State Dept blames Israel for causing Palestinian violence

SHOCKING NEW REPORT SAYS “LACK OF HOPE” IS A CAUSE OF PALESTINIAN VIOLENCE.

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, July 19, 2017:

Rex Tillerson’s State Department added blistering anti-Israel language to this year’s “Country Reports on Terrorism,” adopting a tone not seen even during the hostile Obama era.

On Wednesday, Tillerson submitted the annual report to Congress. This year’s report may come as a shock to the overwhelmingly pro-Israel majority that elected Donald Trump president.

The report appears to blame Israel for the lack of peace between the two sides, pointing to a “lack of hope” as a “driver” for Palestinian violence.

Tillerson’s State Department concluded that Palestinian terrorism is motivated by “Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, the perception that the Israeli government was changing the status quo on the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount, and IDF tactics that the Palestinians considered overly aggressive.”

Continuing its pro-Palestinian posture, the next paragraph of the State Department memo commends the Palestinian Authority chairman for condemning acts of violence.

“Explicit calls for violence against Israelis, direct exhortations against Jews, and categorical denials by the PA of the possibility of peace with Israel are rare and the leadership does not generally tolerate it,” the memo states.

The aforementioned statement is simply not true. Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party have a long history of promoting violence against Israel, and using inciting language to fan the flames of terror against its Jewish population.

In fact, organizations like Palestinian Media Watch and the Middle East Media Research Institute find almost daily examples of Palestinian state media waging incitement campaigns.

The State Department report does label Israel a “committed counterterrorism partner.” However, the sometimes-positive language toward America’s closest Middle East ally does not excuse the morally reprehensible act of sanctioning Palestinian violence against innocents.

By excusing Palestinian terrorism as motivated by a “lack of hope,” the State Department is helping to create a morally paradoxical environment in which the Israeli victim becomes the perpetrator and the Palestinian perpetrator becomes the victim.

Conservative Review looked through the Obama-era State Department country reports on terrorism and found that the Tillerson-led assessment added the aforementioned anti-Israel language.

Last year’s report under Obama said the Palestinians argued that terrorism is sometimes caused by frustration over “occupation.” But that report was much less accusatory because it makes clear that the position is reflecting the views of Palestinian officials, and not the U.S. government.

Tillerson continues to shock supporters of Israel with his pro-Palestinian policy promotion.

In May, the embattled secretary of state blackmailed Israel, using the debate over its embassy move as a bargaining chip for Palestinian statehood. That same month, he described Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, as the “home of Judaism.”

Unlike U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Tillerson refuses to recognize that the Western Wall is in Israel. Moreover, his State Department continues to reject Israeli claims over the city of Jerusalem.

Analysis: Following the Qatar “Deal”

In this July 11, 2017, photo, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani sign a memorandum of understanding in Doha, Qatar. (Alexander W. Riedel/U.S. State Department via AP)

Security Studies Group, by Dr. Brad Patty, July 13, 2017:

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt imposed a blockade on the nation of Qatar recently because of Qatar’s relationship with a number of terrorist and terror-supporting entities.  These nations demanded that Qatar adhere to a 13-point plan if the blockade was to be lifted.  The 13 points include some very important steps, but also some steps that no sovereign nation could ever agree to, as they would effectively make Qatar subordinate to the other nations.

The matter is important to the United States because we have major military installations in Qatar, as well as treaties that could shatter our alliance with the Gulf states if Qatar should end up at war with those states.  That would profit Iran, chief of all, as it would disrupt the alliance opposing Iranian attempts at regional hegemony.  (For a fuller background, see SSG’s earlier posts here and also here.)

This week, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson flew to both Qatar and Saudi Arabia to try to resolve the crisis.  He was not successful.  He did obtain a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) with Qatar that the Saudis apparently rejected.  (Here is Qatar’s own Al Jazeera on the topic.)  This MOU is not a treaty or a deal, but it is a commitment to terms that Qatar would accept if others accepted them.  The Saudis apparently didn’t find the terms acceptable, but since the United States signed the MOU as well as Qatar, the Saudis will likely propose new terms that incorporate the MOU but ask for a bit more.  This is diplomacy as deal-making, very much the way the Trump administration views diplomacy.

So, how to know if the final deal is a good one from the perspective of the United States?  Resolving the crisis on any terms defuses the bomb threatening to blow up our regional alliances, but not every such deal is going to address America’s core interests.  Our interests are not the same as those of any of the Arab nations, though some of them overlap.  Thus, it is not necessary to obtain a deal that forces Qatar to submit to the whole 13 point proposal.  A deal that compromises by allowing Qatar to retain its sovereignty, while obtaining the parts of the 13 points that are American interests, is acceptable.

There are really only two things that America needs to insist upon.

  1. A complete end to support for terrorism.  The MOU is supposed to have obtained some Qatari commitments on this score, but the exact terms are not known.  It is easy to say what acceptable terms would be, however.  The terms are acceptable if and only if they commit Qatar to opposing all terrorism, rather than allowing Qatar to retain certain favored terrorists.  Some of the groups are favorites of Iran, like Hezbollah.  The Qataris might wish to keep up good relations with Iran by allowing Hezbollah to continue to operate.  There may be other groups whose terrorist activities Qatar would like to overlook in order to maintain what it considers to be a useful relationship.

    That won’t do.  All terrorist groups must be included.  The 13 points contains a list of groups Qatar has worked with that should serve as a minimum rather than a maximum.  No terror support of any kind is tolerable.  We won’t know how good the deal is on this point until its terms are known.  Secretary Tillerson at least sounds like he knows that this is important in his public statements.  “The US has one goal: to drive terrorism off the face of the Earth,” Tillerson said, adding: “The president said every country has an absolute duty to make sure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil.”  We as citizens can judge whether he truly understands based on whether he allowed Qatar to carve out exceptions for some of the groups it has been hosting and financing.

  2. The second thing we must obtain is victory on breaking Qatari relations with Iran.  Iran has been making a major play to become the dominant power in the region since obtaining a de facto alliance with Russia in 2015.  This occurred immediately after the agreement to the “Iran Deal” on nuclear weapons, which gave Russia renewed confidence that Iran could be a major player on the world stage.  Russia subsequently deployed military forces to Syria alongside Iran following meetings in Moscow between Russia’s military leadership and Iran’s top unconventional warfare leader, Qassem Suleimani, head of Iran’s elite Quds Force.

    This Russian-Iranian axis is seeking to peel Qatar off from the alliance represented by the blockading nations.  Iran has been providing aid and support to Qatar during the blockade, as has Turkey.  Turkey is a US NATO ally, but that nation has been trending toward the Russian axis as its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has slipped towards dictatorial rule.  The moves accelerated following the abortive coup attempt against Erdoğan, which he blamed on an opposition movement hosted by the United States.  Turkey’s role in supporting Qatar thus has to be read as a play at least friendly to the Russian/Iranian axis in the Middle East.  If Qatar can be pulled the rest of the way in, so that it becomes aligned with Iran rather than the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran will have won a major strategic victory in its efforts to become the local hegemony.

    Those are really the only two things that the United States needs from Qatar.  If an American-backed deal obtains those two things, while also resolving the crisis with the blockading nations, it is a big win for the United States.  Anything less than that is going to be harmful to American interests in small ways or large.

Dr. Patty advised US Army units in Iraq on information operations as part of more than a decade’s involvements in America’s wars. His work has received formal commendations from the 30th Heavy Brigade, the 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, the 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. Dr. Patty holds his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Georgia.

***

FACT CHECK: 94 Percent of U.S. Domestic Terrorism Fatalities Are Caused by Islamic Terrorists

LiquidLibrary

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 9, 2017:

Fake statistics die as hard as fake news.

This is especially true when statistics are used to reinforce entrenched positions during highly charged political debates.

One particular false statistic — even under the most charitable reading of the data, it’s highly misleading — is trotted out after virtually every major terrorist attack in order to claim that Islamic terrorism is a big nothingburger.

I’ve had to deal with various incarnations of this here before:

It goes something like this:

94% of all terror attacks are committed by non-Muslims

Another version:

Only 6% of terror attacks in the U.S. are by Muslims

And yet another (one that is flatly false, because the data cited is never broken out by sex or race) says:

94% of terror attacks are committed by white men

The data behind this statistic comes from the FBI’s Terrorism 2002-2005 report. You can find it on the FBI’s website here.

First thing to consider when you see this statistic bandied about: realize the data is more than a decade old.

Including the data from 2006-present will give very different results (results that purveyors of these claims may not like), but since this is the data set they choose to use, I will use their preferred source.

Second, note that this statistic is counting “incidents.” The data ends up being portrayed like this:

The problem with using this standard of measure is that it is basically useless. An ecoterrorist mailbox bomb that doesn’t injure or kill anyone is given the exact same weight as the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attacks. So how does measuring terrorism in this way tell you anything important?

Still, after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January 2015, Dean Obeidallah at The Daily Beast floated these numbers:

Following the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando last year that killed 49, HuffPo pushed this questionable statistic to assure us that Islamic terrorism really isn’t a thing:

Arianna Huffington herself circulated the article:

As did Sally Kohn:

It also pops up at Fox News from time to time:

I observed earlier that this statistic gets used to float bogus claims that aren’t even supported by the data they cite. Here’s one example:

Here’s the bad news for those pushing this statistic. Again, using the exact same data comes this finding:

94% of all terrorism fatalities in the U.S. are caused by Islamic terrorists

Keep in mind that Muslims in the the U.S. represent less than one percent of the population.

So how do the numbers break down?

This graphic is taken straight from the FBI’s 2005 report (p. 31). So here are some data points.

Out of the 3,178 terrorism fatalities during this period, Islamic terrorists account for 2,989 (94 percent).

All but six fatalities due to Islamic terrorism come from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks.

For comparison, the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh accounts for only 168, or 5.2 percent of, terrorism fatalities during that period.

Here’s another data point from the FBI terrorism report:

Of the 14,038 injured in terror attacks, Islamic terrorism was responsible for 13,067 (93 percent).

So, to put it another way:

Islamic terrorism is responsible for 94 percent of all terror fatalities and 93 percent of all terror-related injuries.

I doubt that’s going to get trumpeted over at The Daily Beast or the HuffPo. And it’s important to repeat that I’m using the exact same data they use.

As the late Billy Mays would say, “But wait, there’s more!”

The “94% of terrorism is non-Muslim” statistic is typically used by left-leaning types to claim that others, usually couched as “right wingers,” are false hyping Islamic terrorism as a major threat.

It’s also portrayed as: “The real danger is right-wing terrorism, not jihadists.”

The crushing reality of the 2005 FBI terrorism data (the data they’ve chosen to rely on) is:

7 out of 10 terrorist incidents are committed by the Left-wing

You read that correctly. In attempting to absolve the American Muslim community, they end up implicating themselves.

When you look at the data by “incident” — the measure they use to get their “6 percent of attacks are Muslim” stat — more than half (68 percent) were committed by Puerto Rican independence groups favored by the political Left (the ones who just got a parade in New York City a few weeks ago) and ecoterrorists.

Read more

U.S. refugee program stained by dozens of terror attacks

Syrian refugee camps like this one are operated in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. More than 15,000 Syrians have found their way to the U.S. since that country’s civil war broke out in 2012.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, July 5, 2017:

At least 61 people who came to the United States as “refugees” engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016, according to a new report authored by the Heritage Foundation.

The report comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of much of President Trump’s travel ban, and it also suggests that it’s impossible to vet Muslim refugees who may have no connections to known terrorist organizations but get radicalized after they arrive in the United States.

The Heritage Foundation identified scores of refugees, including many who came prior to 2002, as having taken part in activities ranging from lying to investigators about terror plots, to actually taking part in them. The report, aimed at reforming the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or USRAP, calls for stricter limits and restrictions on refugees.

Under the current system, set by the Refugee Act of 1980, the president sets the annual cap on numbers of refugees allowed into the U.S. and Congress provides the funding. The State Department then contracts with nine private resettlement agencies, paying them millions of dollars per year to seed U.S. cities with Third Worlders. Since 1980 more than 3 million refugees have come to the United States, and more than 1 million of them have come from Muslim-dominated countries such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Sudan. Countries such as Burma and Australia have been more recently unloading their unwanted Muslim minorities on the U.S. and other Western countries.

“The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program should not be used as pretext to advocate for a global right to migrate nor is it a solution to conflict,” the study concludes. “Instead, the U.S. refugee admission program should be reformed to better advance U.S. interests.”

Just a few of the refugees and asylum seekers who have been allowed into the U.S. and later committed acts of terror included the following:

  • Somali refugee Dahir Ahmed Adan, who stabbed and wounded 10 shoppers at the Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, on Sept. 17, 2016.
  • Afghan refugee Ahmad Rahimi, who wounded 29 in a pipe bomb attack on the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan on Sept. 17, 2016
  • Somali refugee Abdul Ali Artan, who wounded 11 fellow students in a car and knife attack at Ohio State University on Nov. 28 last year.
  • Uzbek refugee Fazliddin Kurbanov, resettled in Boise, Idaho, was convicted in 2015 of plotting to recruit and train American Muslims to blow up American military installations.
  • Six members of Minnesota’s Somali refugee community were arrested and convicted of trying to trying to leave the country to join ISIS in Syria.
  • A college student and Somali refugee, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. He is serving a 30-year prison sentence.

Most Somali refugees start out here, at the United Nations Daadab refugee camp on the Kenya-Somalia border. Between 5.000 and 11,000 per year are sent to the United States.

The report’s total of 61 terror-stained refugees presumably also does not include the more than 40 Somali refugees who have simply vanished from the U.S. and the FBI confirms they have successfully traveled to the Middle East to participate in jihadist operations with ISIS, al-Shabab and other terrorist organizations.

The report suggests that the more refugees allowed into a country, the more jihadists who will sneak in among their ranks.

Although that would seem obvious, it is a conclusion that the U.S. State Department and refugee supporters in Congress have tried their best to whitewash over the last two years as the refugee program has come under increased scrutiny.

Will U.S. learn from Europe’s mistakes?

Germany is a good example of what can happen. It is now home to 24,000 jihadists, according to German intel agencies. The U.K. government has admitted it has 23,000 foreign-born radicals now living within its borders.

Germany’s intel agency admitted Tuesday that hundreds of jihadists have entered Germany amid the ranks of refugees just last year. Germany absorbed more than 1 million refugees over a two-year span in 2015-16. Scores of ultra-conservative Salafist Muslims have entered Germany as well. These Salafists are not considered “dangerous” by the government but could be expected to support or incite violence by the jihadists. Salafist Islam purports to go back to Islam’s roots in the days of Muhammad and his immediate successors, such as the violent caliph Umar.

A top E.U. bureaucrat, Frans Timmermans, also admitted on Tuesday that most of the “refugees” who are flooding into Europe are not true refugees.

Rather, the vast majority are “economic migrants” seeking to better their lot in a wealthy welfare state and are not fleeing war or persecution, Timmermans said. He did, however, suggest that Western nations should take more refugees from United Nations refugee camps even as they deport the migrants who arrive by makeshift boats or storm across borders without an invitation.

Despite the assertions of the United Nations 2030 Agenda and New Urban Agenda, which have sought to expand the rights of migrants, “There is no universal right to migrate, resettlement is not the solution to mass displacement, and U.S. policymakers have a responsibility to ensure that the United States takes in only as many refugees as it can safely vet and assimilate,” the Heritage report states. “The United States operates the program not because it is obligated to resettle refugees, but because the U.S. is a humane country and USRAP serves its national interests.”

The report, authored by Heritage Foundation policy analyst David Inserra, could lend weight to the Trump administration’s effort to curtail the number of refugees who come to the U.S. every year, Fox reported.

Beware the ‘generation 1.5’

The report warns that no amount of vetting can account for the “1.5 generation” – those who come to the U.S. with peaceful intentions and then become radicalized after arriving in American cities, often while attending an American mosque.

An example of this “1.5 generation” would be Omar Mateen, son of an Afghan migrant, who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016.

Sayed Farook, the son of Pakistani migrants, attacked a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, in 2015 and killed 14.

As WND has previously reported, 85 percent of the imams heading up American mosques are foreign born, and many of them preach hatred of the United States.

The Heritage study confirms the thesis put forth in the blockbuster 2017 book, “Stealth Invasion,” that lack of assimilation is compounding the problems of mass migration to the U.S. and other Western democracies, even when such migration is done through legal channels such as refugee resettlement.

“Given the threat that we found in the 1.5 generation, more needs to be done in the U.S. assimilation process,” John Cooper, spokesman for the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News. “We can’t vet an 8-year-old to see if he will become a terrorist when he turns 18 or 28. Instead, we as a country need to rethink the way we assimilate refugees, and immigrants as a whole for that matter.

“In the past few decades, the United States has drifted from its strong assimilation ethos, and the terrorism in Europe paints a disturbing picture of where non-assimilation leads,” he added.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration cut the annual ceiling on refugee resettlement to 50,000 – a number that will be reached within the next few days. So, if the refugees continue to flow in at current levels, the U.S. will end up accepting between 60,000 and 65,000 refugees for fiscal 2017, which ends Sept. 30.

The Obama administration averaged about 70,000 refugees per year but steadily increased that number to 85,000 in fiscal 2016. Obama had wanted 110,000 to come in fiscal 2017.

“A review is especially critical following the Obama administration’s rapid, and largely unprecedented, expansion of the program in the final year of his administration,” Cooper said. “Any administration has a responsibility to ensure all existing refugee and immigration programs, including the USRAP, best serve U.S. interests.”

A U.S. State Department official told Fox News the administration will soon provide guidance regarding those already scheduled for travel before last week’s Supreme Court decision lifting an injunction against Trump’s executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries that export terror.

“To be as cost-effective as possible – which saves the most lives – the U.S. should focus the majority of its refugee efforts on helping front-line states care for the refugees they shelter,” the report states.

The report suggests that the U.S. can do more to urge Middle Eastern countries – most notably the oil-wealthy Gulf States – to resettle Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

Also see:

Swedish Spy Chief Admits ISIS Sympathizers Have Increased Tenfold to 2,000

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 4, 2017:

The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

That should be what advisers to the Swedish prime minister should be whispering in his ear constantly, in case he fails to respond to comments made by his spy chief yesterday.

The National (UAE) reports:

Sweden is home to at least 2,000 ISIL sympathisers who are believed to have been radicalised over the internet, the country’s spy chief revealed on Monday.

Anders Thornberg, who heads the domestic intelligence agency Säpo, said the number of ISIL loyalists had increased from a suspected 200 in 2010; a 10-fold leap.

“We have never seen anything like it before,” Mr Thornberg told the Swedish news agency TT. “We would say that it has gone from hundreds to thousands now.

“This is the ‘new normal’ … It is an historic challenge that extremist circles are growing,” he said.

He also reported that Swedish security police are receiving 6,000 intelligence tips on Islamist extremist activity every month.

Last month I reported here at PJ Media that jihadist arrests in the EU had doubled last year from 2015:

And since 2007, terrorism in OECD countries has skyrocketed a whopping 900 percent:

The scope of the Islamist terror problem in Europe — as the Swedish spy chief now admits — is without precedent.

Another remarkable element to this story is that just a few months ago President Trump observed that Sweden has having such issues. The Swedish prime minister responded with mocking:

Reportedly, more than 150 former ISIS fighters have returned to Sweden. And what is the Swedish government’s response? Finding them jobs:

And they’ve even gone so far as to give these former ISIS fighters new identities.

Sweden is hardly alone in confronting the returning ISIS fighter issue.

And the cold, hard reality is that the problem may now be unmanageable.

Read more

***

Jihadist Arrests in EU Doubled Last Year, Rising for Third Year in a Row

Police deal with an ongoing incident at London Bridge on June 3, 2017. (Rex Features via AP Images)

PJ Media, by Patrick  Poole, June 16, 2017:

A new Europol report today on terrorism in eight European Union member states finds that jihadist arrests doubled in 2016, rising for the third year in a row:

Deutsche Welle reports:

Europol, Europe’s top law-enforcement organization, said in its annual EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report that 718 suspects were arrested on offenses relating to jihadi terror in 2016, up from 395 in 2014.

The number of attacks dropped from 17 in 2014 to 13 last year, six of which were linked to the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) group.

The report noted that women and children, as well as young adults, were playing an increasingly important operational role.

One in four of those arrested in Britain in 2016 were women, an 18 percent increase from 2015, Europol said […]

In total 1,002 arrests were made in 2016 relating to terror activities. France had the highest number of arrest at 456, with almost a third of those detained 25 years or younger, Europol said.

There were 142 “failed, foiled or completed terrorist attacks”including those by jihadis, more than half of them in the UK.

The Europol report breaks down the arrests by country, and notes that nearly all reported terror fatalities were from jihadist attacks:

In 2016, a total of 142 failed, foiled and completed attacks were reported by eight EU Member States. More than half (76) of them were reported by the United Kingdom. France reported 23 attacks, Italy 17, Spain 10, Greece 6, Germany 5, Belgium 4 and the Netherlands 1 attack. 142 victims died in terrorist attacks, and 379 were injured in the EU.

Although there was a large number of terrorist attacks not connected with jihadism, the latter accounts for the most serious forms of terrorist activity as nearly all reported fatalities and most of the casualties were the result of jihadist terrorist attacks. Explosives were used in 40% of the attacks and women and young adults, and even children, are playing increasingly operational roles in committing terrorist activities independently in the EU. Most arrests were related to jihadist terrorism, for which the number rose for the third consecutive year.

Earlier this month I reported here at PJ Media on global terrorism statistics from 2016 showing that terrorism has tripled globally since 2011, with deaths from terrorism in OECD countries jumping a whopping 900 percent since 2007:

Since April I’ve been warning about another “Summer of Terror” — last year we saw an attack about every 100 hours:

Currently, Europe in 2017 is seeing an attempted terror attack every nine days:

A new report on Western terrorism suspects published earlier this week found that since 2014, nearly one-third of jihadist attacks in the West occurred in the U.S., only outpaced by France:

Despite these reports about the rapid rise in Islamic terrorism in the West, and all over the world for that matter, there are some who assure us that everything is fine:

The recent terror attacks in the UK give evidence that all may not be OK:

Yet London Mayor Sadiq Khan seems unalarmed by the escalating terror trend:

But after the recent London Bridge terror attacks, Khan was evasive about the reported 400 potential terrorists living in his city:

Sadly, the response by U.S. authorities about the scope and extent of the problem in the face of these startling terrorism statistics from these recent reports would most likely be as evasive as Khan’s unreassuring response.

Support for Muslim Brotherhood Terror Designation Bill Grows

Muslim Brotherhood supporters rally in Jordan (Photo: JAMAL NASRALLAH/AFP/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Meira Svirsky, June 11, 2017:

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act now has about 60 members of Congress supporting it. Although support is growing, the number of cosponsors is far less than what it was for the last version of the bill.

Voters must remind members of Congress who supported the previous bill to cosponsor the new bills (HR377 and S68).

Information on who is currently supporting the legislation is at the bottom of this article.

Earlier this year, it was reported that the Trump Administration was about to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The Brotherhood and its apologists went into overdrive, launching a tremendous PR campaign to stop it from happening. A Brotherhood official overseas said the group had spent $5 million and was confident of victory.

Due to pushback from the State Department among others, the Trump Administration became divided on the issue and indefinitely delayed its plan to designate the Brotherhood.

National Security Adviser McMaster reportedly opposes designation, as would be expected based on his endorsement of a book friendly to “moderate” Islamists. Secretary of State Tillerson is presumably opposed because his State Department hasn’t designated the group yet, but he did describe the Brotherhood as an “agent of radical Islam.”

Attorney General Sessions and CIA Director Pompeo supported the previous bill when they were in Congress. Also supporting designation are Trump’s chief political strategist, Steve Bannon and Deputy Assistant Sebastian Gorka.

Defense Secretary Mattis’ past comments about the Brotherhood and political Islam indicate he is likely to be supportive. However, his initial choosing of an ally of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for a senior post leaves room for doubt.

It is unclear where Homeland Security Secretary General Kelly stands, but Katie Gorka, a supporter of designation, is an official adviser to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Policy. It is also not known where Director of National Intelligence Coats or Trump’s pick for FBI Director, Christopher Wray, stand.

Even though the White House is currently divided on the issue, but passing the Muslim BrotherhoodTerrorist Designation Act would likely tip the scales.

Momentum for action against the Brotherhood is growing. On May 23, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) said he would introduce a bill to implement sanctions on countries that support branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. The most obvious candidates would be Qatar and Turkey.

The House bill (HR377) has 58 cosponsors and is now with the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. The only current supporter is Vice Chairman Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), one of the original cosponsors of the bill.

However, there are six Republican members of the subcommittee who voted in favor of the previous bill and likely to cosponsor it if they are pushed. These six are Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC); Jim Sensenbrenner (WI); Steve Chabot (OH); Ted Poe (TX); Jason Chaffetz (UT) and John Ratcliffe (TX).

There are six Republicans in the rest of the Judiciary Committee who are currently supporting the act: Lamar Smith (TX); Steve King (IA); Jim Jordan (OH); Blake Farenthold (TX); Ron DeSantis (FL) and Matt Gaetz (FL).

There are five Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who voted in favor of the previous bill and would probably cosponsor this one. These are: Chairman Bob Goodlatte (VA); Trent Franks (AZ); Tom Marino (PA); Doug Collins (GA) and Ken Buck (CO).

The Senate bill (S68) has four cosponsors. It is currently stuck in the Foreign Relations Committee, where it only has one cosponsor: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI).

Below is an alphabetical list of cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act bills. If your representative hasn’t taken a stand, now is the time to act.

HR377

Abraham, Ralph Lee (R-LA)

Babin, Brian (R-TX)

Barletta, Lou (R-LA)

Benacci, James (R-OH)

Black, Diane (R-TN)

Brat, Dave (R-VA)

Cheney, Liz (R-WY)

Cramer, Kevin (R-ND)

Davidson, Warren (R-OH)

Dent, Charles (R-PA)

DeSantis, Ron (R-FL)

DesJerlais, Scott (R-TN)

Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL)

Donovan, Daniel (R-NY)

Duncan, Jeff (R-SC)

Farenthold, Blake (R-TX)

Fleishcmann, Chuck (R-TN)

Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ)

Gaetz, Matt (R-FL)

Garrett, Thomas (R-VA)

Gohmert, Louie (R-TX)

Gosar, Paul (R-AZ)

Granger, Kay (R-TX)

Grothman, Glenn (R-WI)

Harris, Andy (R-MD)

Hice, Jody (R-GA)

Hudson, Richard (R-NC)

Hunter, Duncan (R-CA)

Johnson, Sam (R-TX)

Jordan, Jim (R-OH)

Kelly, Trent (R-MS)

King, Steve (R-IA)

Lamborn, Doug (R-CO)

Lance, Leonard (R-NJ)

Loudermilk, Barry (R-GA)

Marchant, Kenny (R-TX)

McCaul, Michael (R-TX)

Olson, Pete (R-TX)

Palazzo, Steve (R-MS)

Perry, Scott (R-PA)

Posey, Bill (R-FL)

Rohrabacher, Dana (R-CA)

Rokata, Todd (R-IN)

Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL)

Ross, Dennis (R-FL)

Rouzer, David (R-NC)

Royce, David (R-OH)

Russell, Steve (R-OK)

Rutherford, John (R-FL)

Scott, Austin (R-GA)

Smith, Lamar (R-TX)

Trott, David (R-MI)

Walberg, Tim (R-MI)

Weber, Randy (R-TX)

Wenstrup, Brad (R-OH)

Williams, Roger (R-TX)

Yoder, Kevin (R-KS)

Yoho, Ted (R-FL)

Zeldin, Lee (R-NY)

 

S68

 

Cruz, Ted (R-TX)

Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)

Inhofe, James (R-OK)

Johnson, Ron (R-WI)

Roberts, Pat (R-KS)