video, relatives of the terrorists bashed the FBI, the Justice Department and the US government; and at least one speaker called for violent jihad against the US.

Still, Warren stood where they stood and bashed the president-elect.

“I am very concerned about how Donald trump is beginning to define his administration with the people he personally is picking to lead this country,” Warren said, while claiming that “since the election attacks on racial and religious groups have skyrocketed.”

“Now is a time when we must be willing to say loud and clear there is no room for bigotry anywhere in the United States of America — none,” she said. “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us, and we will fight back against discrimination whenever and wherever it occurs.”

Six prominent religious leaders fired off a letter criticizing Warren for agreeing to appear at the mosque, arguing she provided “political cover to one of the most intolerant jihadist mosques in America.”

Warren was invited by ISB member Hamza Abdelgany, a staff assistant working out of Warren’s Quincy, Mass., office. Abdelgany was involved with the Muslim Students Association while attending the University of Massachusetts at Boston. The US government says MSA is a front group for the radical Muslim Brotherhood, which supports violent jihad and conspires to one day bring the US and other Western nations under Islamic rule.

“The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt … Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law,” U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks said in a 2008 court filing related to a major terrorism case. “Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s, where they began their grassroots work on campuses through an organization called the Muslim Students Association.”

ISB is run by the Muslim American Society, a known Muslim Brotherhood front group which also runs the so-called “9/11 mosque” in the Washington area, Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Ilya Feoktistov, director of research for Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said that by ignoring ISB’s well-documented ties to terrorists, Warren is serving as an “enabler” of jihad.

Combating Political Islam

political-islam-captureClaremont Institute, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, December 9, 2016:

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump voiced beliefs about national security that many Americans have shared since, at least, the early days of the Obama administration. The inability to speak honestly and coherently about the enemy and its ideology, Trump argued, has repeatedly led to failure: terror attacks at home that were not stopped; wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria that were not won.

Millions of Americans agree with Trump’s assessment, believing the Obama White House had, for reasons of political correctness, mischaracterized the terrorist threat, treating Islam as a secondary feature instead of the defining one. Any such assessment, however, necessarily implies this corollary: an accurate representation of the enemy based on its ideology would indicate a far larger threat to U.S. interests, encompassing more of the Islamic world than previously admitted by either of the past two presidential administrations.

On national security, Trump has a mandate from the American people to expand the focus of the Obama years—which fixates on the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, all of whom seek to forcibly impose an Islamic state—to a more comprehensive understanding of the enemy and the threat it poses. “We can beat them,” Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), told Fox News in September, “but we have to decide that this is an enemy first.” This more expansive understanding, then, centers on an ideology that promotes implementing an Islamic political order as the sole legitimate method of religious and political expression.

As articulated by prominent Islamist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the primary preoccupation of Islamist movements is “Islamic Awakening,” a revivalist strategy activating Muslims throughout the world to impose totalitarian Islamic law—first within a given territory, a Caliphate, then across the world. The imposition of Islamic law means restricting free speech and persecuting minority and non-Muslim communities. These goals being antithetical to liberal democracy, the success of Islamist political movements are inherently destructive of America’s vital interests.

Ideological Threat Focus: Islamism, Not Just ISIS

Among those who have supported a wider national security threat focus, opinions differ as to whether practitioners of this ideology—call it political Islam or Islamism—represent an aberration of Islam generally; a strain among many strains of Islamic thought; or whether it is, as Islamists themselves claim, the only faithful representation of Islam’s historical and legal practices. But few dispute the entity most responsible for advancing the notion of political Islam is the global, secretive organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, the new administration’s counterterrorism efforts are likely to focus on it. Trump campaign advisor Walid Phares recently indicated to an Arab-language newspaper that the incoming administration will designate this Islamist group a foreign terrorist organization, the goal of a year-long legislative effort led by Senator Ted Cruz. While the House version of the bill, authored by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, easily passed the House Judiciary Committee, Republican congressional leadership has stymied its passage. Reports from staffers indicate that establishment Republicans have expressed concerns about how such a designation would impact U.S. policy, both at home and abroad.

One difficulty in making the case for the Muslim Brotherhood’s designation has been a fundamental lack of knowledge about its role in waging terrorism. Since 1928, when it was founded by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian, the Brotherhood has kept terrorist violence—or the threat of such violence—within its doctrinal toolkit, maintaining close ties to other sympathetic terror groups. As the 9/11 Commission reported, the Brotherhood’s comfortable association with violent jihadist terror stretches from establishing clandestine “Special Apparatus” terror cells in the 1930s—which are still active—to the deep influence of Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb upon al-Qaeda.

The Brotherhood also constitutes the ideological wellspring for nearly every current jihadist organization. As al-Qaradawi notes in Islamic Education and Hassan al-Banna, it was the Muslim Brotherhood that invigorated and promoted a view of Jihad that had lain dormant” “The movement of Ikhwanul Muslimoon (The Muslim Brothers) breathed new life into jihad: giving it a place of honor and prominence in writings; stressing its importance in lectures, meetings, and songs; and asserting its sovereignty over individual and collective life.” Where al-Banna provided inspiration and organization, Sayyid Qutb provided the roadmap. His 1964 book Milestones operationalized a plan for the reestablishment of totalitarian Islamic law through a skillful mixture of indoctrination and physical violence, all pegged to long-established concepts in Islamic law.

Any move in Washington against the Muslim Brotherhood faces, even more than a lack of knowledge, intense ideological resistance. For decades, a bipartisan American foreign policy consensus has endorsed engagement with and promotion of Islamists in an attempt to use them as a counterweight, to either other Islamic terror groups or larger geopolitical adversaries.

Seeking to engage Muslim Brotherhood officials or franchises has a long historical pedigree within our foreign policy establishment. As Ian Johnson documented in his outstanding history, A Mosque in Munich, America first turned to Islamists in the early days of the Cold War in order to nurture alternatives to the Soviets. During that time, however, many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment seemed to recognize that, ultimately, the long-term objectives of the Islamists were both anti-democratic and harmful to American national interests. An internal analysis from the period noted that leading Muslim Brotherhood figure Said Ramadan—then a guest in the Eisenhower White House who was backed by the CIA—was “a fascist” and obsessed with seizing power.

Unfortunately, such a blunt assessment of the U.S. government’s Islamist interlocutors seems as quaint today as a 1950s TV commercial. By 2009 skepticism of Islamists’ long-term goals had been thoroughly abandoned, as President Obama formally announced the full-throated promotion of political Islam as the legitimate expression of democratic will throughout the Middle East.

For the Obama administration, the Islamists’ goals, motives, and doctrines were immaterial. It followed that spasms of violent Islamic terrorism are merely the product of authoritarian societies in the Middle East and the citizens’ attendant lack of freedom to pursue their political aspirations peacefully. The most productive response, the foreign-policy class reasoned, was to encourage authoritarian rule by these countries’ leading opposition. Of course, then as now, almost all Islamist parties in the Middle East are either formally or ideologically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Logic seemed to dictate, then, that support for democracy would, necessarily, translate into de facto support for various local tribunes of political Islam. Since Islamists were the immediate beneficiaries of a democratization policy, the administration was disposed to consider nearly all Islamist movements “moderate.”

Nevertheless, a bipartisan consensus on this issue turned this theory into a touchstone concept of Obama administration policy. Promoting Islamist groups has, over time, come to define the American national interest.

Reaping the Whirlwind

The failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East that Trump articulated on the campaign trail follow from these assumptions about political Islam. The Obama administration’s promotion of Islamism has not only failed to deliver its intended results, but encouraged terrorism, both international and domestic, while destabilizing Egypt, Libya, Syria and other regions vital to America. Long-time Sunni allies panicked as they saw the spread of the Islamists—whom they had once funded to operate against the West—now threatening, with implicit U.S. support, their own rule. Saudi Arabia banned Muslim Brotherhood materials from schools, and the United Arab Emirates designated numerous Brotherhood fronts, including ones operating in the United States, as terrorist entities.

Where the wave of political Islam met success, it was short-lived. Rather than promoting good governance and ending corruption, the Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt led to a rapid expansion of jihad in the Sinai, with the Brotherhood leaders’ tacit support. The triumphant Islamists spent more time establishing Islamic law and targeting Coptic Christians than providing desperately needed hard currency, natural gas, and food to the afflicted Egyptian people. The Brotherhood and other Islamists rose to prominence in Libya with the assistance of al-Qaeda-linked fighters, but could not maintain power democratically, rejecting the Libyan election result that favored their political opponents. The resulting civil war has made that country fertile grounds for both al-Qaeda and Islamic State fighters. In Syria, despite Western backing, Brotherhood-linked militias continue to insist upon close ties and cooperation with al-Qaeda’s local affiliates. And while the Islamic State has publicly criticized the Muslim Brotherhood for its relationship with the West, Israeli and Egyptian intelligence officials say the Islamic State in fact receives support from Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood for its attacks in the Sinai.

Here in the United States, law enforcement has been overwhelmed by hundreds of terror cases. While the focus of the media and the Obama administration has been on the Islamic State and its ability to influence potential supporters via the internet, few have noted the repeated appearance of Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Centers and organizations in attacks in Garland, Texas, San Bernardino, and Chattanooga, as well as in connection to several would-be Islamic State fighters who were caught before they could act.

It appears the new administration understands this error, and will correct it. At the Heritage Foundation last May, Secretary of Defense nominee General James Mattis asked the blunt but essential question: “Is political Islam in America’s best interests?” He went on to demonstrate that the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian theocracy (respectively, political Islam’s primary Sunni and Shia embodiments) were inimical to our well-being. President-elect Trump’s nomination of Mattis suggests he holds the same view.

From their service under President Obama both Generals Mattis and Flynn understand the mistaken premise of the outgoing administration’s engagement with political Islam: the unfalsifiable wish that, through participating in the democratic process, Islamists will be transformed from a source of anti-American terrorism into a bulwark against their more militant brethren. Despite the dangerous results of this hypothesis, the Obama administration viewed it as a way to simultaneously promote democracy and redirect militants’ energies from terrorist to politics. Consequently, even domestic Islamists stopped being the targets of counterterror investigations, and were treated instead as partners in “Countering Violent Extremism” programs.

Is the Muslim Brotherhood “Too Big to Fail”?

While the Bush Administration was engaged in a military and foreign policy struggle in the Middle East, it was also investigating domestic Islamist activity. Following the 9/11 attacks, investigations and prosecutions repeatedly touched upon individuals and groups in the United States affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. A careful study of these early cases revealed that the Brotherhood provided the ideological basis for jihadist violence, but also material support. In the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) case, for example, the U.S. government outlined a decades long plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to provide material support for Hamas. There were other instances:

Not only did each of these cases, and many others like them, involve Muslim Brothers, but the interlocking web of conspirators and co-conspirators makes clear that that the Muslim Brothers are not a cog in the Islamist terror machine—they are the engineers who designed and run it.

Law enforcement soon found that some of these cases were political hot potatoes. Many of the subjects were wealthy, politically connected, well-regarded religious figures, or perceived as prominent within the Muslim American community. At fundraising events held at many of the most prominent Islamic Centers around the country, for example, the Holy Land Foundation successfully solicited millions in donations for the violent jihad being waged by the designated terrorist group Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological offshoot in the West Bank and Gaza. This happened with the knowing cooperation of some of the most prominent and influential Muslims in the country. By late 2008, the Bush Justice Department would prove at trial that many of these organizations and individuals constituted a conspiracy to fund Hamas. Prosecutors would label 306 of these as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the terror-funding scheme, listing organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); as well as individuals like onetime HLF employee Kifah Mustapha and prodigious Hamas fundraiser Mohamed al-Hanooti.

In the wake of the Holy Land Foundation case, those who take the Islamist ideological threat seriously believed that secondary prosecutions targeting Muslim Brotherhood leaders and co-conspirators intimately involved in the Hamas funding scheme would be a crippling blow to domestic Islamist terror networks. But there were no secondary prosecutions. There’s some debate whether those prosecutions were squashed for political reasons by the incoming Obama administration, or by career Department of Justice officials. Regardless, the absence of follow-on cases against unindicted co-conspirators left in place a vast infrastructure that provided millions in hard currency—as well the equivalent of millions of dollars in media and public policy assistance—to terrorist groups. Even now, much of the evidence acquired by the government against the Muslim Brotherhood and its network in the United States—a large portion of which was entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial—remains classified. Despite multiple requests in the name of legislative oversight, the Obama Justice Department has taken pains to prevent anyone, including Congress, examining it.

Perhaps the government considered the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. “too big to fail.” For example, a federal judge noted that the government supplied “ample evidence” to link a Muslim Brotherhood organization like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to the terror group Hamas. Yet ISNA is affiliated with something on the order of one out of every four American mosques. How would prosecution of such an entity appear to the broader American community? How would the rest of the Muslim American community respond to an indictment? If the Muslim Brotherhood network in America and its allies were able to raise a political maelstrom over the conviction of Sami Al Arian, a South Florida professor tied to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, how much louder would a hyper-partisan media and an aggressive, social media-fueled activist infrastructure shriek if, for example, the organizing force behind a quarter of American mosques were indicted?

It’s no wonder that capitalizing on the government’s “too big to fail” assessment has proven to be an effective strategy of Islamist leaders in the United States, as pressure groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood routinely conflate their own front organizations and political goals with the totality of American Muslims. Regrettably, an increasingly uncurious media accepts this falsehood—and membership records for Muslim Brotherhood groupsmake clear it is a falsehood.

A New Way Forward

The new Trump administration must be prepared to rebut the inevitable complaints from self-styled Islamist “civil rights” leaders and their enablers in the media. It’s important to remember that this would be the case whether or not the next president orders the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. The Trump campaign and national security team has withstood the overwrought allegations that his proposals target all Muslims.

Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization should give law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to begin a serious, long-term investigation of the Islamist group’s network in this country. The new administration must undertake a genuine effort to map this clandestine system, and key organizational leaders should be made the target of legitimate investigation, and prosecuted as legally appropriate.

It will be difficult to immediately reverse a culture within the U.S. government that has favored engaging the Muslim Brotherhood over investigating it. Since at least the Clinton administration, the White House Rolodex has included officials from domestic Islamist groups whose names routinely appeared in the court documents of terror finance cases. Even more, the Obama administration has quietly removed many organizations and individuals designated as global terrorists from the list, undoing much of the work by counterterrorism agents who were responsible for our post-9/11 response.

Because of the Brotherhood’s political influence, which frustrated Bush-era prosecutions and halted them altogether under Obama, rolling back the Islamist group will require a joint counterterrorism/counterintelligence initiative. U.S. policy should treat all contacts with known and suspected Muslim Brotherhood members the way government personnel examine and report contacts with potential foreign intelligence services. Contact or association with the Brotherhood should be immediately disqualifying during ordinary background investigations for security clearances.

Additionally, a designation should provide added leverage for counterterrorism officials. Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Unlike the prosecution of the Mafia however, a Trump administration will need to accompany counterterrorism efforts with a strong public relations campaign. Informed, articulate spokesmen will need to explain how relevant prosecutions were conducted, why they were necessary, and—perhaps most importantly—how they targeted the Muslim Brotherhood for its criminal behavior, not its religious convictions. Officials will need to be prepared to push back with facts against accusations of inappropriate discrimination. This, in turn, may require a more open approach to terror prosecutions, making relevant documents available to journalists quicker, while doing so in a manner that protects sources and methods.

Additionally, such a campaign to target the Muslim Brotherhood will require gathering more and better intelligence on the group’s ideology than the Obama Administration permitted. Since the U.S. government’s threat-focused counterterror training has been aggressively purged during the past eight years, accurate subject matter instruction will be the first step before earnest policy reorientation begins. Due to the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamic extremists, training for counterterrorism and counterintelligence officials will necessarily address sensitive issues of Islamic doctrine and legal theory. Political correctness mustn’t be allowed to deny access to training based on demonstrable facts.

It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better

As has always been the case since its founding—and is currently the case in Egypt today—the Muslim Brotherhood has responded to crackdowns by proclaiming that Islam itself is under attack. The group has galvanized its membership to conduct numerous violent assaults, usually under the identity of a “splinter” faction. We can expect that, should it be designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, at least some element of the Brotherhood will respond by seeking to increase terrorist violence against the United States. This will be difficult for a U.S. law enforcement infrastructure already strained by the Islamic State, but is a storm that can and must be weathered. Designating the Muslim Brotherhood remains necessary. The potential for violence must be weighed against law enforcement’s ability to take swifter action and develop a deeper, more accurate view of Islamic extremism operating in the United States and around the globe.

President-elect Trump successfully campaigned on the repudiation of the national security views of the Obama administration. With the failure of the “democratic Islamist” project, the time has come to return to the alternative: (a) the promotion of Islamists accelerates, rather than stifles, Islamic terrorism; and (b) the Muslim Brotherhood remains at the center of Islamic ideological extremism throughout the world. Any policy not prepared to abandon America’s promotion of political Islam broadly, and the Muslim Brotherhood specifically, merely perpetuates old failures.

Nashville Mosque Says Thanks By Preaching About Islam

15253621_10154298245904542_3988974600300715401_n

event

Daily Roll Call, by Cathy Hinners, December 5, 2016:

As Muslims across America tell tall tales of “hate”crimes escalating against them because of Donald Trumps election, Islamophiles rush to mosques to embrace and support them. But do they know just who they are hugging? Well they should learn. Just one of the many efforts by Muslims to perform dawa ( the proselytizing of Islam) was at the Islamic Center of Nashville, one of the most radical mosques in the U.S.

This event was to thank the ICN’s neighbors for kind messages left on their sidewalk as chalk art, but thanking wasn’t enough, it was an opportunity to present a course on Islam 101. One of the speakers was the former Imam from the controversial Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, who now is the Iman at the ICN, Ossama Bahloul. Bahloul, a native Egyptian attended Al Ahzar University  the premier university of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Ahzar also is recognized as the leader in promoting jihad to members of ISIS and Al-Qaida. Jihad, an act of war against non-Muslims, is an obligation under Islamic law, which must be conducted to bring about a totally Islamic world.

Ossama Bahloul finished fourth in his class at Al Ahzar University. His degree is in Dawa, another obligation in Islam, achieved by promoting Islam as the one and only superior religion.

ossama-bahloul-with-slide-about-god

Al Ahzar University is credited with starting the Islamist movement by training Islamic radicals tied to Muslim Brotherhood and stands for the propagation of Islam and sharia as a complete way of life. Considered the preeminent teaching center of sharia law Al Ahzar authenticated the English translation of “The Reliance of the Traveller, The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.”

Excerpts from “Reliance of the Traveller” include:

  • “the Objectives of Jihad” 8 – … wars against Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians if they don’t accept the invitation to Islam or they can pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)
  • “Giving Zakat to Deserving Recipients” 17 (zakat is Islamic charity)- those fighting for Allah [ie, “volunteers for jihad”]
  • “Dealing with a rebellious wife” 12(4)(c) – a husband may hit his wife.

Mohammed Ahmed, former imam at the Islamic Center of Nashville (ICN) told attendees at the June 2011 meeting of the Religion Communicators Council that he supported the Egyptian police forced virginity tests performed on female protesters in Tahrir Square.  The imam explained:  “Why? It’s a very interesting fact that the police giving you a heads up, ‘oh, those people are not virgin’.  That’s mean they are not good people”

The Islamic Center of Nashville is owned by the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), whose name appears on the deed for the ICN. ISNA, is  a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which landed several indictments of their leaders in prison for funding Hamas.

icn-deed-768x458

In March  of 1998 the ICN’s newsletter tells Nashville’s Muslims that “[t]he time is right for us to reach beyond the boundaries of the Masjid, to the fullest extent possible, and attempt to establish Islamic principles into the society where our children will be raised. We must attempt to influence the future direction of this society….” (emphasis added)

The same newsletter also solicited money for the Holy Land Foundation.

gallowaypaul-fbAnother activist hailing from the Islamic Center of Nashville is Muslim convert Paul Iesa Galloway. Galloway, originally from Houston TX was the founder and director of Houston’s first chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR, whose executive director, Nihad Awad is also an un-indicted co conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Awad, is a self proclaimed supporter of Hamas. Although Galloway often speaks of his relationship with law enforcement, his obvious ideology is that of CAIR, who adamantly supports not speaking to law enforcement unless      accompanied by an attorney from CAIR.

poster-on-cair-site

Perhaps the Islamophiles embracing the likes of Bahloul and Galloway should be aware they too are supporting the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.  By supporting events sponsored by those whose agenda is to dismantle and destroy America and the West, they too must support the oppression of women, gays being thrown off buildings and Sharia law. Recognize anyone in attendance? We do, and maybe its time they are exposed.

Coming up..Who else is part of the Islamic Center of Nashville?

A Problem Like Keith Ellison – And the more serious question of the Muslim Brotherhood

Rep. Keith Ellison speaks at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (Reuters photo: Jim Young) Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442739/keith-ellison-islamic-radical

Rep. Keith Ellison speaks at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442739/keith-ellison-islamic-radical

National Review, by Kevin D. Williamson — December 4, 2016:

Keith Ellison (or Keith E. Hakim, or Keith X. Ellison, or Keith Muhammad, etc.) is campaigning for office. Not for the safe House seat he holds, but for the leadership of the Democratic party, a job until recently held by the hilariously incompetent and boundlessly vapid Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who was forced to resign — “resign” here meaning “transfer formally to the Clinton campaign” — when she was exposed conniving to stack the presidential primary elections against Senator Bernie Sanders (S., Portlandia)), who was temporarily replaced by Donna Brazile, who was exposed leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign, a violation of trust for which she remains adamantly impenitent.

Republicans should take a minute to simply enjoy all this before getting on to the serious business at hand. If they cannot have Debbie Wasserman Schultz organizing opposition to them, former Farrakhan fanboy Keith Ellison of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party is a great second choice.

Ellison is the first Muslim elected to the House, and he complains that the recent spate of criticism directed at him is rooted in — ridiculous word — Islamophobia. But there is a bit more to it than that.

Ellison has long been a vocal defender of the so-called Nation of Islam, the bow-tie gang founded by Elijah Muhammad whose relationship to orthodox Islam is approximately that of a UFO cult to the Anglican communion. The NOI and its charismatic leader, the former calypso musician Louis Farrakhan, is an explicitly racist organization, holding as a matter of doctrine that the white race is the result of a doomed mad-science experiment conducted by the biblical Jacob while he was living on the isle of Patmos. Farrakhan is a true religious entrepreneur who has attempted to graft L. Ron Hubbard’s fanciful “Dianetics” onto his own cracked version of Islam, but he has mostly relied on a very old and reliable tradition: Jew-hating.

Farrakhan’s history of vicious anti-Semitism was already well established when Ellison was helping him organize the Million Man March. The Democratic representative says that he rejects anti-Semitism, but he has a long history of sticking up for Jew-hating weirdos, and not only Farrakhan. When Kwame Ture — you may remember him as Stokely Carmichael — claimed that Jews had collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust as a pretext for establishing the state of Israel, Ellison was there to defend him from criticism. When the head of a Minneapolis political group declared that the allegations of anti-Semitism against Farrakhan were made up and insisted that the real problem is racist Jews, Ellison said: “She is correct.” He is a defender of the terrorist Sara Jane Olson and the murderer Assata Shakur and the Islamic terrorist Sami al-Arian. He is a longtime admirer of the murderous dictator Fidel Castro.

Ellison has said that he has since “rejected” the Nation of Islam and its anti-Semitism, and that his involvement with Farrakhan was simply an exercise in community organizing, i.e. the usual liberals-in-a-hurry bull. Ellison is invoking the unwritten Robert Byrd Rule: Democrats get a pass on associating with crackpot racist cults if they vote the right way on the minimum wage.

If he has outgrown Farrakhan, then hurray for him. More joy in Heaven and all that. Ellison’s real problem may not be his association with Louis Farrakhan’s unorthodox Islam but with the Muslim Brotherhood’s very orthodox version.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by the Egyptian scholar Hassan al-Banna, is a Sunni-supremacist organization operating under the motto: “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.” It is linked at various levels of intimacy to Hamas — which is an immediate offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood — along with sundry Sunni extremist groups, one or two degrees of separation removed from al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, and the like. But its reach is sprawling, and it also is closely linked with such purportedly respectable Islamic organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which our Andrew C. McCarthy rightly describes as “a Muslim Brotherhood creation conceived to be a Western-media-savvy shill for Islamic supremacism in general and Hamas in particular.”

Ellison has spoken at the convention of the Islamic Society of North America, which is part of the CAIR-Hamas network, at least according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas” during the Holy Land Foundation case. These links have been discussed in these pages at great length by McCarthy and by our colleague Daniel Pipes, among others. Ellison went on a pilgrimage to Mecca sponsored by the Muslim American Society, which is simply the Muslim Brotherhood under another name. In Mecca, he met with Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, an officer of a Muslim Brotherhood group that issued a fatwa against U.S. troops in Iraq and supports Palestinian terrorists in Israel. He met with terror-linked Saudi financiers and other unsavory characters, too.

The question is not whether a U.S. political party should be led by a Muslim man, but by this Muslim man. We are not talking about Namık Kemal or Robert Crane.

Keith Ellison is one representative. In the short term, the focus will be on the man — but in the long term, it will be on the movement.

Specifically, Congress has considered, and may revive, legislation supported by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, as the Egyptians and the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council insist it is. The case is not too terribly difficult to make, and the main defense of the Muslim Brotherhood offered by critics such as Marc Lynch is that the organization is not what it used to be, that it is no longer the same group that founded Hamas and cultivated generations of Islamic radicals but is instead broken, scattered, and less significant. Perhaps it is so, but if it is so, this is precisely the sort of organization that you want to kick while it is down.

The real problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood’s fingers are in practically every Islamic pie in the United States and much of the rest of the world, and turning over that rock almost certainly will expose any number of queasy reminders that the distance between the Islamic mainstream and Islamic extremism is not so great as we sometimes imagine. A great many media-friendly Muslims and so-called moderates will be put in a very difficult position — and we should welcome that. We have for too long made it too easy for the so-called respectable Islamist organizations in the West to play both sides of the fence.

Republicans should designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, based simply on the weight of the evidence. But if they’re feeling a little bit mean — and why not? — they should wait until the Democrats have put Keith Ellison in charge of their party to do it.

— Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.

Also see:

Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign

ipt2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
December 2, 2016

Confronted by his own words and facing a direct threat to his bid to become the next Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison flagrantly lied Thursday. We are releasing the full audio and transcript to prove this.

Two days earlier, the Investigative Project on Terrorism released audio of Ellison during a 2010 political fundraiser, criticizing what he saw as the inappropriate and disproportionate influence Israel carries over American foreign policy.

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million,” said Ellison, D-Minn. “Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

In a statement Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it found Ellison’s comments “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” That’s because, “whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives.”

In an open letter to the ADL, Ellison falsely claimed that “the audio released was selectively edited and taken out of context.” He also claimed that he was merely “responding to a question about how Americans with roots in the Middle East could engage in the political process in a more effective way.” And then he chose to attack the messenger.

None of Ellison’s comments are true.

We have released the full audio of his remarks (click here to hear them and to read a complete transcript) to show no edits were made and to show the full context. Let him also explain this other clearly anti-Semitic comment he made: “But it makes all the sense in the world when you see that that country has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.”

Ellison and Context

As we reported, Ellison’s 2010 comments came during a fundraiser for Esam Omeish’s state assembly campaign. Omeish is a former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. In 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia immigration panel after the IPT produced video of him praising Palestinians in 2000 for learning that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” A second video, shot two months earlier, shows Omeish congratulating “our brothers and sisters in [Palestine] for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah.”

Just this week, Omeish posted a paean to the Muslim Brotherhood on Facebook.

Nihad Awad, the only executive director the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has ever had, also attended the Omeish fundraiser. Court records show Awad was a member of a Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas support network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. So was CAIR, the organization he leads.

Awad attended a pivotal 1993 gathering of committee members in Philadelphia, convened to discuss ways to “derail” the U.S. brokered Oslo Accords.

Palestine Committee members opposed it because it included recognition of Israel’s right to exist and because it empowered the secular Fatah movement over the Islamists in Hamas. We know this because the FBI secretly recorded the meeting.

He has never explained why he joined the otherspresent in referring to Hamas in the agreed-upon, yet crude code of reversing the spelling and speaking about “Samah.”

Six months later, Awad appeared in Miami, where he publicly stated that, after some research, “I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.”

When Keith Ellison stands before Omeish and Awad and asks whether it makes sense that America’s Middle East policy “is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” or when he says “that country [Israel] has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America,” the context seems pretty clear.

Democrats should choose the candidate they think can best lead their party to success in the future. They might decide Ellison fits that description.

They do so armed with greater understanding of Ellison’s true feelings toward an issue pivotal for a lot of voters of all political persuasions.

Dar al-Hijrah Board Member Pens Muslim Brotherhood Tribute

omeishIPT, by John Rossomando  •  Dec 2, 2016

A politically connected, longtime board member at the Falls Church, Va., based Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center effusively praised the Muslim Brotherhood in a Facebook posting Wednesday.

Esam Omeish was forced to step down from a state immigration commission by then Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine in 2006 after video of him praising Palestinians for fighting the “jihad way” became public.  He also served as president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

While MAS officials denied that connection, Omeish praised the Egyptian-based organization with ultimate designs on a global Islamic state.

“We have not known of the people of Islam … those more just in understanding, wider in approach and closer in application than the Muslim Brotherhood,” Omeish wrote. “We have not known of humane brotherliness and its people, (and we are affiliated with all men whom Allah has created a propensity for love, mercy, an upright disposition, good morals and honorable character) better in ethics, of gentler parts, deeper in adherence to duty, nobler in morals among all their sons, and everyone of their actions than the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Omeish was responding to a posting by Hani Elkadi, co-founder of Egyptian Americans for Freedom and Justice and Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights. Elkadi seemed to admit his own Brotherhood affiliation on Facebook in a March 9, 2015 Facebook post showing an cartoon of a man holding a sign with the Brotherhood logo and the words which translate to, “I am [Muslim] Brotherhood and I’m not threatened.”

Omeish visited the White House and State Department numerous times and posted pictures of himself with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry on his Facebook page. State Department officials featuredOmeish in a 2008 video about American Muslims.

In February, Omeish sent an open letter to President Obama asking him to support the al-Qaida linked Revolutionary Council of Derna.

He endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood branch in his native Libya in a 2012 IRIN News article, saying that although it came in a distant second in Libya’s 2012 elections, it “may be able to provide a better platform and a more coherent agenda of national action.”

DNC Chair Candidate Rep. Keith Ellison Met with Hamas Fundraiser Mohammed al-Hanooti

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, December 1, 2016:

Would-be Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Keith Ellison met with Hamas fundraiser Mohammed al-Hanooti at a 2009 campaign fundraiser for Virginia House of Delegates candidate Esam Omeish, where Ellison was the keynote speaker.

Last week Chuck Ross at The Daily Caller reported on the appearance of Ellison at the Omeish campaign event, noting that Omeish had previously called for Palestinians to follow “the jihad way” against Israel.

Given that, it’s no surprise to find al-Hanooti, who styled himself as “grand mufti” of Washington D.C. and whom FBI documents identify as a top U.S. fundraiser for Hamas, at the campaign fundraiser.

Pictures posted to Flickr by Omeish show Ellision and al-Hanooti chatting at the event.

Mohammed al-Hanooti has been identified by federal prosecutors and top counterterrorism officials as a enthusiastic supporter of Hamas — serving as one of its top fundraisers — and also as an active supporter of terrorism and extremist Islamic ideology for several decades.

He also holds the rare distinction of not only being named by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-finance case in American history, but also of being listed as a conspirator in the trial of “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow-up attack on New York City landmarks. FBI agents have also testified that al-Hanooti was a participant in an infamous 1993 meeting in Philadelphia of senior Hamas leaders in the U.S.

Al-Hanooti’s terror ties go back to the 1980s, when he served for two years as the first president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization founded by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. The group was found liable for $156 million in a civil trial brought by a Chicago couple whose son was murdered by Hamas while waiting for a bus in Israel. In the judge’s order in that case, he cited “strong evidence that IAP was supporting Hamas, consistent with the FBI’s surveillance reports.”

Evidence submitted by the government in the Holy Land Foundation trial also implicates al-Hanooti’s role in the top leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestine Committee, formed specifically to provide support for Hamas. A 1988 list of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders shows al-Hanooti as serving on the group’s sharia court. He also appears on a 1993 list of U.S. and international Palestine Committee members.

Other documents entered as evidence include a 1991 study on Hamas featuring a forward by al-Hanooti, and a 1995 FBI wiretap transcript of al-Hanooti talking with one of the Holy Land trial defendants about how to raise money for the legal defense of Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, then facing trial in New York.

A November 2001 memorandum on the Holy Land Foundation’s financial support for Hamas, prepared by FBI counterterrorism assistant director Dale Watson, details information provided by two separate informants that al-Hanooti “was a big supporter of Hamas” who held fundraisers for the terror group, and that “al-Hanooti collected over six million U.S. dollars for support of Hamas.”

As noted in an extensive investigation by the Albany Times Union, during the early 1990s al-Hanooti was the imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic, New Jersey, which members of the 1993 World Trade Center plot attended. One used the mosque’s address to rent the truck used in the bombing. Another frequent visitor to al-Hanooti’s mosque was “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for his support and direction to the bombers (who was prosecuted by my friend and PJ Media colleague, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy).

And as the New York Times reported, in August 1999 al-Hanooti appeared as a witness at the trial of al-Qaeda operative Ihab Ali, who refused to testify about his knowledge of the plot to bomb the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. During al-Hanooti’s testimony he backed Ali’s silence, telling the court that Islamic law “gives him the right to abstain from giving testimony in case it hurts him or it hurts any other Muslim.”

Feeling the heat from the blind sheik’s terrorism trial, al-Hanooti moved to D.C. in 1995, where he became the imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. He found a home there — in a recording made by the Investigative Project on Terrorism of a speech delivered in 1998, he declares that the D.C.-area mosque was the greatest example of “carrying out the Jihad that Allah calls for”:

At the moment, Dar al-Hijrah is the greatest example in sacrifice, execution, and in carrying out the Jihad that Allah calls for. Allah will give us the victory over our tyrannical enemies in our country. Allah, the infidel Americans and British are fighting against you. Allah, the curse of the infidel Americans and British are fighting against you. Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.

Al-Hanooti served as imam at Dar al-Hijrah until 2000, replaced as imam by al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, spiritual mentor to several of the 9/11 hijackers. The questioning by the FBI of al-Awlaki’s role in the 9/11 terror attacks didn’t stop al-Hanooti from joining al-Awlaki as the religious leaders of a 2002 Hajj tour organized by a travel agency owned by a top U.S. Hamas supporter.

Read more

UTT Throwback Thursday: Treasonous Leadership Decisions by Ohio Officials Have Deadly Consequences

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, December 1, 2016:

Ohio is reaping what it has sown.  They have protected and promoted jihadis for several years.

In 2009, the Ohio Department of Homeland Security hosted a day-long seminar which included senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood officials, including Hani Sakr, a member of the U.S. MB’s Board of Directors, and the leader of Hamas in Ohio, Asma Uddin.

screen-shot-2016-11-30-at-10-24-44-pm-768x577

Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Hani Sakr Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference

Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Hani Sakr Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference

Ohio Hamas Leader Asma Uddin Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference in 2009

Ohio Hamas Leader Asma Uddin Speaking at Ohio DHS Conference in 2009

In 2010, the Strategic Engagement Group (predecessor to UTT) conducted a 3-day training program at the Columbus (Ohio) Police Department.  At the end of the program, the Ohio DHS Director Bill Vedra, the Chief of the Columbus Police Department, and others came into the room and defended Hamas (doing business and CAIR), the outreach programs to the Muslim community, and commented negatively about the 3-day program even though none of them sat through one minute of the training.

Several of the officers in the room stood up and confronted the leadership, calling them out.

Ohio DHS Director Vedra, Omar Alomari (Ohio DHS), & Hamas Leader Babak Darvish (CAIR)

Ohio DHS Director Vedra, Omar Alomari (Ohio DHS), & Hamas Leader Babak Darvish (CAIR)

One of the people Ohio DHS Director Vedra defended was Omar Alomari, a Jordanian who was later fired from Ohio DHS.  Alomari produced a pamphlet for Ohio DHS which listed organizations they worked with including Hamas (dba CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA) – all Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

After this was made public in articles by The Jawa Report, Ohio DHS tried to secretly destroy all the pamphlets.

As recently as 2015, Hamas (dba CAIR) trained the Columbus Police Department on “diversity.”

In February 2016, Somali Mohamed Barry walked into the Nazareth Restaurant in Columbus, Ohio with a machete screaming “allah u akbar” and began attacking customers.  He injured four people and was later shot dead by police.  The restaurant is owned by an Israeli.

Columbus police spokesman Sergeant Rich Weiner stated, “There was no rhyme or reason as to who he was going after.”  The FBI investigated Barry in 2012 for making “radical Islamic threats” but then abandoned the investigation, and FBI Special Agent Rick Smith said it was “too early” to jump to conclusions. (dallasnews.com, 2/12/16, “Man Killed After Machete Attack”)

CNN is still searching for a motive.

In describing this attack, the Washington Post wrote, “Did the quiet immigrant suffer a mental breakdown? Or was the attack an orchestrated act of international jihad as claimed by a host of anti-Islamic groups?”

Is it possible the entire effort by the jihadi Movement in Ohio – and everywhere else across the nation – was/is to get the leadership of the police and FBI to place their trust in the Muslim leaders to “help” them “understand” acts of “terrorism” in a way that never points back to jihad, Islam and sharia?

This week, after yet another jihadi attack in Ohio, the response was the same.

Until law enforcement decides to prosecute and lock up terrorists instead of befriending them and allowing them to train their departments, this nonsense will not end.

Citizens must stand firm and hold elected officials, police chiefs and state homeland security officials feet to the fire, and ensure they are trained by UTT, not by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Get them a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for Christmas.

Keith Ellison’s Saudi Arabia Trip Included Meetings With Radical Cleric, Bank That Funds Suicide Bombings

Keith Ellison with Dr. Ahmad Mohamed Ali at the Islamic Development Bank

Keith Ellison with Dr. Ahmad Mohamed Ali at the Islamic Development Bank

Washington Free Beacon, by Brent Scher, November 29, 2016:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) during a 2008 trip to Saudi Arabia met with a radical Muslim cleric who endorsed killing U.S. soldiers and with the president of a bank used to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Ellison, now a leading candidate to head the Democratic National Committee, was brought to Saudi Arabia for a two-week trip by the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood to act as its “overt arm” in the United States.

Details of Ellison’s religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia are scarce, but photographs discovered by the Washington Free Beacon show that Ellison met with controversial figures during the trip.

photo album of Ellison’s hajj trip posted by MAS’s Minnesota chapter includes a picture of the congressman meeting with Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah, who was vice president of a Muslim Brotherhood-created group that in 2004 issued a fatwa urging “jihad” against U.S. troops in Iraq and supported the Palestinians’ Second Intifada against Israel.

Keith Ellison with Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah

Keith Ellison with Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah

“The Jihad-waging Iraqi people’s resistance to the foreign occupation … is a Shari’a duty incumbent upon anyone belonging to the Muslim nation,” the fatwa said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Bin Bayyah’s group, the International Association of Muslim Scholars, issued the fatwa after a conference in Beirut, Lebanon.

The group was founded by Yusuf Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader who was banned from visiting the United States because of his calls to kill Jews and Americans.

Bin Biyyah issued an additional fatwa in 2009, shortly after his meeting with Ellison, “barring all forms of normalization with Israel.”

Ellison also took time on his trip to meet with Dr. Ahmad Mohamed Ali, the president of a Saudi Arabia-based bank that funnels millions of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

Ali’s bank, the Islamic Development Bank, maintains the Al-Quds Intifada Fund and the Al-Aqsa Fund, which were established in 2000 to fund Palestinian terrorism and provide money to the families of Palestinian “martyrs.” The funds were established with an initial investment of $200 million.

Ali said his bank—which is referred to as the “Bank of the Intifada” by Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust—is responsible “for the smooth functioning of the two funds” and that there is “no delay” in paying families of “martyrs.”

“There was no delay in paying financial assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs,” Ali said in 2001. “We have started paying them soon after receiving the money.”

Ellison’s congressional office has not responded to numerous requests for comment on his trip.

Ellison told congressional investigators on the House Ethics Committee that he did not have any “meetings of an official nature” on his trip and “instead undertook only the more personal itinerary scheduled by the Muslim American Society.”

Photos from the trip show Ellison attended several meetings, but the Free Beacon was unable to identify any participants besides Bin Bayyah and Ali.

Kyle Shideler, director of the Center for Security Policy’s threat information office, expressed alarm when told of Ellison’s meetings.

“The notion that a sitting congressman would meet with a man whose organization only four years earlier had issued a fatwa calling for fighting Americans in Iraq once again illustrates the truly outrageous depth of Rep. Ellison’s affiliation with Islamist groups,” Shideler said.

Shideler questioned whether the meetings would cause top Democrats to think twice about supporting Ellison’s campaign for DNC chairman.

“One would think at some point Democratic party leaders, many of whom are on record as personal supporters of Israel, are going to need to raise the question of whether Ellison’s views are in step with the party’s view,” he said.

Can Trump stop Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘civilization jihad’?

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

WND, by Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt, November 28, 2016:

Twenty years ago, we paid al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden’s war declaration against America little heed. On 9/11, we suffered the consequences of doing so.

Six years ago, not only did we pay Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie’s war declaration against America little heed, but President Barack Obama openly embraced the group, inviting its leadership to the White House. Meanwhile, allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and later the U.K. denounced Muslim Brotherhood for its Islamist ideology.

Sen. Ted Cruz introduced legislation earlier this year declaring it a foreign terrorist organization for promoting radical Islam’s Wahhabism via its various proxies. Approved by the House Judiciary Committee, referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama stalls the bill’s progress.

Despite Badie’s 2010 war declaration, the Brotherhood initiated a secret war plan much earlier, discovered by accident in 2004, hidden in a Muslim activist’s home during a warranted search.

Written in 1991, the plan lays out a strategy for bringing Sharia law to America through “civilization jihad” – as part of a global effort.

The plan mandates Brotherhood members “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 believers. … [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

The last sentence is a call to “walk softly and carry a big stick” – i.e., appear tolerant to non-believers while hiding your intolerance for them.

Civilization jihad – as opposed to Islam’s “violent jihad” – involves using America’s own laws and political correctness against us. Accordingly, it is “by its nature and design a more subtle, but truly more dangerous threat in the long run … (aiming) to transform a society from within so it can eventually be brought under Islamic law.”

The first step is to establish “Islamic centers, mosques, communities, and front group organizations. …” which explains why so many U.S. mosques are funded by foreign sources. “Today, it has been estimated that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi influence, described by both scholars and U.S. officials as a radical, violent philosophical platform used by terrorists and their supporters to justify violence against Christians, Jews and other ‘non-believers.’”

Civilization jihad works methodically. Sharia becomes the camel seeking to nudge its nose under the U.S. jurisprudence tent. A 2011 study found 27 cases in 23 states where Sharia was applied to reach a resolution, suggesting the camel is well inside the tent.

The Brotherhood’s plan also calls for using front companies/groups to conduct civilization jihad. This has led, for example, to establishing Muslim Student Association chapters on college campuses, promoting pro-Islam and anti-U.S. propaganda. While the Association is deemed “moderate,” a terrorism investigative project determined “under this moderate veneer … (it) advances a different agenda among impressionable college students … disseminat(ing) and promot(ing) militant Islamic ideologies on college and university campuses throughout North America.” Its leadership, under the likes of convicted terrorist financier Abdulrahman Alamoudi, should raise questions about such moderation.

Another Brotherhood front group – the Muslim Public Affairs Council – has publicly supported foreign terrorist organizations recognized by the U.S., such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It also seeks to convert prison inmates to radical Islam. Meanwhile, endeavoring to play the victim card whenever Muslims are convicted of terrorist activity, the Council’s leadership claimed Alamoudi’s conviction was the result of a “witch hunt.”

Former FBI agent John Guandolo investigated several Brotherhood-related terror cases after 9/11, observing, “The most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are all controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

As Brotherhood members establish influence through civilization jihad, the brass ring for them is wielding influence within the U.S. government. This effort “accelerated dramatically” under Obama. (Ironically, Obama maintained a list of Muslims for top positions simply based on their religion, although religion should never be a factor.)

The Brotherhood’s penetration of the Oval Office almost became reality as Hillary Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin had served as a Council Executive Board member at George Washington University. It would be difficult to believe Abedin has shrugged off such influence since her mother, Pakistani-born Saleha Mahmood Abedin, not only remains “a leading member of the women’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Sisterhood” but is closely associated with Abdullah Omar Naseef “who played an integral role in both al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. …”

The Brotherhood optimistically estimated its plan would take 30 years to implement. They are at 25 years and counting. The question now is can Trump reverse the damage done?


Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of three books on the Vietnam war, North Korea and Iran as well as hundreds of op-eds. He has been published in the New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Breitbart News and The Blaze.