8 Things to Know About Huma Abedin’s Involvement with an Islamist Journal

huma

At the very least, these connections should raise some red flags.

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, Aug. 26, 2016:

Following a New York Post article, which released new and revealing snippets from the pages of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, a 2012 controversy about the nature of Huma Abedin’s associations, has again kicked into high gear. While some in the media have attempted to defend Abedin, and the journal, they’ve played fast and loose with the facts.

At the heart of the matter is Abedin’s involvement with an organization founded by a man named Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Saudi official who spent decades involved with organizations which would go on to be designated for engaging in terror finance.

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Huma Abedin and terror-funder Abdullah Omar Naseef are directly connected.

This isn’t six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Huma Abedin served as the associate editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for 12 years from 1996-2008, and appeared on the masthead of the organization’s journal right up until the time she began to work at the State Department for Hillary Clinton. This included the time she was working as an intern for Hillary Clinton at the White House.  Nassef held the position of Chairman of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Huma Abedin and Naseef overlapped at IMMA for a period of seven years. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, “the journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre.”

2. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs was the Abedin family business.

CJMM_275_393

Syed Abedin, Huma’s father, founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs with Abdullah Omar Naseef in the 1970s. The Abedin patriarch was the editor, until passing away after which time Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin took over the journal and held the same position, and still does to this day. Abedin’s brother and sister have also all held positions with the IMMA.

3. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs promotes views on Sharia, Islam and a Muslim’s role in the West popularized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

abedin

Editions of the journal openly endorsed the positions of known Muslim Brotherhood theoreticians, including Sayyid Qutb, and called for the imposition of sharia law among Muslim minorities residing in the West. “Muslim minority affairs” primarily refers to questions of the Fiqh (jurisprudence) of Minorities, the area of Sharia law jurisprudence concerned with the role and status of Muslims who have immigrated to non-Muslim states, popularized by Muslim Brotherhood thinker Yusuf Al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is best known for his fatwas supporting Hamas suicide bombing and attacks on Americans in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War.

4. The Journal’s benefactor, Abdullah Omar Naseef, served as Secretary General of the World Muslim League.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-26-at-2.07.32-PM

The controversy about Naseef stems from his role with the Muslim World League. Naseef held the position of Secretary General of MWL for a decade, from 1983-1993. The purpose of the Muslim World was to support efforts to proselytize Islam in the West. The organization combined Saudi funds with the intellectual efforts of Muslim Brotherhood thinkers including Said Ramadan and Taha Jaber Alwani who served as founding members.

5. The Muslim World League was specifically mentioned as a funding source by Osama Bin Laden.

ls

The Muslim World League was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a source of funding and after 9/11 the Muslim World League offices in Herdon, VA were raided by law enforcement.  A Muslim World League subsidiary, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), would have two of its branches named as specially designated global terrorist entities.

6. Abdullah Omar Naseef created another organization, the Rabita Trust, which was also shut down for terrorism.

rabita

Another WML subsidiary founded by Nassef, the Rabita Trust, is also a specially designated global terrorist entity according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Nassef also appointed Rabita Trust Director General Wael Hamza Julaidan, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. Treasury department would eventually designate Julaidan as a specially designated global terrorist.

7. In addition to Al Qaeda finance connections, Naseef also worked for a group of Hamas financiers. So did Huma’s mom.

hamas

In addition to his Muslim World League ties, Naseef also held a position as an officer with the International Islamic Council for Daw’a and Relief, a position he shared with Abedin’s mother Saleha. The IICDR is a member of the Hamas finance coalition known as the Union of the Good, which the U.S. government considers a specially designated global terrorist entity.  Yusuf al Qaradawi, a preeminent Muslim Brotherhood jurist, runs the Union of the Good.

8. Huma’s mom ran a women’s organization dedicated to supporting Sharia law in place of women’s rights.

992

Saleha Abedin’s position at the International Islamic Council for Daw’a and Relief was to run the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC). The IICWC is a group which advocates for sharia law provisions of family law and seeks the repeal of Egypt’s Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape. For the IICWC’s positions on matters of sharia jurisprudence the Committee turned to Hamas supporting Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi.

WaPo Fact Checker Misleads on Huma Abedin & the Muslim Brotherhood: What’s the Truth?

21-huma-abedin.w1200.h630

The Journal openly endorsed the positions of Brotherhood theoreticians and called for the imposition of sharia law among Muslim minorities in the West.

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, Aug. 25, 2016:

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post conducted a particularly inept attempt at “fact checking” reports that Clinton chief of Staff Huma Abedin has “ties” to the Muslim Brotherhood. Kessler’s attempt rests on essentially four claims:

1. That Huma Abedin held a position as Associate Editor for the Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs for twelve years, but never did any actual work.

2. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is not regarded as “radical” by its own board of advisors and selected “experts.”

3. That the Journal’s founder Abdullah Omar Naseef’s ties to World Muslim League is irrelevant.

4. That the World Muslim League could not have been a Saudi-funded operation and a Muslim Brotherhood-led organization at the same time.

To take Kessler’s objections in order:

Point 1 is simply a restatement of the Clinton campaign’s position, and Kessler does nothing to examine it critically. It is an undisputed fact that Huma Abedin was an employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) for 12 years, and appeared on the masthead of the organization’s journal, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) right up until the time she began to work at the State Department for Secretary Clinton.

As noted by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy:

The journal was the IMMA’s raison d’etre. Abedin held the position of assistant editor from 1996 through 2008 — from when she began working as an intern in the Clinton White House until shortly before she took her current position as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

Whether one finds it plausible that an individual might be listed as an “associate editor” for a period of 12 years, yet never be called upon to perform the task which their position suggests (i.e. editing) is not a question of fact. The readers, (Kessler’s and ours) will need to determine for themselves whether such an excuse holds water, but a reasonable person might look upon their own life’s experience and wonder whether they ever approached a decade or longer in a position without even having seen the work ostensibly produced there during their tenure.

Kessler’s Point 2 is that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs was not “radical” as defined by certain hand-picked academics who agreed with Kessler’s position and members of the journal’s own advisory board (who can safely be said to have a dog in the fight.)

To begin with, one should understand what is meant by “Muslim Minority” affairs. Kessler infantilizes this fascinating and complex area of Islamic studies, noting only that the journal’s interest in minority affairs, “continues to be demonstrated in the recent issue, with five articles on Muslim life in Australia.”

In fact “Muslim minority affairs” is principally concerned with questions of the Fiqh (jurisprudence) of Minorities, the area of Sharia law jurisprudence concerned with the role and status of Muslims who have immigrated to non-Muslim states. As Uriya Shavit notes in his work, Islamism and the West: From “Cultural Attack” to “Missionary Migrant”, this form of jurisprudence was created by prominent Muslim Brotherhood associated scholars, notably Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and Taha Jaber Alwani, who were principally concerned with how to transform Muslim migrants living in the West into “missionaries” for the cause of Islam in order to overcome a perceived civilizational/cultural conflict between the West and the Islamic world.

As a result it is entirely unsurprising to find that the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs contains repeated, and approving citations to prominent Muslim Brotherhood thinkers, including Qaradawi, and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb. Far from being “cherry-picked”, as Kessler asserts, one should be surprised if there were NOT Islamist thinkers approvingly cited in a journal dedicated to an area of modern Islamist thought.

Understood in this way, it is impossible to understand the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs as anything other than a journal concerned with Sharia, particularly jurisprudence on Sharia as it relates to Muslim Minority Affairs. Kessler’s attempt to claim otherwise only serves to confirm that he is ignorant of Sharia or the scholarship and jurisprudence surrounding it.

The question than is only whether such Islamist thinkers are rightly deserving of the pejorative “radical.” Kessler’s academics say no, but who can blame the New York Post for thinking that approving citations to Qaradawi, who issued the fatwas permitting Hamas suicide bombings, or Sayyid Qutb, whom the 9/11 Commission described as inspiration for Osama Bin Laden, ought to earn the moniker.

Indeed can’t readers decide for themselves whether it was “radical” for Huma Abedin’s mother, JMMA Editor Saleha Abedin to blame 9/11 on U.S. perpetrated “injustices and sanctions” as she did in a 2002 issue of the journal?

This is a subjective question, which can not be fact-checked. It can however be quoted, and individuals can make the decision for themselves. Abedin the elder wrote:

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Rather than allowing readers to make up their own minds as to how much support for terrorism might be considered “radical,” Kessler chooses to rely only upon those who would be predisposed to defend the journal’s contents anyway, most notably Harvard scholar Noah Feldman, who is after all on record describing the Hamas-supporting Qaradawi as an “Islamic democrat.”

That’s good enough for Kessler. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Point #3 for Kessler’s apologetic is poo-pooing the fact IMMA was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, an influential Saudi leader, with the help of Abedin’s father Syed Abedin in the late 1970s. While Kessler attempts to paint Naseef’s position as having been essentially too long ago to be worth examining, the reality is that Nassef and Huma Abedin overlapped at IMMA for a period of seven years.

The heart of the controversy is Naseef’s ties to the Muslim World League. Kessler attempts to distance Naseef by reflecting that the Saudi leader held the position of Secretary General of MWL for a decade, from 1983-1993, while the Muslim World League offices in Herdon, VA weren’t raided by Law enforcement until after 9/11.

Never mind that The Muslim World League was specifically mentioned by Osama bin Laden as a source of funding or that MWL’s subsidiary, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) had two of its branches named as specially designated global terrorist entities, Kessler does not see fit to mention these facts.

Another WML subsidiary founded by Nassef, the Rabita Trust, is also a specially designated global terrorist entity according to the U.S. Treasury Department. While Kessler acknowledges the Rabita Trust connection, he attempts to downplay it by noting that it wasn’t until years later that the United States would get around to designating the Rabita Trust for supporting AL Qaeda.

But what Kessler choose not to tell you, is that when the U.S. Treasury Department did so, they designated Rabita Trust’s Director General Wael Hamza Julaidan, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. Who appointed Julaidan to the post?

None other than Abdullah Omar Nassef.

As National security analyst David Reaboi put this all in context when the allegations first surfaced in 2012:

In other words, many of the people and groups with whom a man like Naseef surrounds himself (at minimum) tend to be what you’d call “problematic,” and a locus of these links should (again, at the very minimum) give a background investigator pause–or, more sensibly, ring the alarm bells–if he finds not one but several links to Naseef or people like him.

The last, and perhaps most inept arrow in Kessler’s quiver is his pointing out that the Saudi government, for which Naseef worked and which funded the World Muslim League, designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group in 2014. Ipso facto, he suggests, they could not possibly have coordinated to stand up a journal of Islamist thought.

Of course every student of the history of Islamist movements knows full well that the Saudi government cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood in standing up the Muslim World League, and in many other projects besides. This is why the Muslim World League’s founding intellectuals included Said Ramadan (son-in-law of Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna) and the aforementioned Taha Jaber Alwani.

As Shavit notes in his previously mentioned work, “while Islamists provided expertise in theorizing and proselytizing, Saudi Arabia provided generous funding that promoted publications, conventions and missions dedicate to da’wa around the world.”

In other words, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs discusses the very kinds of issues that Muslim Brotherhood thinkers were working on at the time of its founding, supported by an organization founded by the Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals who were examining these issues, and was established, funded and supported by the Saudi government,including Abdullah Omar Naseef, in exactly the manner one would expect, if one had any serious inclination to the study the issue at all.

Kessler could have openly made the argument that these ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi proselytizing organs exist, that there is nothing wrong with them, and that Huma Abedin should not be held to account for these associations. That would be a weak argument but would accept all of the known facts. Still Kessler cannot quite bring himself to do that. Instead he stakes out the more expansive, and ultimately indefensible position, that none of these organizations have any Muslim Brotherhood connections whatsoever.

As a result Kessler’s fact-check goes from not just subjective to aggressively counter-factual.

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Greg Nash

Greg Nash

The Hill, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Aug. 23, 2016:

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.

This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim journal for 10 years

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Photo: Getty Images

Huma Abedin, longtime aide to former US Secretary of State and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, Photo: Getty Images

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 21 2016:

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.

One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.

However, soon after that “historic and transformational” 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton.

Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped

“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)

“Pushing [mothers] out into the open labor market is a clear demonstration of a lack of respect of womanhood and motherhood,” it added.

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin arrive for a NATO Foreign Minister family photo in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 2011. Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin arrive for a NATO Foreign Minister family photo in front of the Brandenburg Gate in 2011. Photo: Getty Images

In a separate January 1996 article, Abedin’s mother — who was the Muslim World League’s delegate to the UN conference — wrote that Clinton and other speakers were advancing a “very aggressive and radically feminist” agenda that was un-Islamic and wrong because it focused on empowering women.

“‘Empowerment’ of women does more harm than benefit the cause of women or their relations with men,” Saleha Mahmood Abedin maintained, while forcefully arguing in favor of Islamic laws that have been roundly criticized for oppressing women.

“By placing women in the ‘care and protection’ of men and by making women responsible for those under her charge,” she argued, “Islamic values generate a sense of compassion in human and family relations.”

“Among all systems of belief, Islam goes the farthest in restoring equality across gender,” she claimed. “Acknowledging the very central role women play in procreation, child-raising and homemaking, Islam places the economic responsibility of supporting the family primarily on the male members.”

She seemed to rationalize domestic abuse as a result of “the stress and frustrations that men encounter in their daily lives.” While denouncing such violence, she didn’t think it did much good to punish men for it.

She added in her 31-page treatise: “More men are victims of domestic violence than women . . . If we see the world through ‘men’s eyes’ we will find them suffering from many hardships and injustices.”

She opposed the UN conference widening the scope of the definition of the family to include “gay and lesbian ‘families.’ ”

Huma Abedin does not apologize for her mother’s views. “My mother was traveling around the world to these international women’s conferences talking about women’s empowerment, and it was normal,”she said in a recent profile in Vogue.

Huma continued to work for her mother’s journal through 2008. She is listed as “assistant editor” on the masthead of the 2002 issue in which her mother suggested the US was doomed to be attacked on 9/11 because of “sanctions” it leveled against Iraq and other “injustices” allegedly heaped on the Muslim world. Here is an excerpt:

“The spiral of violence having continued unabated worldwide, and widely seen to be allowed to continue, was building up intense anger and hostility within the pressure cooker that was kept on a vigorous flame while the lid was weighted down with various kinds of injustices and sanctions . . . It was a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”

Huma Abedin is Clinton’s longest-serving and, by all accounts, most loyal aide. The devout, Saudi-raised Muslim started working for her in the White House, then followed her to the Senate and later the State Department. She’s now helping run Clinton’s presidential campaign as vice chair and may end up back in the White House.

The contradictions are hard to reconcile. The campaign is not talking, despite repeated requests for interviews.

Until now, these articles which Abedin helped edit and publish have remained under wraps. Perhaps Clinton was unaware she and her mother took such opposing views.

But that’s hard to believe. Her closest adviser served as an editor for that same Saudi propaganda organ for a dozen years. The same one that in 1999 published a book, edited by her mother, that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law, while claiming “man-made laws have in fact enslaved women.”

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is on Clinton’s right.Photo: Getty Images

Hillary Clinton at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a “town hall” meeting in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah in 2010. Abedin’s mother, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is on Clinton’s right.Photo: Getty Images

And in 2010, Huma Abedin arranged for then-Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside Abedin’s hijab-wearing mother at an all-girls college in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to a transcript of the speech, Clinton said Americans have to do a better job of getting past “the stereotypes and the mischaracterizations” of the oppressed Saudi woman. She also assured the audience of burqa-clad girls that not all American girls go “around in a bikini bathing suit.”

At no point in her long visit there, which included a question-and-answer session, did this so-called champion of women’s rights protest the human-rights violations Saudi women suffer under the Shariah laws that Abedin’s mother actively promotes. Nothing about the laws barring women from driving or traveling anywhere without male “guardians.”

If fighting for women’s rights is one of Clinton’s greatest achievements, why has she retained as her closest adviser a woman who gave voice to harsh Islamist critiques of her Beijing platform?

Paul Sperry is author of  “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 17, 2016:

In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”

He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.”

He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”

His comments about cooperating with Egypt, Israel and Jordan were highlighted in the Arab world’s media, with headlines reading “Donald Trump Announces Plan to Cooperate with Egypt, Jordan, Israel to Combat Radical Islam” and “Trump vows to work with Egypt’s Sisi to ‘stop radical Islam’ if elected.”

Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.

Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood.

The Obama Administration, and Clinton’s State Department, again undermined President Mubarak in 2011 when they urged him to step down and pressured Egypt to hold elections“ immediately” after the 2011 revolution. This policy favored the Muslim Brotherhood to win elections since they were the most organized at the time.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi in Cairo offering “strong support” for the Islamist President, saying, “I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and their democratic transition… We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people.”

The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but when millions of Egyptians took to the streets one year later, calling for early elections against the Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did all they could to undermine their efforts.

Over 30 million Egyptians took to the streets on June 30, 2013 calling for the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. After one year of being in power, the Brotherhood was taking Egypt towards an Iranian theocracy and the Egyptian people stood against political Islam. The 2011 Egyptian Constitution had no impeachment mechanism included, so the only democratic way to remove the Brotherhood was signing a petition and taking to the streets in the masses. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets again in July, supporting then Defense Minister General el-Sisi and the Egyptian military in their efforts to fight terrorism.

The Obama Administration condemned the Egyptian military and police after the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood and punished Egypt by freezing military and economic aid to Egypt. This was done while the Egyptian military had launched a major offensive to “crush terrorist activity” in the Sinai that had built up during the Muslim Brotherhood government. Egypt had to fight terrorism alone – not only without support from the US – but with pressure to succumb to the requests from the US Administration to release the Muslim Brotherhood members from prison and reconcile.

The pressure from the Obama Administration against the removal of the Morsi regime emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood and they waged an Islamist insurgency, not only in the Sinai but on the streets of Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood specifically targeted the Christian community and burned down over 65 Christian Churches and hundreds of Christian shops.

The Obama Administration sent U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns to Egypt for “U.S. mediation efforts” and met with Khairat el-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was in jail at the time and sentenced for life in prison. Our State Department, under John Kerry, sent a representative to Egypt pressuring the Egyptian government to release terrorists from jail.

The Obama Administration also sent Senators McCain and Graham to Egypt to ask the Egyptian government and military to find an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. They asked the Egyptian government to “sit down and talk” to the Muslim Brotherhood, who had waged war on the Egyptian people.

Since being democratically elected in 2014, winning with 97% of the vote, Egyptian President al-Sisi has made history speaking out for equality between Muslims and Christians. He was the first President in Egyptian history to visit the Coptic Christian Christmas mass service in January 2015. During his speech at the Christmas mass, he emphasized the need to look at each other as “Egyptians” and not as Muslim or Christian. He said, “We will love each other for real, so that people may see.” President Sisi again visited the Coptic Christmas mass in January 2016 where he vowed to rebuild the Christian churches that were destroyed by Islamists in 2013 after the Muslim Brotherhood were removed from power.

President Sisi has called for “Islamic reform” within Islam numerous times. During a speech to Islamic scholars in 2015, marking the anniversary of Muhammad’s birth, President Sisi urged reform of Islamic discourse and called on Islamic scholars to send Christmas greetings to Christians. In the televised speech to Islamic scholars, President Sisi stated, “We talk a lot about the importance of religious discourse… In our schools, institutes and universities, do we teach and practice respect for the others? We neither teach or practice it.”

The Egyptian government has also addressed the ideology by banning thousands of radical clerics from preaching in the mosques that are not licensed.

Recently, the government of President al-Sisi introduced a textbook for Egyptian public schools that requires Egyptian pupils to memorize the provisions of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and delineate the “advantages of peace for Egypt and the Arab states”. This is a major reform taken from the Egyptian government in normalizing and strengthening relations between Israel and Egypt.

President Sisi should be considered a key ally of America as he is leading Egypt towards democracy and also is leading the fight against global jihad, both militarily and politically, in countering radical Islamic ideology. Instead, he has yet to be invited to the United States from President Obama.

Hillary Clinton has been critical of Trump’s position towards Russia, but policies implemented under the Obama Administration have pushed Egypt towards Russia and have alienated our strongest Arab ally for over 40 years. Egypt and Russia signed a $2billion arms deal after the United States abandoned them during their fight against terrorism. Russia also is providing Egypt with $25 billion to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant.

Donald Trump in his speech recognized the need to support our Muslim allies in the global war on terrorism. This is critical in defeating global jihad. We cannot afford another four years of a policy of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies as we have seen under the Obama Administration.

Tera Dahl is Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

Preview of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech (video)

donald-trumpTrump to deliver foreign policy speech, focusing on fighting ISIS (Fox News)

Donald Trump will declare an end to nation building if elected president, replacing it with what aides described as “foreign policy realism” focused on destroying the Islamic State group and other extremist organizations.

In a speech the Republican presidential nominee will deliver on Monday in Ohio, Trump will argue that the country needs to work with anyone that shares that mission, regardless of other ideological and strategic disagreements. Any country that wants to work with the U.S. to defeat “radical Islamic terrorism” will be a U.S. ally, he is expected to say.

“Mr. Trump’s speech will explain that while we can’t choose our friends, we must always recognize our enemies,” Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said Sunday.

On the eve of the speech, the Clinton campaign slammed Trump’s campaign manager for ties to Russia and pro-Kremlin interests, an apparent reference to a New York Times story published Sunday night. The story alleges Paul Manafort received $12.7 million from Ukraine’s former pro-Russia president and his political party for consultant work over a five-year period. The newspaper says Manafort’s lawyer denied his client received any such payments.

Trump on Monday is also expected to outline a new immigration policy proposal under which the U.S. would stop issuing visas in any case where it cannot perform adequate screenings.

It will be the latest version of a policy that began with Trump’s unprecedented call to temporarily bar foreign Muslims from entering the country — a religious test that was criticized across party lines as un-American. Following a massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in June, Trump introduced a new standard.

“As he laid out in his Orlando remarks, Mr. Trump will describe the need to temporarily suspend visa issuances to geographic regions with a history of exporting terrorism and where adequate checks and background vetting cannot occur,” Miller said.

Trump is also expected to propose creating a new, ideological test for admission to the country that would assess a candidate’s stances on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. Through questionnaires, searching social media, interviewing friends and family or other means, applicants would be vetted to see whether they support American values like tolerance and pluralism.

The candidate is also expected to call in the speech for declaring in explicit terms that, like during the Cold War, the nation is in an ideological conflict with radical Islam.

Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and top U.S. government officials have warned of the dangers of using that kind of language to describe the conflict, arguing that it plays into militants’ hands.

While Trump has been criticized in the past for failing to lay out specific policy solutions, aides say that Monday’s speech will again focus on his broader vision. Additional speeches with more details are expected in the weeks ahead, they said.

Trump is also expected to spend significant time going after President Barack Obama and Clinton, the former secretary of state, blaming them for enacting policies he argues allowed the Islamic State group to spread. Obama has made ending nation building a central part of his foreign policy argument for years.

“Mr. Trump will outline his vision for defeating radical Islamic terrorism, and explain how the policies of Obama-Clinton are responsible for the rise of ISIS and the spread of barbarism that has taken the lives of so many,” Miller said Sunday in an email, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group.

The speech comes as Trump has struggled to stay on message. Last week, an economic policy speech he delivered calling for lower corporate taxes and rolling back federal regulations was overshadowed by a series of provocative statements, including falsely declaring that Obama was the “founder” of the Islamic State group.

Trump’s allies said Sunday they’re confident that this time, the billionaire developer will stay on track.

“Stay tuned, it’s very early in this campaign. This coming Monday, you’re going to see a vision for confronting radical Islamic terrorism,” his vice presidential running mate, Mike Pence, said on Fox News Sunday.

Trump and his top advisers, meanwhile, have blamed the media for failing to focus on his proposals.

“If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn’t put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20 percent,” he tweeted Sunday.

***

pdf of Donald Trumps speech: Understanding The Threat: Radical Islam And The Age Of Terror

***

Michael Del Rosso, author of ‘Shariah: The Threat to America,’ previews the Republican presidential nominee’s major policy speech. Del Rosso packs a lot of information into this interview. A must watch and share!

Hillary’s Islamist Phalanx

American Thinker, by Mary A. Nicholas, Aug. 13, 2016:

Unless you had taken a course in advanced agitprop, you would not have recognized that Seddique Mateen, the father of the Orlando nightclub shooter, was a plant.  He was part of the propaganda show for Hillary Clinton, now playing to sparse audiences from coast to coast.  The show is produced and directed by radical “let it all hang out” leftists, in coordination with misogynistic Islamic supremacists, who believe in forced marriage of children under 13 and clitorectomies.

196940_5_

The purpose of Mateen in Florida, a state Hillary needs to win, was to change the narrative, since Khizr Khan was so successful in changing the narrative at the Democratic National Convention.  Those “selected” for front- or second-row status at a presidential candidate’s event are hand-picked for ideology, gender, race, or ethnicity.  There is no chance that the Clinton show did not know of and approve of his appearance.

Clinton needed to change the narrative for two reasons.  First, her poll numbers are not really up as Pat Caddell, a professional pollster, has attested to, especially if you look at the abracadabra methodology.  It’s a classic case of disinformation.

What if you give a candidate event, and very few voters show up?  You change the narrative, as the Clinton campaign has done, PhotoShop the audience of the event to downplay the numbers, get fire marshals to close down overflowing events of the opponent, or whip up interest in the campaign events via “walk-ons” like Khan and Mateen.

Second, and more important, there are continuing photos of Hillary tripping on and off stage with Broadway lights flashing “brain freeze,” “conquers the stairs,” and more.  There are numerous documented events, that is, that even the producers cannot hide.

Pakistani-born Khizr Khan published writings in support of sharia, the enemy of the U.S. Constitution.  And the choice between these two is the issue of this election.  To understand the importance of sharia in today’s threat to America, here is a quote from Stephen  Coughlin, who formerly briefed the Pentagon and other U.S. officials on the threat of Islam:

For these enemies, the implementation of Islamic law – shariah – as the governing law of the land is the objective. This is true not only for jihadi groups like al-Qaeda, but also for dawah organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and ummah entities like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a transnational body that makes reasonable claims to represent the ummah, or the entire Muslim world.” (Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad by Stephen Coughlin. Washington, D.C.: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015, p.26.)

In a 1983 article in the Houston Journal of International Law, Khan gratefully acknowledged “the writings of S. Ramadan,” citing Ramadan’s book, Islamic Law – Its Scope and Equity, with endorsements of sharia.  Said Ramadan was a Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and a founding member of the Muslim World League.  “From his Geneva, Switzerland home … Ramadan established the Islamic Center, a combined mosque, Muslim community center, and think tank. Swiss investigative journalist Sylvain Besson included ‘The Project,’ a 14-page manifesto dated 1982, and discovered by the Swiss secret service in 2001, in his La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005, pp. 193-205.)  “The Project” a blueprint for installing Sharia-based Islamic regimes in the West by propaganda, proselytization, and if necessary, jihad war – and is believed to have been authored by Said Ramadan.”  See here.

Seddique Mateen is a supporter of the Afghan Taliban and hosts a program on a California-based satellite Afghan TV station, aimed at the Afghan population in the U.S.  The Taliban Islamic extremist movement comprises Pashtuns, and Mateen’s show has a Pashtun, pro-Taliban slant, a source told Logan of CBS.

unnamed (1)

But these events with Khizr Khan and Seddiq Mateen raise more serious questions.  We already know of Hillary’s association with Huma Abedin, vice chair of Hillary’s campaign, who was involved with the establishment of Hillary’s private email server.  When she was two years old, Huma’s family moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, under the patronage of Abdullah Omar Nasseef, associated with the Muslim World League, who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs with offices in Saudi Arabia and London.  Nasseef, the Muslim World League, and the government of Pakistan created the Rabita Trust, which was named a specially designated global terrorist entity and had its assets frozen by the Treasury Department on October 12, 2001.

A Treasury Department press release indicated that the Rabita Trust is headed by Wa’el Hamza Julaidan, one of the founders of al-Qaeda with bin Laden.  Does anyone recognize that name?  Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology, founded by the same Nasseef.  Huma’s mother, Saleha, is reportedly an advocate for genital mutilation for girls in the Islamic world.

Then there’s Tim Kaine.  While he passed the screening test for typical American male with ties to the (liberal wing) Catholic Church, another group Hillary needs to win, Kaine also has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  In 2007, he appointed Esam Omeish to his state immigration committee despite Omeish’s status as the leader of the Muslim American Society, a group federal prosecutors identified as having been “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”  Omeish resigned when videos surfaced of him supporting Hamas and Palestinians waging jihad against Israel.

In September 2011, Kaine spoke at a dinner organized by the New Dominion PAC that honored a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect named Jamal Barzinji with a Lifetime Achievement Award.  Kaine acknowledged the help his campaign received from his “friends” in the audience and asked for their support for his Senate campaign.  They obliged him.

A web of associations can come in handy when seeking influence.

Where Did They Go Wrong?

CC9FA462-FE00-420E-8B18-0E83E9AC7E92_mw505_mh331_sThe Cipher Brief, by Eric Trager Aug. 12, 2016:

August 14 2013 was the most violent day in contemporary Egyptian history.  Security forces brutally dispersed demonstrations in northern Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya Square and Giza’s al-Nahda Square, killing hundreds of Islamists who were protesting the ouster of Egypt’s first elected president, Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, six weeks earlier. Human Rights Watch later put the death toll at more than 800 civilians.  Meanwhile, the incident became a rallying cry for the Brotherhood and its allies, who vowed to avenge the crackdown and reinstate Morsi.

Yet the Rabaa massacre, as it became known, was also significant for another reason: it reflected the total failure of the Brotherhood’s post-Morsi strategy, and its defeat in the power struggle with the military-backed government that assumed control following Morsi’s ouster.  Three years later, the Brotherhood still has not recovered: many thousands of its leaders are in prison or exile, at least hundreds more have been killed, and the organization is no longer a significant player on the ground.

It is worth recalling that Morsi’s overthrow caught the Brotherhood by surprise. When millions of Egyptians took to the streets on June 30, 2013 to protest the Brotherhood leader’s autocratic and failed presidency, Brotherhood leaders told their members that the military stood firmly with Morsi. And they continued to exude this confidence even after the militarywarned Morsi on July 1 that it would intervene with its own “road map” if he failed to respond to the protesters’ demands within 48 hours.

So when Defense Minister Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, flanked by a broad spectrum of Egyptian figures, declared Morsi’s ouster on the evening of July 3, the Brotherhood responded in haste. It ordered cadres from across the country to gather in Rabaa al-Adawiya and al-Nahda Squares, where the Brotherhood had been demonstrating in support of Morsi for nearly a week. These squares became no-go zones for the Egyptian police after Morsi’s overthrow, and served as sanctuaries where wanted Brotherhood leaders avoided arrest, held meetings, and addressed the international media.

Despite the military’s significant advantages in arms and capacity, the Brotherhood sincerely expected to win the ensuing power struggle. It believed that only a small number of generals had supported Morsi’s toppling, and that its protests would foment a split within the military and thus restore Morsi to power. The Brotherhood further believed that it could withstand any attempt to disperse the protests, given that its members were willing to die for the organization’s cause. “If they want to disperse the sit-in, they’ll have to kill 100,000 protesters,” Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad toldjournalist Maged Atef. “And they can’t do it [because] we’re willing to offer 100,000 martyrs.” At the same time, the Brotherhood called for pro-Morsi protests across the country.  Demonstrators blocked roads and clashed with security forces. All of these activities were intended to send a very clear message to the new regime: Egypt would not know stability until the coup was reversed.

The regime got the message, and it was similarly determined to win the power struggle. “We were sure of one thing: that no country can go on if a sector of its population just does not recognize [and] defies the authority,” Hazem el-Beblawi, who served as Egypt’s prime minister during this period, told me during an October 2014 interview. “This is unacceptable.”

The government also made it quite clear that it was willing to use significant force against the Brotherhood’s protests.  Fifty-one Morsi supporters were killed on July 8 outside the Republican Guard Headquarters, where Morsi was being held.  Then, on July 24, Defense Minister Sisi called for mass demonstrations to “authorize” the military to fight terrorism, by which he meant the Brotherhood, and many thousands of Egyptians responded by pouring into the streets two days later. Still, since the first month after Morsi’s ouster coincided with the holy month of Ramadan, the government delayed its plans to disperse the Brotherhood’s protests, and allowed Western diplomats to explore possibilities for a negotiated resolution. “We were aware that such a thing cannot be solved without some casualties, but we wanted as much as we [could] to delay it, but not to the extent that the perception of respect [for] the government should deteriorate,” Beblawi said.

When negotiations failed, however, Egypt’s cabinet met on July 31 and authorized the Minister of the Interior to “take all necessary measures to disperse protests or sit-ins.” To minimize bloodshed, some ministers suggested that security forces should encircle the protest sites and permit protesters to leave, but not allow new protesters or goods to enter. This type of siege strategy would have ended the protests more gradually, but would have also entailed far fewer casualties. According to Beblawi, however, the Interior Minister rejected this idea, arguing that a siege strategy would allow the Brotherhood to decide when to initiate hostilities with security forces, which would have put the police at a disadvantage. This, of course, isn’t how police typically deal with protests – it’s the way generals strategize during war. And that’s exactly how the new government viewed this particular moment in time. So the cabinet ultimately deferred to the Interior Minister, empowering the police to disperse the protests whenever they were prepared.

The Rabaa massacre dealt a very severe blow to the Brotherhood.  Beyond the high death toll, Brotherhood leaders and cadres lost their physical sanctuaries, and during the next few months many thousands of them landed in either prison or exile.  By the end of 2013, the Brotherhood’s notoriously hierarchical organization had been thoroughly decapitated, rendering it incapable of executing any sort of nationwide strategy within Egypt. While the Brotherhood continues to promote its ideas and political narrative from its de facto base in Istanbul, it no longer represents a significant threat to the current government and is barely visible within Egypt today.

I asked Beblawi whether he had any regrets about Rabaa. After all, when security forces killed 28 Christian demonstrators in downtown Cairo in October 2011, Beblawi resigned from his post as Finance Minister in protest. But when it came to Rabaa, Beblawi believed that Egypt’s future was at stake, and didn’t envision a better alternative. “It [was] very painful,” he said. “But you go to war, and many of your kids … lose their arms and even their lives, but you save the country. It was a terrible thing, very nasty, and the decision was not easy, but inevitable.”

For the Brotherhood, Rabaa remains an important symbol of its “steadfastness” in resisting Morsi’s overthrow, and those who were killed at Rabaa al-Adawiya and al-Nahda Squares are celebrated as holy martyrs on Brotherhood social media pages and elsewhere. Yet, in recent months, Muslim Brothers have started to reassess their leaders’ failed strategy during that period. In this vein, one Morsi supporter recently asked on Facebook why the Brotherhood simply remained in Rabaa al-Adawiya Square after the Egyptian military issued its 48-hour ultimatum to Morsi on July 1, 2013, rather than mobilizing to the Republican Guard headquarters where Morsi was staying to prevent the military from arresting him.

Of course, these types of questions became even more pertinent after last month’s failed coup in Turkey, as Islamists studied how Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan managed to avoid Morsi’s fate. For example, Amr Farrag, who founded the Brotherhood-affiliated news site Rassd, recalled how on the day after Morsi’s ouster, Muslim Brothers were instructed to deal respectfully with soldiers who were entering and exiting a Ministry of Defense building right next to Rabaa al-Adawiya Square. “Our dear brothers were saying, we are peaceful,” Farrag posted on Facebook. “Our peacefulness is stronger than bullets. Fine, so we got smacked on our necks.”

These reassessments reflect the most significant change within the Brotherhood in the three years since the Rabaa massacre: the organization is increasingly fractured. Brotherhood leaders are either in prison, in hiding, or scattered among various countries in exile, and this has catalyzed an internal power struggle that hasn’t been resolved yet. In this sense, there are still many Muslim Brothers but no Brotherhood, at least for the time being.

Also see:

UK Govt: Top Muslim Brotherhood Islamists CAN Get Asylum In Britain

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, Aug. 5 2016:

Shocking advice from Britain’s Home Office has said that high-profile Islamist operatives may be eligible for asylum in the United Kingdom given the group is now “persecuted” in opposition in Egypt.

In new guidance published this week, The Independent Advisory Group on Country Information within the Home Office discussed “fear of persecution or serious harm by the state because of the person’s actual or perceived involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)”, stating that “MB leaders and supporters have faced a prolonged crackdown by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime following the ousting of President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013 and the MB’s designation on 25 December 2013 as a terrorist organisation”.

The paper cites death sentences meted out to MB members, as well as “instances of persons tortured to death” and suggests: “Those with a high profile in the MB or who have been politically active, particularly in demonstrations, may be able to show that they are at risk of persecution, including of being held in detention, where they may be at risk of ill-treatment, trial also without due process and disproportionate punishment”.

It adds: “Additionally, high profile supporters or those perceived to support the MB, such as journalists, may also be similarly at risk of persecution. In such cases, a grant of asylum will be appropriate”.

Considering the Muslim Brotherhood has recently called for “jihad” and “martyrdom” and has long supported hard-line Islamist governance as well as violent means of obtaining power and infiltration into Western countries, the UK government’s paper is likely to cause major concern.

The Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a key inspiration to terrorist groups like Hamas, and was for some time funded via Saudi Arabia. In recent years the Saudis and the Muslim Brothers have drifted apart, leading to the UK government being used as a pawn by Saudi Arabia to investigate Muslim Brotherhood activities in Britain as a means by which to punish the group.

But the report also states: “The evidence does not suggest that merely being a member of, or, in particular, a supporter of the MB will put a person at risk of persecution”, meaning only the highest profile Islamists may be eligible for asylum in the United Kingdom.

Speaking to the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to Islamist goals, the document notes: “The MB are reported to have released a statement in January 2015 calling on followers to embrace ‘jihad’ and ‘martyrdom’ to fight the current regime.”

Instead of ruling people out of coming to live in the United Kingdom at the expense of tax payers for being in favour of “jihad”, the government advice lukewarmly states: “Depending on the nature of the person’s involvement, decision makers must consider whether one of the exclusion clauses is applicable.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has a vast property portfolio in the United Kingdom, and has long exercised control over the groups that are more fervently opposed to so-called “Islamophobia” in the country. MB links in the UK are also well documented, and spread through seemingly harmless charities, public figures, government advisors, and educational establishments.

Several U.S. Congressmen recently renewed their long-standing calls to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group.

***

Information Dominance: A Snapshot of the War

“I say to you that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.”

2005 Letter from Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri, current leader of Al Qaeda

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 7, 2016:

As UTT has reported on numerous occasions, for both the Global Islamic Movement and the Marxist/Socialist movement, the primary focus is in the information domain (propaganda, deception operations, etc).

For the Global Islamic Movement’s leading edge – the Muslim Brotherhood – their methodology is “Civilization Jihad” by OUR hands. They get our leaders and key organizations to do their work for them.

Getting the U.S. State Department to write the constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan (2005) which created Islamic states under sharia – thus fulfilling Al Qaeda’s objectives in those nations – and getting a four-star U.S. general (Petraeus) to go on international television to condemn a U.S. citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights to burn a book (the Koran) – thus enforcing the Islamic law of “Slander” – are two simple examples.

At the Democratic National Convention, Khizr Khan played his role knowing full well there would be a predictable response from Mr. Trump.  A response for which our enemies were prepared.

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Republican leadership and people in the Trump campaign did not even have fore-knowledge of Mr. Khan’s participation in the convention and, thus, did not do their due diligence or conduct a basic background investigation on Mr. Khan to prepare for a response.

They were operationally blind.

Mr. Trump made statements regarding Mr. Khan and his wife, and the trap was sprung.  It was not Hillary Clinton nor the Democrat Party that fired the first salvo at Trump Headquarters.

Mr. Trump was hammered by Gold Star mothers, the VFW, Republican leaders, and others.  This was a home run for the enemy.

This is warfare in the information domain.  This is “political warfare,” and is never done willy nilly.  It has purpose, and is a part of a larger strategy.

There is also an abundance of evidence Mr. Khan is an agent of a foreign power (Pakistan) who just conducted an extremely well-executed information operation against a U.S. Presidential candidate.

All the players responded as predicted, and all patriotic Americans should be gravely concerned.

If the Trump campaign does not figure this out quickly, his supporters will be separated, pitted against each other, and dissipated.  The enemy is engaging in the information warfare battlespace, and the Trump campaign appears oblivious to it.

In 2012, Michele Bachmann courageously led the charge in Congress and put forth evidence from the largest terrorism trials in American history revealing massive Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the federal government.  She called for key Inspector Generals offices to investigate.

The attack on her came from Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain, and other prominent Republican leaders.

Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

Khizr Khan is a suit-wearing jihadi.  He adheres to sharia, and believes in submitting the world to sharia (Islamic law).  Mr. Khan has written clearly that sharia must be followed to the letter and the Koran “is the absolute authority from which springs the very conception of legality and every legal obligation.”

This is, by the way, in direct contradiction of American law and government, the foundation of which are the “Law of Nature” and “Nature’s God,” not sharia.  Americans should know this the next time Mr. Khan waves a copy of our Constitution in our faces.

For more on “Sharia” see the UTT article HERE.

If we are to truly understand the threat we face from the Global Islamic Movement and the Marxist/Socialist movement, we must know their primary battlefield is in the media, not on a piece of open ground on which tanks and troops engage each other.

Largest Christian charity infiltrated by Hamas

Hamas terrorists

Hamas terrorists

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Aug. 5, 2016:

Mohammed El Halabi, an employee of World Vision, the world’s largest evangelical Christian charity, has been charged in Israel with funneling tens of millions of dollars to the military wing of Hamas, a designated international terrorist organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The arrest was made June 16, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz, but a gag order on the case files was lifted Wednesday and Halabi was indicted Thursday. The indictment reveals details of how Hamas infiltrated Federal Way, Washington-based World Vision, a global Christian outreach active in nearly 100 countries.

Halabi, director of World Vision’s Gaza branch, was detained at the Erez crossing in Israel as he was headed back to Gaza on his way home from “routine meetings,” several Israeli news outlets were reporting.

Halabi was being held since June “without access to legal counsel or family visits,” which is normal procedure in Israel for prisoners charged with terrorist-related crimes.

Last Friday, when El Halabi’s detention had been extended until Aug. 2, World Vision’s eastern Jerusalem office released a statement calling for his release:

“World Vision stands by Mohammad who is a widely respected and well-regarded humanitarian, field manager and trusted colleague of over a decade. He has displayed compassionate leadership on behalf of the children and communities of Gaza through difficult and challenging times, and has always worked diligently and professionally in fulfilling his duties.”

But Halabi only used his “humanitarian” mask as cover for his Islamist work, according to the prosecution’s presentation Thursday in Beer Sheva District Court.

The prosecutor described him as a Hamas activist who has been using his high position in the charity to systematically divert millions of dollars to the military arm of Hamas, financing, among other things, the digging of terror tunnels, the Jewish Press reported.

The secret terrorist funding, according to Thursday’s indictment, was taken out of donations and resources that had been dedicated to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. The indictment includes 12 counts of security violations of passing information to the enemy, membership in a terror organization, funding terrorism, participation in an unlawful association, and contact with foreign agents.

Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since Palestinian elections were held in 2006.

Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization whose goal is to inspire Muslims worldwide to return to the roots of their faith as spelled out in the Quran and create a global caliphate under Shariah law.

The fact that the Brotherhood has infiltrated the world’s largest international Christian aid group, World Vision, confirms the worst fears of Brotherhood experts such as Dr. Mark Christian, a former imam with family ties to the Brotherhood who left his native Egypt in 2003.

“From the Brotherhood’s point of view there is nothing better than to deceive and get involved with organizations that make it look like they are going to help the poor kids of Gaza when in reality no kid is getting helped and it is all going to the terrorist actions to kill Jews,” said Christian, who heads up the Global Faith Institute based in Omaha, Nebraska.

Christian said World Vision started out in 1950 as a great organization focused on helping missionaries out in the field “and to really do the good work of Christ.”

But the organization started changing in the 1970s, he said.

“And I think that is a key dividing line in history,” Christian said. “That’s when you started seeing Christian leaders becoming more accepting of other religions, and the Muslim Brotherhood around that same time started to internationalize their mission of spreading Islamism around the world and they discovered they could deceive a lot of these naïve Christian leaders.”

World Vision today has an annual budget of more than $2 billion and its top executive, Richard Stearns, was paid a salary of $380,000 in 2013, among the top nonprofit salaries in the country that year.

“And you see the direction of the organization itself change from a Christian missionary organization to now more of a global anti-poverty agency that says ‘yeah we are doing this great work but we are not going to evangelize the world,’ and you see that reflected in their generic slogans that appeal to the donors but is not really doing the work of Christ and the Great Commission,” Christian said.

World Vision’s slogan is “Our vision for every child, life in all its fullness; our prayer for every heart, the will to make it so.”

Read more

Also see:

Erdoğan’s Coup Survival: Don’t Call It Democracy

pro erdogan demIPT NewsAugust 3, 2016

Nihad Awad, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) executive director, is in Turkey this week. It isn’t clear why, but Awad is taking advantage of his travels to post upbeat photographs celebrating that country’s recent failed military coup.

Last month, a faction of Turkey’s military tried to oust Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has consolidated power and steered his country away from the secular ambitions laid out by modern founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk toward a decidedly Islamist state.

As Natalie Martin explained in Newsweek:

“For almost ten years, Turkey has been drifting towards authoritarianism. Life has become distinctly uncomfortable for anyone who doesn’t support Erdoğan and his party, the AKP. The government controls the news media, has undermined the rule of law and clamped down harshly on any kind of peaceful protest. So while Turkey is still democratic—in that Erdoğan is elected—it is not a liberal country.”

1749Last Friday, Turkish journalist Mahir Zeynalov captured one aspect of Erdoğan’s latest crackdown, the arrests of dozens of journalists, in a series of Twitter posts that garnered immediate international attention.

Awad hasn’t seemed to notice or doesn’t care. On Saturday, he posted a photograph of a bridge where, he said, “the army surrendered to the will of the people.” Monday evening, he snapped a selfie in Turkey’s Taksim Square, showing what looked like a rally of flag-waving Turks “guarding democracy.”

1748True, Erdoğan was elected president by popular vote in 2014. But his actions, seizing opposition media outlets, purging military, the courts and government of potential foes and increasing Islam’s role in Turkish society, predates the failed coup.

But Erdoğan’s crackdown, described by the New York Times as “nearly unprecedented” in modern history, has not stopped his American Islamist supporters from fully embracing Turkey’s tilt toward a more theocratic state.

In a series of White House rallies that started the night of the failed coup, speakers including Awad cast Turkey as a beacon of freedom.

“This military coup is an affront, not only to the Turkish people, but to everyone who believes in democracy and the free will of the people,” Awad said at another White House rally July 15.

Read more

Also see:

SOME GOOD NEWS: Homeland Security Bill Will Target Muslim Brotherhood by Name

130421122654-exp-sotu-rep-michael-mccaul-part-one-boston-tragedy-house-national-security-00010926-horizontal-gallery

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, August 2, 2016:

In mid-July Rep. Rep. Mark Meadows (R.-N.C.) announced that conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus appear to have reached a deal with Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, over McCaul’s signature bill H. R. 5611, known as the “Homeland Safety and Security Act.”

McCaul’s bill had riled conservative House members and critics of the Obama Administration’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program for providing millions of dollars to create a CVE office in Department of Homeland Security, and for failing to focus on Islamic terrorism in favor of the generic Administration preferred nomenclature of “violent extremism.”

The bill was then amended to include references to “radical Islam” and Islamic terrorism to replace generic extremism language, as a nod to critics. But these changes were largely textual, not structural, and didn’t address concerns that Countering Violent Extremism funds would be directed to Muslim community organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and terror finance.

Rep. Meadows told Breitbart News on July 11th of a recent conference with Homeland Security Chairman McCaul, Rep. Scott Perry and Rep. Barry Loudermilk where the decision was reached to update the bill to include a number of conservative priorities.

An agreement was reached to include language to direct the U.S. State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Designation of the Brotherhood is also the subject of another bill authored by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart in the House and currently supported with 64 co-sponsors, and being included as part of a Homeland Security legislative package may be the designation bill’s best hope for passage.

Additionally, H.R. 5611 will also, according to Meadows, include language prohibiting unindicted co-conspirators in the landmark Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Trial from participating in CVE grant programs.

These are issues of great concern to critics of CVE, who have repeatedly pointed out that CVE participants from the Muslim community have included Muslim Brotherhood groups, including those led or founded by unindicted co-conspirators.

An example of this includes 2010 DHS Homeland Security Advisory group member Mohamed Magid, a frequent visitor to the Obama White House, past president and executive council member of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an HLF unindicted co-conspirator. A Federal judge noted that the U.S. government had supplied “ample evidence” during the Holy Land Foundation trial for associating ISNA with the terrorist group Hamas.

Other examples include the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), a CVE partner for the city of Boston, one of the three “model cities” represented by the Obama Administration’s CVE effort.  ISB was founded by convicted Al Qaeda financier Adurrahman Alamoudi, and included as trustees Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and Jamal Badawi, all three of which were unindicted co-conspirators, and has been the mosque of choice for multiple terrorists including the Boston Marathon bombers.

These changes are major improvements over the original McCaul bill, and the Chairman should be applauded for accepting the constructive criticism for the betterment of the bill. The agreement over H.R. 5611 would represent an injection of sanity into the Obama Administration’s otherwise deeply flawed CVE program.

Challenges remain, including the bill’s inclusion of a ‘No Fly/No Buy” style program, which invokes the ire of constitutionalists and 2nd Amendment advocates.

Additionally, both the prohibition against Holy Land Foundation unindicted co-conspirators in CVE grant programs, and pressuring the State Department on the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood are amendments likely be extremely unpopular in the Senate. House Republicans will need to hold the line in any future conference committee in order to see they remain in the final version.

Even if the bill should pass and reach the President, it would require an engaged and knowledgeable Congress to hold the Obama Administration, and subsequent administrations, accountable for their positions, and tough oversight to insure they are upheld.

MORE ABOUT INFLUENCE: THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA

Information Warfare: The #1 Lie – We Must Use Muslims to Lead the Fight Against ISIS

isis flag

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

In the “War on Terror” – or whatever it is being called this week – America’s leaders tell us the key to stopping ISIS or “radical Islamic terrorism” is to use the Muslim community here in the U.S. and Arab leaders abroad.  This is dangerous, foolish, and will continue to lead us down the path of defeat.

This is the #1 lie we are being told by our leaders and reveals how ignorant and clueless they are about our Islamic foe.

This is also a talking point supplied by the Muslim Brotherhood to our leaders who regurgitate it with willing giddiness.

This is Information Warfare.  It is the center of the strategy for the Global Islamic Movement.

Facts to consider when American leaders publicly declare we “must” use the Islamic community and it’s leaders to be the main focus of effort in defeating ISIS:

1.  Since 9/11 the Muslim community has been no help to intelligence and law enforcement at the strategic level.  Not only has UTT reported this, but FBI officials and British intelligence officials have publicly stated they have received zero real assistance from the Muslim community.  Recently in Europe, leaders of jihadi cells were captured in neighborhoods where Muslims were aware of the presence of the jihadis but never said a word to law enforcement.  In an April 2016 poll, two thirds of British Muslims told pollsters they would not alert law enforcement of “terror plots” if they had prior knowledge.

2.  It is unlawful in 100% of Islamic doctrine (Sharia) for Muslims to assist police in any activity which targets Muslims, and it is unlawful in 100% of Islamic doctrine (Sharia) for a Muslim to do anything which does not further the cause of Islam.

3.  The strategies and plans of the U.S. government in the “War on Terror” have catastrophically failed because our leaders have still – 15 years after 9/11 – not taken the time to know and understand the threat of the Global Islamic Movement, it’s doctrine (Sharia), nor aggressively pursued the jihadi network here in the U.S. which is made up of the leaders of the most prominent Islamic organizations in America.

4.  Most noteworthy, the vast majority of Islamic leadership in America (and the West) are a part of the Global Islamic Movement supporting and participating in the jihad.

Why would America’s leaders want to use these same enemies to continue to drive our domestic counter-terrorism efforts and our foreign policy as it relates to Islamic nations?

Because it is sure to lead to our defeat – exactly the outcome our enemies want.

Abdourahman Alamoudi, Jailed al Qaeda Financier, Frequented the Clinton White House

alamoudi (1)

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 29, 206:

Islamists pose a particular security risk to our U.S. government. They want to slowly introduce Sharia law into our system of government and take away our most cherished freedoms. Islamists such as Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) not only strive to take away our fundamental freedoms, but they oftentimes also lobby against our government’s ability to crackdown on Islamic terrorism.

For example, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates wrote a letter in 2011 to the U.S. Department of Justice telling it the FBI needs to purge “highly offensive counterterrorism training materials about Muslims and Islam used to train its agents and law enforcement.”

Some Islamists, even after empowering radical Islam in the policy arena, will go so far as to support terrorist groups like Hamas (more often done privately) or receive funding from such groups. Islamists operate so effectively in U.S. politics because of politicians that enable them. Bill and Hillary Clinton are those type of politicians – having a political past mired with Islamist ties.

One of those Islamists happens to be Abdurahman Alamoudi, a man sentenced to twenty-three years in prison because of “his activities in the United States and abroad with nations and organizations that have ties to terrorism[.]” Alamoudi has been involved in a number of malicious activities such as a “Libyan intelligence/al-Qaeda assassination plot to kill the Saudi crown prince” and being “an Al-Qaeda fundraiser who had operated inside the United States.” So, what’s his connection with the Clintons?

An affidavit by Dr. John Esposito, a Georgetown professor with numerous Islamist ties, reveals that in 1996, Hillary asked Alamoudi to help with an Iftar reception at the White House:

…when Hilary Clinton decided to host the first ever White House reception to celebrate the end of Ramadan (called the Iftar), Mrs. Clinton asked Mr. Alamoudi to prepare the guest list.

Patrick Poole with PJ Media reports, “Under the Clinton administration, Alamoudi was tasked with founding and developing the Defense Department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain program. Alamoudi himself handpicked the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain corps.”

Furthermore, it’s not shocking that Al Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki (inspired several 9/11 hijackers) at one point trained U.S. militarychaplains. It’s disturbing to know that we have subversive radical Islamists training and advising our leaders in government who want to see the destruction of the America that we all know and love. Besides receiving trips funded on the backs of taxpayers, it was also discovered that Alamoudi was helping out Osama bin Laden, PJ Media reports:

After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the speechwriter for the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman told the FBI that Alamoudi had been funneling $5000 payments from Osama bin Laden to Rahman. Rahman is currently serving a life sentence on terror charges for his role in the “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.

In this video, allegedly taken outside of the White House in 2000, Alamoudi publicly displays his support for Hamas and Hezbollah in front of an enthusiastic crowd.

Alamoudi isn’t the only Islamist with connections with the Clintons. In 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allowed a professor that is a known Islamist, Tariq Ramadan, re-entry into the U.S. (in 2004, the U.S. rescinded Ramadan’s visa).

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that Ramadan gave financial support to a French charity called “Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens” (CBSP) that’s affiliated with Hamas.

Besides these individual cases and many others, one of the most disturbing things about Hillary’s judgement is her optimistic view of the Muslim Brotherhood. In a 2011 speech, then Secretary of State Clinton exposes her naiveté about the Egyptian Brotherhood – showing a willingness to engage the group, stating:

“We believe, given the changing political landscape in Egypt, that it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency,” she told reporters in Budapest, Hungary. “And we welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.”

But, she added, any such contacts “will continue to emphasize the importance of and support for democratic principles, and especially a commitment to nonviolence, respect for minority rights, and the full inclusion of women in any democracy. You cannot leave out half the population and claim that you are committed to democracy.”

Of course, the Brotherhood says they are committed to non-violence and the democratic process but only as far as it allows Islamists to come to power and change the system to fit their Sharia ideology.

We witnessed this in Egypt when Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi democratically came to power and began to transform Egypt into an Islamic state, some examples include: approving a Sharia influenced constitution, press censorship, failure to protect religious minorities (ex. Coptic Christians), and many more. In addition, the Brotherhood has had a violent past and there is no reason to believe they would not revert back to their old tendencies.

As we have seen, the Clintons not only have a propensity for tolerating individual Islamists, but they also buy into the diplomatic language of the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, Hillary continues to provide a mouthpiece for an ‘Islamophobia’ campaign that seeks to silence the critics of Islamism. This ignorance of the Muslim Brotherhood strategy is a major liability for our country, especially since Hillary Clinton is one election away from occupying the most powerful position in the U.S. government.

MORE ABOUT INFLUENCE: THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN AMERICA